Barshot?

[romeo-1]

It's old and it's iron...found at a site where barshot would not be unusual. Thanks!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[BosnMate]

I'm also interested in what you have, so I've bumped this post.

 

[villagenut]

Sure looks like it could be, definitely so if you could find the rest

 

[romeo-1]

I'm also interested in what you have, so I've bumped this post.

Thanks...I've found a couple similar examples online...

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Sorry to have to say, it definitely is not the end of a Bar-Shot, because it is flat on both sides. All actual Bar-Shot had either a hemisphere (half-ball) or complete ball on the ends. See the photo of an actual Bar-Shot, below, which shows one recovered from inside a cannon on the Revolutionary War shipwreck of the USS Philadelphia.

Also, the bar which connected the two ends of a Bar-Shot was square-bodied (as shown in the photo below), not round-bodied like the stub which is seen on one side of your find. I do not know what your find is, but I'm 100% certain it is not from a Bar-Shot, or any other type of artillery projectile.

 

[romeo-1]

Thanks for chiming in with your opinion CBG. Do all barshots have square bars? I'm sure I've seen them with round as well. Also, it's not obvious in the picture but my item is rounded on the top...a better pic:

 

[ARC]

sure looks like bar shot tip

 

[romeo-1]

This looks pretty close...scroll down.

Edit...link removed due to excessive spam on that site.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Romeo-1, thank you for the additional photo. With respect, I have to say your find is still not from a Bar-Shot. Besides having a round-bodied projection, the projection is too thick in relation to the diameter of the disc. The bar of an actual Bar-Shot was always much thinner than the ends of the Bar-Shot. There was an extremely important reason for that.

Explanation:
Prior to significant advances at the start of the mid-1800s, the science-&-art of casting "large" metal objects such as cannons was still very elementary and crude. Large solid-cast metal objects very frequently contained internal casting-flaws such as airbubbles and concentrations of impurities... which had the effect of making the cast metal "brittle." Meaning, the cast metal tended to shatter when sudden strong force was applied to it -- such as, firing the large gunpowder charge needed to propel a solid iron ball for half-a-mile or more. Colonial Era army and navy battle reports frequently contain incidents of cannons exploding upon firing, with disastrous results for the cannon's crew and even the ship itself. (An exploding cannon could cause a nearby ammo-magazine to also explode.)

Therefore, the army and navy Ordnance Department was always extremely concerned about "overloading" a cannon with a projectile that was too heavy for it to fire safely. The heavier the projectile, the greater the amount of internal stress on the cannon's barrel when it was fired. In the Colonial Era, the weight safety-limit for a cannon's projectiles was approximately 1.5 times the weight of the Solid-Shot cannonball it was intended to fire. That is why typical Bar-Shots had a hemisphere (half-ball) on each end, instead of two whole balls. You absolutely did not want to risk disaster by firing a projectile which weighed twice as much as a single Solid-Shot cannonball for the cannon you were using.

Also, the bar was kept narrow, so it would weigh less, instead of being (needlessly) thick like you see in some of the photos of so-called Bar-Shot you posted.

In my professional opinion as a multi-published scholar on the subject of Historical Artillery, about half of the objects in the photos you posted are not Bar-Shot projectiles... for several logical "tactical" and "structural" reasons.

Tactical:
As you may have noticed in the photo I posted showing an actual Bar-Shot recovered from inside a cannon on a RevWar shipwreck, its length is at least 3.5 times its diameter. You wanted that much length so that the spinning/tumbling Bar-Shot would create a wide path of destruction through an enemy ships spars, rigging, and sails. That is why the British Navy came up with the "expanding bar-shot" shown as #18 in one of the photos... and why that photo shows two examples connected by extra-long chainlinks. The objects in the photo which are connected by a short bar would create "significantly" more damage than a single ball.

Structural:
1- As mentioned above, to avoid overstressing the cannon's barrel, the bar was kept thin to avoid needlessly increasing the Bar-Shot's weight. On several objects in the photos, the bar is round-bodied and needlessly thick.
2- The shape of the bar (round or square-bodied) has no effect on the Bar-Shot's destructiveness. Much more blacksmith-labor (hammering) is required to create a smoothly round bar than a simple square-bodied one. Why put the extra labor into making the bar smoothly round when that makes no difference in a Bar-Shot's performance? You'd only do the extra labor if the bar needed to be neatly round.
3- Related to the extra labor required to create a "complicated" shape... the ends of some of the objects in the photos are shaped like a doorknob. Why spend the additional labor needed to create that "complicated" shape when it has no performance-advantage over a simple cast hemisphere?
4- Speaking of "a simple cast hemisphere"... actual Bar-Shot always consisted of cast-iron ends attached to a wrought-iron bar. That construction was necessary due to the brittleness of cast-iron. The enormous firing-blast stress would tend to break a cast-iron connection between the bar's ends. So, no actual Bar-Shot were manufactured as a "single-unit" of cast-iron.
5- In the photo you posted showing an object next to a tape-measure, you'll notice that the ends are approximately 2 inches in diameter. That is too small for effectiveness as a Bar-Shot -- whose purpose was to cause serious damage to an enemy ship's mast, spars, and rigging. Bar-Shot was not made as an antipersonnel projectile. Yes, it would kill people if you could manage to skip it along an enemy ship's deck... but the decks were protected by thick "gunwales" (walls) -- which this small object would not penetrate.

As I've mentioned in other posts, a key part of correctly determining whether a ball is a cannonball or not is to see whether its precisely-measured diameter matches up with any of the known calibers of "antique" (muzzleloading) cannons. Such cannons whose bore-diameter was less than 3 inches were useless against warships. Yes, you could put a hole in a small boat's hull with a 2-Pounder (2" bore-diameter) cannon... but you didn't need a Bar-Shot to do that.

Unfortunately, it's clear that most archeologists (and even shipwreck archeologists) are not well-educated experts about historical artillery projectiles. Therefore, they have a tendency to incorrectly identify various objects as being artillery projectiles simply because it "looks like" an artillery projectile. Those guys are well-intended, but they simply do not know the information I've given you in this post. They are deeply educated about civilian artifacts, and sometimes about soldiers/sailors equipment... but not about correctly identifying artillery projectiles. For example, in my experiences of communicating with archeologists, almost none of them are aware of the historical artillery projectiles data given at the following three websites:
British Cannonball Sizes
Cannon bore, shot, and shell diameters for smoothbore guns
SolidShotEssentialsMod
That opinion is based on the fact that they contact me to get this kind of information.

 

[romeo-1]

Thanks again CBG...now to figure out what it could have been...maybe a governor?

Just so you know that I'm not a raving fantasist I have actually found barshot in this area...not this site but in the neighborhood.

 

[Smithbrown]

This one seems to come with a very good provenance: » Coll?s big shot The Ambulist

 

[romeo-1]

This one seems to come with a very good provenance: » Coll?s big shot The Ambulist

Thanks for contributing...the plot thickens. I'm finding it difficult to believe that all barshots that do not meet the description provided by CBG are not actual barshots. I've found dozens of examples of round bars and non-hemispheric ends...even the essential reference book "Collector's Illustrated Encyclopedial of the American Revolution" has examples of "non-traditional" barshot. Taking into consideration where this was found i'm not convinced that this is NOT barshot. I've got it soaking in apple cider vinegar right now so after it's de-crusted there may be more to see and analyze.

 

[ARC]

Romeo-1, thank you for the additional photo. With respect, I have to say your find is still not from a Bar-Shot. Besides having a round-bodied projection, the projection is too thick in relation to the diameter of the disc. The bar of an actual Bar-Shot was always much thinner than the ends of the Bar-Shot. There was an extremely important reason for that.

Explanation:
Prior to significant advances at the start of the mid-1800s, the science-&-art of casting "large" metal objects such as cannons was still very elementary and crude. Large solid-cast metal objects very frequently contained internal casting-flaws such as airbubbles and concentrations of impurities... which had the effect of making the cast metal "brittle." Meaning, the cast metal tended to shatter when sudden strong force was applied to it -- such as, firing the large gunpowder charge needed to propel a solid iron ball for half-a-mile or more. Colonial Era army and navy battle reports frequently contain incidents of cannons exploding upon firing, with disastrous results for the cannon's crew and even the ship itself. (An exploding cannon could cause a nearby ammo-magazine to also explode.)

Therefore, the army and navy Ordnance Department was always extremely concerned about "overloading" a cannon with a projectile that was too heavy for it to fire safely. The heavier the projectile, the greater the amount of internal stress on the cannon's barrel when it was fired. In the Colonial Era, the weight safety-limit for a cannon's projectiles was approximately 1.5 times the weight of the Solid-Shot cannonball it was intended to fire. That is why typical Bar-Shots had a hemisphere (half-ball) on each end, instead of two whole balls. You absolutely did not want to risk disaster by firing a projectile which weighed twice as much as a single Solid-Shot cannonball for the cannon you were using.

Also, the bar was kept narrow, so it would weigh less, instead of being (needlessly) thick like you see in some of the photos of so-called Bar-Shot you posted.

In my professional opinion as a multi-published scholar on the subject of Historical Artillery, about half of the objects in the photos you posted are not Bar-Shot projectiles... for several logical "tactical" and "structural" reasons.

Tactical:
As you may have noticed in the photo I posted showing an actual Bar-Shot recovered from inside a cannon on a RevWar shipwreck, its length is at least 3.5 times its diameter. You wanted that much length so that the spinning/tumbling Bar-Shot would create a wide path of destruction through an enemy ships spars, rigging, and sails. That is why the British Navy came up with the "expanding bar-shot" shown as #18 in one of the photos... and why that photo shows two examples connected by extra-long chainlinks. The objects in the photo which are connected by a short bar would create "significantly" more damage than a single ball.

Structural:
1- As mentioned above, to avoid overstressing the cannon's barrel, the bar was kept thin to avoid needlessly increasing the Bar-Shot's weight. On several objects in the photos, the bar is round-bodied and needlessly thick.
2- The shape of the bar (round or square-bodied) has no effect on the Bar-Shot's destructiveness. Much more blacksmith-labor (hammering) is required to create a smoothly round bar than a simple square-bodied one. Why put the extra labor into making the bar smoothly round when that makes no difference in a Bar-Shot's performance? You'd only do the extra labor if the bar needed to be neatly round.
3- Related to the extra labor required to create a "complicated" shape... the ends of some of the objects in the photos are shaped like a doorknob. Why spend the additional labor needed to create that "complicated" shape when it has no performance-advantage over a simple cast hemisphere?
4- Speaking of "a simple cast hemisphere"... actual Bar-Shot always consisted of cast-iron ends attached to a wrought-iron bar. That construction was necessary due to the brittleness of cast-iron. The enormous firing-blast stress would tend to break a cast-iron connection between the bar's ends. So, no actual Bar-Shot were manufactured as a "single-unit" of cast-iron.
5- In the photo you posted showing an object next to a tape-measure, you'll notice that the ends are approximately 2 inches in diameter. That is too small for effectiveness as a Bar-Shot -- whose purpose was to cause serious damage to an enemy ship's mast, spars, and rigging. Bar-Shot was not made as an antipersonnel projectile. Yes, it would kill people if you could manage to skip it along an enemy ship's deck... but the decks were protected by thick "gunwales" (walls) -- which this small object would not penetrate.

As I've mentioned in other posts, a key part of correctly determining whether a ball is a cannonball or not is to see whether its precisely-measured diameter matches up with any of the known calibers of "antique" (muzzleloading) cannons. Such cannons whose bore-diameter was less than 3 inches were useless against warships. Yes, you could put a hole in a small boat's hull with a 2-Pounder (2" bore-diameter) cannon... but you didn't need a Bar-Shot to do that.

Unfortunately, it's clear that most archeologists (and even shipwreck archeologists) are not well-educated experts about historical artillery projectiles. Therefore, they have a tendency to incorrectly identify various objects as being artillery projectiles simply because it "looks like" an artillery projectile. Those guys are well-intended, but they simply do not know the information I've given you in this post. They are deeply educated about civilian artifacts, and sometimes about soldiers/sailors equipment... but not about correctly identifying artillery projectiles. For example, in my experiences of communicating with archeologists, almost none of them are aware of the historical artillery projectiles data given at the following three websites:
British Cannonball Sizes
Cannon bore, shot, and shell diameters for smoothbore guns
SolidShotEssentialsMod
That opinion is based on the fact that they contact me to get this kind of information.

woah... ehhhh heh. UM ... CBG ...?
Um expanding shot was NOT made with "chain" as you stated... that would be called SPLIT shot ... Expanding was made from 2 bars NO chain... Also weight had NOTHING to due with bar shot... NOR metal bubbles etc etc.
and there are some real inconsistencies in your statements.

I feel the need to "set the record straight" with my own lengthy response. because of CBG's reply that I feel is directed toward myself/ my "looks like" statement I made in earlier post.
First... I am no archie... I am an Advanced Wreck Diver w/ 39+ years of historical study under my dive belt.
I grew up playing with these sort of things... and have seen and held more than you could imagine.
I am glad that certain members here have "published/written and such... BUT... just because it is written does not make it so.

CBG stated that he is "100% sure" ... ?
To look at these pics and dismiss the item so quickly, so matter of fact, along with a PAGE of PARTLY FACTUAL babble then finishing it off with what I feel was a personal "jab" at my post...
is unfair and unprofessional to say the least... And in my opinion is the result of a collector turned "expert fumbler"... who just "dropped the cannon ball"
the correct reply would have been ..."It is in my opinion that ..." "and here is why I feel this way" MINUS THE ASSUMPTION STAB TOWARD ME.

Now... to the post question... based on real facts... CORRECTLY ... yes there were square and round bars...AND...

#1. squashed,flat,tapered,chain,split,slide,stacked,strapped,banded,wound,cone,cage,spike,double-triple-quad,solid FULL bar,grape shot,cartouches, stack bar/plate AND on and on and on.
#2. the list and types extends WAY beyond the internet pictures and furthermore ANY actual examples that have been found. OR shared. I have seen 20 + examples most will never see.
#3. new designs and "proto types" were made throughout the world and tested constantly since the cannon was invented.
#4. No designs were ever the same UNLESSS it was a good design OR it became "standard issue" in some military sense.
#5. the only thing "standard" or SEMI consistent were heavy weighted ends that were close to bore size for pressure and the spinning centrifugal weight / horizontal flight.
#6. military bar shot is EASILY identified through COMMON documentation... BUT what about everyone else? they used everything else... designs made by hundreds of OTHER bar shot makers.
#7. Most everything known about early cannon artillery is because it was found ... NOT documentation... only standards... not the exceptions... NOR the "behind the scenes" or secretive designs.
#8. Each design was an INDIVIDUAL invention designed to cause certain desired results... made by a blacksmith in hopes "his design" would be adopted as "standard design".("his" claim to fame)
#9. People always reference "known examples but never make mention of the hundreds of "off the wall" types of shot that were COMMONLY developed for "testing".
#10. Hundreds of years of "evolution" in design permits the possibility of this item in question to be in fact a bar shot... PERIOD. - 100% possible.
#11. Even 5 ounce balls sunk ships... 1 pound was COMMON for small ship sinkings and STANDARD.

With all that said I still believe what you found MAY very well be bar shot. AND There is no way to say for sure about your object... PERIOD.
I am referencing my library for a similar or near exact match... it could be anything but... BUT .. AGAIN .. IT SURE LOOKS LIKE bar shot.

P.S. JUST FOR YOUR READING PLEASURE AND KNOWLEDGE>>>

Anything and almost EVERYTHING from rocks to body parts was CONSTANTLY fired through the barrels of cannon IN FACT they would fire random things from cannon just for entertainment and out of boredom
... just to see what happened.... PLUS testing of new prototypes was a common occurrence even for the military. (even on ships !)
A new design/weapon was worth money and metal smiths/forgers made all types which were sold in open markets... to anyone willing to fire it.
Gotta remember everyone making these things was trying to come up with a "better mousetrap".

I am no "archie"... I am just a guy who has personally found in my youth and held more cannon artillery and crap than most have seen or will ever see.
some so rare that they remain unidentified... even by master historians... who more often than not reply with "hmmm that is strange, let me take another look"... "I am not sure"

And my vote still currently stands (until PROVEN with REAL facts otherwise) ... that you have found a RARE type of bar shot.

CBG... sounds like you have a limited knowledge on this subject that you "claim" to be an authority on. You may know Civil War cannon and shells but that is only 5 years
out of 669 years since the cannon became STANDARD...and 727 years since it was invented in 1288 in YES CHINA.
just a SMALL blip on the history screen of cannon. In fact so small that it really does not even play a role in cannon history.
NOR does it play any part in the posted item found herin.

 

[ARC]

Oh I just realized I forgot to mention a favorite... Spider shot... which was rare... was a bunch of chains linked in the center.
Now imagine that ripping across the deck. heh

 

[Iron Patch]

Oh I just realized I forgot to mention a favorite... Spider shot... which was rare... was a bunch of chains linked in the center.
Now imagine that ripping across the deck. heh

I assume something like that flew at a less velocity, maybe even to the point of being able to clearly see it coming, and whizzing by your head? Sounds like a hell of a tool to wipe out a ship's mast.

 

[ARC]

That depended on the size "charge" they would use... See with items OTHER than cannonballs that were the EXACT size... they could use larger more intense charges... propelling them at higher velocity... see it was the pressure that would breech a gun... the pressure BEHIND the object being shot... if chain was used... little pressure was built... so... they could use larger charge.
The #'s embossed on cannon were the "poundage" of solid ball... but not the charge.
Every cannon was different in its ability to shoot different items...due to bore size... AND structural design and the metal used/thickness etc etc etc.
If a longer range was needed they may ignore "standard" charge or ball size and choose larger charge / smaller ball perhaps.
Ammo that was "compacted" or "solid" would not be shot with larger charges for fear of a gun breach..(explosion)... everything else... FIRE AWAY !
just a bit of crazy info for blah blah...
It was common for pirates to dismember captives and stuff the parts into cannon and leave them inside the tube...to rot... then when approach to vessel for robbery they would fire the parts at the vessel first to "rain down" rotting putrid flesh... this would usually work the utmost fear in the person covered in this.... and surrender.

 

[ARC]

oh...one more thing... all cannon were "manned" by a "gunner" the gunners job and life depended on "knowing" his cannon.
He would know the whats and hows of that particular cannon... he would know what could or could not be fired... and like I said earlier...there were times of boredom MOSTLY at sea where they would make a "fuse" to a cannon loaded with god knows what just to try a new "ammo"... they would try anything from broken glass to nails... knives etc etc.
Whatever they thought would "take out" whatever. lets face it... it was like kids with firecrackers.
As cannon technically advanced... so did the ammo etc... to Standards... which is where I can see CBG referencing
This is where also where CBG is correct... and feel he is more early America cannon expert... BUT ... a lot of items came from abroad on ships from far away. this is why this posted piece cannot be "ruled out".

 

[gunsil]

"It was common for pirates to dismember captives and stuff the parts into cannon and leave them inside the tube...to rot... then when approach to vessel for robbery they would fire the parts at the vessel first to "rain down" rotting putrid flesh... this would usually work the utmost fear in the person covered in this.... and surrender."

Ah crap, I gotta get my hip boots back on again!! Sorry, flesh will not fly from a fired cannon very far. Only heavy objects will travel away from a cannon's mouth, soft objects just disintegrate from the muzzle blast and entering the air. Go on, try it!! I have tried shooting a lot of things from cannons and I assure all of you that flesh will not travel far in the air. AARC must have been reading too much fiction, and since we know he wasn't there at the time of the pirates he is only quoting frivolous hearsay or novel authors' fantasies. This is not meant as an attack on AARC's person or reputation, but somebody needs to put to rest this inane idea of shooting rotten flesh from cannons.

 

[ARC]

known historical fact... documented no less in archives.
Body parts ... flesh and bone. skulls and all if big enough bore.
btw this has been a common war tactic throughout history... before cannon it was done by catapult over castle walls.
During the Black Plague it was common practice.

 

[villagenut]

Back to the subject... I have seen examples of bar shot with round bars, so I could not rule out the barshot interpretation idea as well..but where was the stab or jab...whatever it was?, maybe I am not seeing it. Not saying you are wrong ARRC, you both seem strongly convinced.. but I didn't sense a jab at you by anybody.