Help identify maker and model of SNY 6-pounder gun

[cannonmn]

We've been trying to find out the approximate date, model name, and founder of this New York Militia 6-pounder gun. About all we've found so far is that the SNY logo on the breech is very similar to the logo we've seen on some SNY artillery beltplates, so we're fairly sure this is a NY Militia gun.

The gun is 5 feet long, weighs about 650 lbs., and is only marked with the SNY logo, the number "6" on the chase, and the weight marks on the breechface (in old hundredweight style.)

The breech mouldings have been cut in a few places so a Hidden-type percussion lock would fit. That tells us it was probably still in use ca. 1845.

We've contacted the New York State archives with no results. The New York National Guard history office has no information. Can you help?

Here's a little slideshow we did.

http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b6...t=8f1f9892.pbw

There's a pic of the beltplate with a similar logo on this gentleman's site:

http://www.corinthcivilwarrelics.com/pwbuckle11.html

[cannonmn]

In the National Archives yesterday, I found some really useful info on this question. RG156 Entry 118 contains records of issue of ordnance equipment to the organized militia, under the act of 1808. There were a great many entries in various forms, from memorandum entries to summaries covering decades. Issues to each state militia are segregated and accounted for individually.

For my project, I found many entries regarding issues of artillery tubes and carriages to New York, over a period from 1818-1840 (these entries contrinued but later ones are outside my scope.)

In most cases, "Brass Guns" entries were kept separate from "Iron Guns."

The most likely entries for my project involved issue of brass guns to New York, such as the following, near the bottom of the page in the attached photo. I apologize for the poor picture quality:

"1828 Dec. 6, (10) To, 40, 6 pdr. brass cannon and 40, 6 pdr. field carriages delivered from Arsenal at Watervliet $ receipt of A.M. Mann, (sp?) Comm. Gen. of the state."

This timeframe makes sense for another reason supported in Entry 118. On other pages, deliveries of 450 "percussion cannon locks" of two different types were shown as taking place in 1835. One type lock listed is described as "jerk-down type" and the other "stock" (sp?) type. My 6-pounder was modified after manufacture by filing off some of the protrusions on the breech to allow fitting of a firing lock.

Again, I don't yet have sufficient information to assure my "brass" 6 pounder was part of this particular delivery, but that transaction stands alone in a relatively long timeframe, from what I've seen. I'm thinking the other 6-pounder "brass cannon" deliveries prior to 1835 were a long time before that, at the latest 1822 from context, and those guns would probably have worn out before the percussion locks were issued in 1835.

If anyone has any data whatever on these two different percussion locks, please advise. I am familiar with the "Hidden" percussion lock issued to Federal artillery, and this may be the "jerk down" type referred to in E118.

I still need to find out who cast the "brass" 6-pounders during this period, so I've begun looking though the ordnance contract records in Entry 78.

[Southron Sr.]

IF I were researching that particular cannon, here is how I would proceed:

1. Because the cannon LACKS founder & inspector markings, this indicates that the gun was NOT ISSUED to New York under the Militia Act of 1808. ALL CANNON manufactured under contract with the U.S. Ordnance Department (and thereafter issued out to state militias) were RERQUIRED to have inspectors markings, foundry markings, etc.

This leaves a couple of possibilities:

(A) The cannon was a "trophy" cannon captured in Mexico during the Mexican Warand brought back to New York where the "SNY" markings were added.

As most states provided only ONE regiment to be sent to Mexico, I would look at a history(s) of whatever N.Y. military unit(s) went to Mexico and if there is any record of cannon they might have captured and brought back home after the war. That might be your cannon.

(B) There is a possibility that a Mexican, "Trophy" Cannon was re-cast by a founder in New York to produce a that "SNY" 6 Pounder. Supposedly Mexican made bronze cannon had a higher SILVER content in them compared to U.S. bronze guns, which is one reason Mexican "trophy" cannon were highly prized by Americans.

Why re-cast a gun? The original gun could have been battle damaged and/or to "standardize" it so it would match other cannon in possession of the New York militia at the time.

(C) Last, but not least, it could be a cannon that was donated to the state militia by a "public spirited" citizen OR purchased by a group of public spiritied citizens for their local militia unit.

NOW THE 'SHOT IN THE DARK,' "FUN" PART OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH!!! I am fairly sure your state archives have microfilm copies of all (or most all) of the newspapers published in New York in the 1840-1860 time frame.

I would start my "search" by scanning the local papers from the area of the state where the cannon came from, looking for a newspaper article mentioning a Mexican "Trophy" cannon that was brought home at the end of the war or an article possibly about a cannon being donated by a "public spirited" citizen, etc.

On the bright side, a cannon would definitely have been a "newsworthy" item, so you might get lucky and find the complete story of your "Mystery" cannon. GOOD LUCK!

[cannonmn]

ALL CANNON manufactured under contract with the U.S. Ordnance Department (and thereafter issued out to state militias) were RERQUIRED to have inspectors markings, foundry markings, etc.

Thanks for the info.

1. Do you know what year that regulation went into effect? I know of the marking requirement, but I'm not sure it was adhered to strictly for items that were procured with the knowledge that they were procured to fill a militia requirement. For example, the US did not have any official bronze 6-pounder in 1828. All the official models were iron during that period, with the first resurgence of bronze U.S. artillery occurring in several models ca. 1835. Thus, the bronze 6-pounders issued to New York in 1828 could not have been any current official model, and there were no approved U.S. drawings against which to inspect them, so they could not have U.S. inspector's markings. Is that logic valid or not?

2. I'm not aware of any other examples of a "brass cannon" 6-pounder, made in or prior to 1828, that would be a likely candidate to tell us what the model of cannon issued to New York in 1828 looked like. Does anyone have that information? I haven't found any sources in New York that had the information. The only examples of earlier NY militia 6-pounders known to the New York State Military Museum staff, have iron tubes.

3. An interesting fact that might have some bearing here: I have some pictures of an early bronze 9-pounder gun with "S.N.Y." in block letters on the breech. The only other markings are "12-0-6" on the breech for the weight, and "IM P" on the reinforce, for "John Mason-Proved." John Mason was a civilian, former general, who became proprietor of the Columbia foundry in Georgetown DC in 1815. There is also a large number "9" on the chase and a number like "238" on the breechface. It lacks a complete set of markings as you describe above,. The RG155 Entry 118 volumes show many "brass" 9-pounders issued to New York Militia during the early 19th C. and I'd hazard a guess that the one I have pictures of is one of them.

4. I know there were some nonstandard, non-US-used, non-U.S.-marked ordnance items issued to New York militia. One example is the Ellis sliding lock repeating flintlock rifle. There are few markings of any kind found on surviving specimens, and it is considered a U.S. "secondary martial arm" not standardized nor issued to US troops as far as I know. The same page I posted above, near the bottom, shows the issue of the entire contract run of these weapons to New York Militia (521 rifles.) I suspect those rifles were the 4-shot model and not the 10-shot model, just because a lot more of the 4-shot examples seem to survive, but I don't know that for a fact.

[John Holland]

cannonmn,

I live in Western New York State. There is a small historical society around Dunkirk that has a privately cast bronze cannon. The bore is about 2.25. The only marks on the tube are "BLW" on the trunnions. No one knew what the "BLW" stood for until one day a skirmisher on another team found some documentation that the Baldwin Locomotive Works of Dunkirk, New York, had cast 3 bronze tubes at the beginning of the Civil War for the town, which were to be used by the local militia. A World War 2 scrap drive accounted for 2 of the 3 tubes. The remaining tube had sunk out of sight in the dirt and was missed. It was rediscovered in the old scrap yard in the 1950's and added to the collections of the historical society. In the early 1960's my skirmish team, the 44th New York, built an appropriate field carriage for the tube. In return for building the carriage, the historical society let us shoot the cannon in the N-SSA for quite a number of years. We even took a 2nd place National for Smoothbore Gun. The historical society received a new director, who, when he found out that the tube was a product of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, declared it to be too valuable to let us use it. That was some 40 years ago. The last time I saw the cannon was at least 25 years ago. Unfortunately the historical society had let the carriage decay and the wheels rot.

I just thought you might enjoy a bit of history on a SNY Militia cannon.

Sincerely,
John Holland
44th New York Vol. Inf., Inc.

[cannonmn]

Thanks John, if you have a pic of that gun I'd love to see it.

One more thing I found out about my SNY gun is that it has been fired a lot. The bore which would have started at about 3.668 in. is now something like 3.85 in. vertical and a bit less horizontal, don't have the exact number handy, but that indicates a lot of iron has bounced down that bore.

[John Holland]

cannonmn,

I know I no longer have any pictures of that gun. They were just snapshots anyway with more interest in the gun crews than anything else. If I ever get back to that area I'll see what the historical society has for hours. It was slender, well proportioned, and had a muzzle like a Napoleon.

JDH

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Cannonmm

Basically,when I begin a research project, I make some quick assumptions that usually are correct-but not always. Here is what I was thinking when I made my first posting:

After years of having iron cannon blow up on a regular basis during either "proof" at the foundry in actual use,(which, needless to say, usually scared the HECK out of the artillery crew and horses!) the U.S. Ordnance Department decided to substitute bronze (then often called "Brass") for iron-this was in the early 1830's. So I was assuming that your SNY cannon dated from the early 1830's or later.

I think that it was in 1816 that Colonel Decius Wardsworth of the Ordnance Department issued orders that attempted to institute a uniform system of artillery standardization. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know that a few years later the Ordnance Board overruled him-but as part of the acceptance procedure for every gun purchased by the government was that it was inspected by an Ordnance Department appointed inspector that either accepted or rejected the gun based on its quality. IF the gun passed, then the inspector stamped his mark or initials on the gun.

So, the lack of an inspector's initials on the gun would indicate to me, that the gun was not received by the state under the Militia Act of 1808. I still think a fascinating (and time consuming) search of old newspapers from that area of New York state between 1830 & 1861 might yeild you the information on that gun you are seeking. GOOD LUCK!

[cannonmn]

Thanks for taking the time to share that information, I'm still looking for anything anyone knows on this thing.

I just found some interesting information in a stack of stuff I'd copied at the Archives back in the 1980's, and hadn't looked at since, believe it or not. This information kind of brings me up to the level of advancing a theory on this piece. Basically, my theory is that this is a ghost gun. What I mean by that-nowhere can I find anything regarding an official US "brass" (bronze) 6-pounder gun model that would have been in US arsenals from about 1816-1835. There's no mention of such a model in the well-researched book "Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War" by Olmstead et al. There is one mention of the possibility in Warren Ripley's "Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil War." On pp. 19, writing of the history of US artillery tube development: "Consequently, with the exception of a few orders, the manufacture of bronze weapons ceased in 1801 and was not resumed until 1836."

I think this weapon was delivered to the U.S. under one of the "few orders" mentioned by Ripley.

The fact that a "brass 6 pounder" in the arsenals is evidenced by the delivery of 40 of them to New York, which I described earlier, and also a lengthy report of the testing of three models of 6-pounder guns in 1827 and 1828 at Fortress Monroe, by Lt. Bell, an Army ordnance officer. The guns he tested included a long iron gun (probably the model of 1819), a short iron gun (model unknown) and a "brass gun." The measurements he tabulated for the "brass gun" are very close to those of my "SNY" 6-pounder.

I think the only reason that both books contained no mention of this model is that at the time they were written, no specimens were known to survive. Also, the Civil War was central to the theme of both works, and this "ghost" model probably played no part in the Civil War.

Gotta run, but I can post some interesting excerpts from Lt. Bell's test reports of 1827/28 later if anyone is interested. The report even states that Bell had the 'brass" 6-pounder bouched with a 1" diameter wrought-iron bouch in the vent, since it was wearing excessively in that area during his 2000-round endurance test. You can see in the slideshow that the SNY "brass" gun has a ferrous-metal bouch that is about an inch in diameter. If you have looked at as many old cannons as I have, you will realize that an iron bouch in a bronze gun is a fairly unusual find.

[cannonmn]

Here's a portion of the Lt. Bell's report of the second series of tests of three different types of 6-pounder guns. I've annotated it by adding a line for the SNY-marked cannon so you can see how some of its measurements compare with the "Brass gun" that Bell tested. As you can see the measurements I took of my gun (in blue) match fairly closely the "Brass gun" fired by Lt. Bell. The 10-lb. weight difference would probably have been within the tolerance for weight variation of the model, since the two measurements differ by only 1.5 percent.

The gun length measurement is the only significant difference between my gun and the two brass guns tested by Bell (at least as far as I can tell from the data he recorded.) I'm assuming Bell used the "nominal length" measurement which is taken from the muzzle face to the rear of the basering, and this measurement on mine falls noticeably short of Bell's test gun. I suppose that accounts for the 10 pounds by which Bell's gun outweighs mine.

I can't explain the length difference, which would normally be too much for an approved model where the government gives the contractor the drawings and says in the contract to build it to those drawings. Perhaps with this undesignated model of the "brass gun," each of two or more founders built their own patterns, flasks, etc. based on looser guidance from the government.

Or, since there are thought to have been "a few" contracts for these brass guns, there could have been a change in the model that was directed by the government, in the interval between two of contracts, and my gun was delivered under a different contract from the one that produced Lt. Bell's two brass guns.

I'll put the links in below so you can see some of the other parts of the two reports. There are dozens of 8.5 x 14-inch pages in the complete report, so only a very small part of it is presented here.

Lt. Bell conducted his extensive firing tests with the first group of three guns in September 1827. The powder charge for all shots in the first series was 1.5 lbs.

Then he got three new guns of the same types as in the first series of tests, and repeated the tests, with a smaller powder charge (1.25 lbs.) This series is covered in the November report.

His goal in both series was apparently to fire 2000 rounds through each gun, or until a gun became unserviceable. He fired all three guns simultaneously using three lanyards that were pulled as one, and kept up the amazing rate of fire of about one round per gun per minute while firing.

Lt. Bell had the gun tubes firmly mounted on cheeks that were bolted into slots in two one-foot square oak beams, with a third such beam fixed to the rear of the cheeks. All three pairs of cheeks were monted to the same beams which were of course placed at right angles to the line of fire.




http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5718.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5720.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5721.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5722.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b62/c ... G_5724.jpg