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 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - 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.

 

[Smithbrown]

So busy you feel obliged to make 4 separate replies? Hate to see when you have time on your hands. It is not a garden ornament. I have no idea what a "Reinf-Ring" is. From what I can see, it is a genuine swivel gun. It has characteristics which suggest Swedish origin or, less likely, somewhere like Indonesia under Dutch control. These are the shape of the cascable, the dip at the breech where the cascable neck joins and the plain flattish bands at the trunnions. Now I really am busy and have many things to do before Christmas.

 

[ARC]

So busy you feel obliged to make 4 separate replies? Hate to see when you have time on your hands. It is not a garden ornament. I have no idea what a "Reinf-Ring" is. From what I can see, it is a genuine swivel gun. It has characteristics which suggest Swedish origin or, less likely, somewhere like Indonesia under Dutch control. These are the shape of the cascable, the dip at the breech where the cascable neck joins and the plain flattish bands at the trunnions. Now I really am busy and have many things to do before Christmas.

Separate replies is faster than editing.... so yes....
any other jabs > > ?
What gives man ?...
Need a problem or something ?

So... lets start with....
"you do not know what i was referring to by Reinf"...
This is (an obvious to anyone abbreviation) for REINFORCEMENT RING.... which is designed purposely to add MORE metal to the areas of possible failure.... they are NOT a design element...
They serve a purpose and they are ALWAYS OUT.... NEVER IN....
This is due to massive pressures this area will undergo during use.(which in this case is ALSO IMO incorrect... the "area" that is).
THEN lets address that "area" / location of said REINF ring IS WRONG FOR THIS DESIGN as well.... its placement does not jive with overall cannon STRUCTURAL DESIGN...
NOW... lets address your "cascable"...
As far as cascable design and function goes...
this would be THE WORST ... MOST dangerous design possible for a REAL cannon.
Cannons kick... they are awkward / heavy and can hurt you or worse from the rear...and ROUND is the resulting STANDARD... pointed would be the absolute worst.
***SIGH***
THEN and finally (heh).... the trunnions are wrong... ... ADDED ON ... by the signs of it. (obvious CRACK / seam line)
This would be a absolute set up for failure for REAL use.

Shall i continue ?

 

[ARC]

I was trying to be nice and not dog out the OPS piece.
But i guess that was unavoidable.

SB... if you have seen an ACTUAL VERIFIED cannon like this before... and somehow know that it was in fact designed this way... on purpose... for action....
I would be HIGHLY amused / surprised.
And would simply say ....
"no wonder they lost". heh

I am simply trying to add and an opinion ...
BASED ON what i know as FACTS ... .....Empirical Facts.
I have NO factual knowledge of this particular items legitimacy.
Only basic pictures from here to form my opinion.

This is a prime example OF WHY i dont chime in much anymore here.

 

[ARC]

Furthermore......
So.......... instead of jabbing me ...
why not EXPLAIN how and why YOU think that this is a legitimate cannon.
? ? ?
Teach me your basis for all this.
I am eager to learn from your matter O fact knowledge base if i am wrong.

 

[pepperj]

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.

Could you provide a link that has information/images of these iron guns.
Tried, but not finding anything useful.