If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:13:19 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote: On Jun 16, 12:06*am, Bowser wrote: Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In, Weapons, is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see them: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off some comments. And yes, targeted comments are best. Eric Stevens: Bofors Gun; OK doesn't do much for me, I'd probably tried a lower angle. I couldn't have got much lower. The camera was about 6" off the ground and the lens was wide open at 16mm. My back was against the gate post on the other side of the road. Puffer Fish; nice idea but is it alive ? the eyes look a bit dead. See http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC3110.jpg for the set up sitting on the end of the bench in our kitchen. The fish is a dried skin with the flash poked up a hole in its belly. Initially I used the built-in flash on the camera only to control the flash in the fish. The explosion of light inside the fish lit most of it very well but it left fins and a few other bits almost in the dark. In the end I had to use 1/25 power on the camera to light up the previously dark bits on the outside. It was a dull day and the fish had so much light that the kitchen almost entirely disappeared into the background. It took me about 30 seconds with NX2's equivalent of the healing clone brush to clean it up to the condition it is now. Disappearing gun; Its a gun yep. The gun is interesting but the photograph is not. I was down in the gun pit with the camera against the wall. There was no way that I could get a really decent shot. But still, it is a very rare gun. --- snip ---- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 6/16/2011 2:19 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:18:58 -0400, wrote: On 6/15/2011 10:22 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:06:13 -0400, wrote: Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In, Weapons, is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see them: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off some comments. And yes, targeted comments are best. OK, sorry... You want bullet points? Comments with an edge? What calibre of comments do you expect? I expected someone to fire back and shoot down my comments, I guess. And I got my wish! At this point I'm just shell-shocked and should muzzle myself before I go shooting off my mouth again. OK, your turn... If your aim is to start an attack of puns, be advised that there is a lot of ammunition available. The plan may backfire on you. It may be your turn in the barrel. I should have known you'd go ballistic on me. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 6/16/2011 3:00 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 6/16/2011 8:18 AM, Bowser wrote: On 6/15/2011 10:22 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:06:13 -0400, wrote: Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In, Weapons, is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see them: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off some comments. And yes, targeted comments are best. OK, sorry... You want bullet points? Comments with an edge? What calibre of comments do you expect? I expected someone to fire back and shoot down my comments, I guess. And I got my wish! At this point I'm just shell-shocked and should muzzle myself before I go shooting off my mouth again. OK, your turn... Do you think we will quickly rifle the range of comments, or will they explode. things depend on the bore. I see the potential for more bullet points, of course. I'm gunning for a massive thread where everyone gets their shots in. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 2011-06-16 15:14:17 -0700, Bowser said:
On 6/16/2011 3:00 PM, PeterN wrote: On 6/16/2011 8:18 AM, Bowser wrote: On 6/15/2011 10:22 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:06:13 -0400, wrote: Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In, Weapons, is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see them: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off some comments. And yes, targeted comments are best. OK, sorry... You want bullet points? Comments with an edge? What calibre of comments do you expect? I expected someone to fire back and shoot down my comments, I guess. And I got my wish! At this point I'm just shell-shocked and should muzzle myself before I go shooting off my mouth again. OK, your turn... Do you think we will quickly rifle the range of comments, or will they explode. things depend on the bore. I see the potential for more bullet points, of course. I'm gunning for a massive thread where everyone gets their shots in. A free-fire zone is a terrible thing to waste. So drop 2 and fire for effect. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 2011-06-16 08:27 , Bowser wrote:
On 6/16/2011 7:32 AM, Alan Browne wrote: On 2011-06-15 21:06 , Savageduck wrote: Alan Browne: 01; Is she trying to tell you something? Interesting concept for the shot, but not exactly following the letter of most gun safety classes. ;-) Just before that I said something like, "Honey, I promise, just one more lens." I was tempted to do a shot like that, but when yours came in, well... Mine came in pretty late, so you had lots of time... -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 2011-06-15 21:06 , Savageduck wrote:
Alan Browne: 01; Is she trying to tell you something? Interesting concept for the shot, but not exactly following the letter of most gun safety classes. ;-) Funny thing is I checked the breach when I took it out. Miss gun-safety-since-I-was 9-years-old didn't bother checking... hmm. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
"Bowser" wrote in message ... On 6/16/2011 2:19 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:18:58 -0400, wrote: On 6/15/2011 10:22 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:06:13 -0400, wrote: Apologies for the delay. The latest mandate for the Shoot-In, Weapons, is available for viewing. Aim your browser here to see them: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/weapons Now we need someone out there to peruse the pictures and fire off some comments. And yes, targeted comments are best. OK, sorry... You want bullet points? Comments with an edge? What calibre of comments do you expect? I expected someone to fire back and shoot down my comments, I guess. And I got my wish! At this point I'm just shell-shocked and should muzzle myself before I go shooting off my mouth again. OK, your turn... If your aim is to start an attack of puns, be advised that there is a lot of ammunition available. The plan may backfire on you. It may be your turn in the barrel. I should have known you'd go ballistic on me. Begins to look as if y'all have shot your wads. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 2011-06-16 17:18:26 -0700, otter said:
On Jun 16, 7:00*pm, otter wrote: On Jun 16, 9:07*am, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-06-16 06:08:37 -0700, otter said: On Jun 15, 9:14 pm, Savageduck wrote : On 2011-06-15 18:38:35 -0700, otter said: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, Savageduck wro te : Otter: Weapons; Nice bronze cannon, it looks like an M1857 "Napoleon" 12-pounder to me. You are probably right. According to my source, it is a bronze 12-l b light field gun bought by the governor of Texas in 1864 "to keep th e peace in the surrounding area". That would be about right for that gun. The Federals and CSA both us ed 12-Lb "Napoleons". However the two versions differed in that the Federal model had a a slight muzzle flair or "bulge" for strengtheni ng at the muzzle. The CSA version did not have this functional adornmen t. The CSA barrel tapered smoothly down its entire length without a bul ge. The example you show, has the muzzle flair and having been acquired by Texas in 1864, is probably a post Civil War surplus Federal N1857 12-Pounder "Napoleon". During the War smooth bore guns such as this became obsolete and wer e replaced with rifled guns, such as the "Parrot" and breach loader gu ns.. Nice and well maintained and polished. Over the years most other surviving examples have developed a green patina to the bronze barre l. It was still about a year before the end of the Civil War when the bronze cannon were bought (there are 2 of them). I believe Austin was still under CSA control at the time. *Not sure where the guns came from, but possibly Mexico. *There were "cotton roads" to Mexico dur ing the Civil War where cotton was exchanged for weapons and supplies. They could also be a captured Federal cannon. There is a way to check on the origins. The next time you are in the area, take a look at the end of the muzzle. All Federal guns had a foundry name plus a casting and a Ordnance number cast around the opening of the muzzle. Usually the year of casting is included. I am not sure which CSA foundries cast 12-pounders, they built about 600 early in the War and most were used in the Eastern campaigns. Most CSA Artillery was made and repaired at Richmond and Macon. and should have Tredegar Iron Works or Richmond Arsenal markings. However the Texas gun is not a CSA design. Also no CSA bronze guns were cast after late 1863 when the Confederacy lost control of the Tennessee copper mines. If they originated from Mexico they are in all likelihood French. From 1860 through 1867 The French occupied Mexico. There would be appropriate French markings. BTW: The term "Napoleon" for the 12-pounder is not inspired by Napoleon Bonaparte, but Louis Napoleon. They were the state of art smooth bore guns, but the bronze was too soft *for them to be made as rifles. The re were some attempts to rifle them, but those wore out quickly in use, effectively becoming bad smooth bores. http://www.dreamstime.com/texas-capi...agefree1240966 There are some markings there, but I can't make them out from this photo. *I'll check it out in person next time I'm down there. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/adl...0408096/#large Here's a better picture. Upper left: No414 Upper right: 1283 (or 1288?) Bottom left: C. C. ? Bottom right: 1864 (that would match the year it was bought) or JB64, but I'm going with 1864 I went to the "original size" and cropped so I could get a better look. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/No414wc.jpg The "No.414" is the number of the piece. The "1286 lbs" is the total weight of the bronze casting, almost as good as a fingerprint as they always varied. 1864 is the casting year. .... and "CO" is Confederate States Ordnance. This particular 12-pounder "Napoleon" must have been one of the few CSA guns cast using a Federal mold, probably captured from Harpers Ferry. The CSA only built between 500-600 of these guns, and the majority were cast without the barrel flare, or bulge. So "No.414" is a rarity indeed. Moving it to Texas is probably what saved it. The Feds by comparison cast some 1,800 during the war. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 2011-06-16 18:49:56 -0700, otter said:
On Jun 16, 8:02*pm, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-06-16 17:18:26 -0700, otter said: On Jun 16, 7:00*pm, otter wrote: On Jun 16, 9:07*am, Savageduck wrot e: On 2011-06-16 06:08:37 -0700, otter said: On Jun 15, 9:14 pm, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-06-15 18:38:35 -0700, otter said: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, Savageduck wrote: Otter: Weapons; Nice bronze cannon, it looks like an M1857 "Napoleon" 12-pounder to me. You are probably right. According to my source, it is a bronze 12- lb light field gun bought by the governor of Texas in 1864 "to keep the peace in the surrounding area". That would be about right for that gun. The Federals and CSA both used 12-Lb "Napoleons". However the two versions differed in that the Federal model had a a slight muzzle flair or "bulge" for strengthening at the muzzle. The CSA version did not have this functional adornment. The CSA barrel tapered smoothly down its entire length without a bulge. The example you show, has the muzzle flair and having been acquired by Texas in 1864, is probably a post Civil War surplus Federal N1857 12-Pounder "Napoleon". During the War smooth bore guns such as this became obsolete and were replaced with rifled guns, such as the "Parrot" and breach loader guns. Nice and well maintained and polished. Over the years most other surviving examples have developed a green patina to the bronze barrel. It was still about a year before the end of the Civil War when the bronze cannon were bought (there are 2 of them). I believe Austin was still under CSA control at the time. *Not sure where the guns came from, but possibly Mexico. *There were "cotton roads" to Mexico during the Civil War where cotton was exchanged for weapons and supplies. They could also be a captured Federal cannon. There is a way to check on the origins. The next time you are in the area, take a look at the end of the muzzle. All Federal guns had a foundry name plus a casting and a Ordnance number cast around the opening of the muzzle. Usually the year of casting is included. I am not sure which CSA foundries cast 12-pounders, they built about 600 early in the War and most were used in the Eastern campaigns. Most CSA Artillery was made and repaired at Richmond and Macon. and should have Tredegar Iron Works or Richmond Arsenal markings. However the Texas gun is not a CSA design. Also no CSA bronze guns were cast after late 1863 when the Confederacy lost control of the Tennessee copper mines. If they originated from Mexico they are in all likelihood French. From 1860 through 1867 The French occupied Mexico. There would be appropriate French markings. BTW: The term "Napoleon" for the 12-pounder is not inspired by Napoleon Bonaparte, but Louis Napoleon. They were the state of art smooth bore guns, but the bronze was too soft *for them to be made as rifles. There were some attempts to rifle them, but those wore out quickly in use, effectively becoming bad smooth bores. http://www.dreamstime.com/texas-capi...agefree1240966 There are some markings there, but I can't make them out from this photo. *I'll check it out in person next time I'm down there. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/adl...0408096/#large Here's a better picture. Upper left: No414 Upper right: 1283 (or 1288?) Bottom left: C. C. ? Bottom right: 1864 (that would match the year it was bought) or JB64, but I'm going with 1864 I went to the "original size" and cropped so I could get a better look. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/No414wc.jpg The "No.414" is the number of the piece. The "1286 lbs" is the total weight of the bronze casting, almost as good as a fingerprint as they always varied. 1864 is the casting year. ... and "CO" is Confederate States Ordnance. This particular 12-pounder "Napoleon" must have been one of the few CSA guns cast using a Federal mold, probably captured from Harpers Ferry. The CSA only built between 500-600 of these guns, and the majority were cast without the barrel flare, or bulge. So "No.414" is a rarity indeed. Moving it to Texas is probably what saved it. The Feds by comparison cast some 1,800 during the war. This is interesting. With the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson (near Baton Rouge LA) in July 1863 the Union had control of the Mississippi River and split the South in two parts. If this cannon were cast in the East in 1864, how did it make it to Texas? I suppose it could have been smuggled across the river when the Union gunboats weren't around. There is a good chance there was a rearming effort by the last of the Western Gulf blockade runners. Galveston was recaptured by Gen. John Magruder on Jan 1, 1863, and they retained control until the end of the war. From March 1864 not much was getting out of Wilmington, or Savannah. Mobile was closed to the CSA in August 1864. Any time after that is unlikely, and even then the CSN had lost most of its government transports. Some private foreign blockade runners were still taking the risk, so that is a possibility. Otherwise the only other option would have been overland through Union lines, and that would have been tough, but not impossible. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Weapons are available for viewing, finally!
On 2011-06-16 19:55:19 -0700, Savageduck said:
On 2011-06-16 18:49:56 -0700, otter said: On Jun 16, 8:02*pm, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-06-16 17:18:26 -0700, otter said: On Jun 16, 7:00*pm, otter wrote: On Jun 16, 9:07*am, Savageduck wrot e: On 2011-06-16 06:08:37 -0700, otter said: On Jun 15, 9:14 pm, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-06-15 18:38:35 -0700, otter said: On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, Savageduck wrote: Otter: Weapons; Nice bronze cannon, it looks like an M1857 "Napoleon" 12-pounder to me. You are probably right. According to my source, it is a bronze 12- lb light field gun bought by the governor of Texas in 1864 "to keep the peace in the surrounding area". That would be about right for that gun. The Federals and CSA both used 12-Lb "Napoleons". However the two versions differed in that the Federal model had a a slight muzzle flair or "bulge" for strengthening at the muzzle. The CSA version did not have this functional adornment. The CSA barrel tapered smoothly down its entire length without a bulge. The example you show, has the muzzle flair and having been acquired by Texas in 1864, is probably a post Civil War surplus Federal N1857 12-Pounder "Napoleon". During the War smooth bore guns such as this became obsolete and were replaced with rifled guns, such as the "Parrot" and breach loader guns. Nice and well maintained and polished. Over the years most other surviving examples have developed a green patina to the bronze barrel. It was still about a year before the end of the Civil War when the bronze cannon were bought (there are 2 of them). I believe Austin was still under CSA control at the time. *Not sure where the guns came from, but possibly Mexico. *There were "cotton roads" to Mexico during the Civil War where cotton was exchanged for weapons and supplies. They could also be a captured Federal cannon. There is a way to check on the origins. The next time you are in the area, take a look at the end of the muzzle. All Federal guns had a foundry name plus a casting and a Ordnance number cast around the opening of the muzzle. Usually the year of casting is included. I am not sure which CSA foundries cast 12-pounders, they built about 600 early in the War and most were used in the Eastern campaigns. Most CSA Artillery was made and repaired at Richmond and Macon. and should have Tredegar Iron Works or Richmond Arsenal markings. However the Texas gun is not a CSA design. Also no CSA bronze guns were cast after late 1863 when the Confederacy lost control of the Tennessee copper mines. If they originated from Mexico they are in all likelihood French. From 1860 through 1867 The French occupied Mexico. There would be appropriate French markings. BTW: The term "Napoleon" for the 12-pounder is not inspired by Napoleon Bonaparte, but Louis Napoleon. They were the state of art smooth bore guns, but the bronze was too soft *for them to be made as rifles. There were some attempts to rifle them, but those wore out quickly in use, effectively becoming bad smooth bores. http://www.dreamstime.com/texas-capi...agefree1240966 There are some markings there, but I can't make them out from this photo. *I'll check it out in person next time I'm down there. http://www.flickriver.com/photos/adl...0408096/#large Here's a better picture. Upper left: No414 Upper right: 1283 (or 1288?) Bottom left: C. C. ? Bottom right: 1864 (that would match the year it was bought) or JB64, but I'm going with 1864 I went to the "original size" and cropped so I could get a better look. http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/No414wc.jpg The "No.414" is the number of the piece. The "1286 lbs" is the total weight of the bronze casting, almost as good as a fingerprint as they always varied. 1864 is the casting year. ... and "CO" is Confederate States Ordnance. This particular 12-pounder "Napoleon" must have been one of the few CSA guns cast using a Federal mold, probably captured from Harpers Ferry. The CSA only built between 500-600 of these guns, and the majority were cast without the barrel flare, or bulge. So "No.414" is a rarity indeed. Moving it to Texas is probably what saved it. The Feds by comparison cast some 1,800 during the war. This is interesting. With the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson (near Baton Rouge LA) in July 1863 the Union had control of the Mississippi River and split the South in two parts. If this cannon were cast in the East in 1864, how did it make it to Texas? I suppose it could have been smuggled across the river when the Union gunboats weren't around. There is a good chance there was a rearming effort by the last of the Western Gulf blockade runners. Galveston was recaptured by Gen. John Magruder on Jan 1, 1863, and they retained control until the end of the war. From March 1864 not much was getting out of Wilmington, or Savannah. Mobile was closed to the CSA in August 1864. Any time after that is unlikely, and even then the CSN had lost most of its government transports. Some private foreign blockade runners were still taking the risk, so that is a possibility. Otherwise the only other option would have been overland through Union lines, and that would have been tough, but not impossible. A little more research reveals that the 3rd Texas Infantry was posted along the Mexican border for most the war, with one brief absence in September 1863, and reoccupation in 1864, at Fort Brown (Brownsville), and that there was regular traffic across the the Rio Grande to and from Matamoras, Mexico. Matamoras was used as a destination for French, English and German private blockade runners since that port could not be blockaded due to its neutrality. Also interference with the foreign flagged ships would breach current International marine law. So there is another possibility. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] Yet another mandate: Weapons | Bowser | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | April 11th 11 01:03 AM |
[SI] Yet another mandate: Weapons | PeterN | Digital Photography | 2 | April 11th 11 01:03 AM |
Iran's photon weapons are very scary | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | August 12th 08 08:10 PM |