18th century cannon or ornamental cannon?

[Abes]

Hello,
New member here, I recently purchased this antique cannon. It was sold to me as 18th century, possibly Dutch. I was told it had been under water. I believe it to be a swivel gun. I was wondering if anyone can identify it's nationality or verify that's it's 18th century.
It's fairly pitted as you can see from the pics.
Dimensions are:
Length 27.5 inches including cascabel
Barrel 26 inches
Width at breech 3.5 inches
Width at muzzle 3 inches
Bore width 1.5 inches
Trunion diameter 1 3/8 inches
Weight 47 pounds
I don't plan on attempting to fire it but would like to make a display if I can find a yoke.
Thanks for any comments

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Smithbrown]

Hard one- my guess is Swedish, with a small possiblity of being cast in Asia for the Dutch East India Company. But real, not ornamental

 

[Abes]

Hard one- my guess is Swedish, with a small possiblity of being cast in Asia for the Dutch East India Company. But real, not ornamental

Thanks

 

[pepperj]

@ARC can shed some light on the cannon for you.
cool purchase.

 

[Smithbrown]

I should add that the Dutch bought their cast-iron guns from Sweden as they did not have the resources to cast iron in the Netherlands, so it could still have been intended for Dutch service. That shape of cascables suggests an 18th century date.

 

[ARC]

@ARC can shed some light on the cannon for you.
cool purchase.

We have visited this cannon before... have we not ?
I shed my opinions in the last thread.

 

[Smithbrown]

sadly ARC was wrong.

 

[ARC]

sadly ARC was wrong.

Heh... So.... Wrong in what part.. ?

The Garden part or the replica ornament part ?

On the serious side of this response to your response...
Reinf-Rings are wrong to any cannon i have ever seen...
perhaps you can shed some light on this...
for i know that i for one am curious to what you know factually about this non jive part... but have not shared.

 

[ARC]

Furthermore...
No cannon design as far as i know would have indentations in the body of any kind... this is actually reverse of common sense from a structural / design element.

 

[ARC]

Smith Brown ... Dont take this the wrong way.
i noticed over the years you are a person who pipes in many times on these but only in a very eluding sort of way.
You say....... But then you dont say more.
You comment.... then drop off short of any deepness or shedding of light.

I assume you have a background that has had possible hands on.
And maybe just a man (i assume your a man) of not many words... which is fine.
Just wonder why you make the comment on me being wrong without a follow up as to "how" or why i am wrong.
I mean... again no offense... but many times when i see you engage here on shipwreck and cannon stuff...
I can cannot but wonder simply "who are you"....
IOW's .... you gotta be someone affiliated / educated / or on the front line to speak the way you do.
So this does make me wonder who etc.
But dont fret....
I think that many times... about many people here.

 

[ARC]

And since i a VERY busy person and have not much time here these days...

I will just add this since i am here now and addressing this...
Those rings are not the only thing that points me away from this.

The cannon overall.... no matter who made it.... or for what purpose....
IS a nice piece.... / very cool for the OP to own and show.

BUT... IMO....
Would have been less than basic on the grand scheme of cannon design.

No offense op.

And with that.... I will bow out.... for i really dont know anything more than an opinion.
Hope all is revealed one way or another.
Have fun.