Barshot?

[romeo-1]

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

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[ARC]

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.

maybe "stab" was too harsh... lets use "poke"... better ? ... heh

And I quote >
"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."

#1. If you look at my first post concerning this object... I used "looks like" - used in CBG's post. (which naturally I assumed was directed towards me)
#2. I have had several assume I am an "archeologist" due to my profile name and description. - ARRC etc. Conservation usual sends the minds of others in that direction...BUT it is used in
the context of helping "conserve" our wetlands and waterways through cleaning up debris and trash in waterways and islands.(which further felt was directed at me)
#3. Then the information given by CBG was contrary to facts... and directed the "Postee" (romeo) to "disregard" anyone else's (mine I felt) opinion concerning this object.

All and all... tis no big deal... and no "hard feelings" whatsoever concerning this matter.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[villagenut]

maybe "stab" was too harsh... lets use "poke"... better ? ... heh

And I quote >
"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."

#1. If you look at my first post concerning this object... I used "looks like" - used in CBG's post. (which naturally I assumed was directed towards me)
#2. I have had several assume I am an "archeologist" due to my profile name and description. - ARRC etc. Conservation usual sends the minds of others in that direction...BUT it is used in
the context of helping "conserve" our wetlands and waterways through cleaning up debris and trash in waterways and islands.(which further felt was directed at me)
#3. Then the information given by CBG was contrary to facts... and directed the "Postee" (romeo) to "disregard" anyone else's (mine I felt) opinion concerning this object.

All and all... tis no big deal... and no "hard feelings" whatsoever concerning this matter.

Unless he stated he was referring to you, I wouldn't assume that he was. I had posted about four posts before your "looks like one" post, actually stating the same thought, "It looks like one to me". Perhaps I am the archie he was referring to....but you are right, no big deal...but I do think you assumed without warrant even if CGB was wrong in his interpretation of what I feel "may be" a remnant of bar shot.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

I've found new information in a recently published book by Col. John F. Biemeck, a well-respected Historical Artillery Researcher, titled "Encyclopedia Of Black Powder Artillery Projectiles Found In North America, 1759-1865." It shows three calibers of flat-ended Bar-Shot, whose ends resemble a thick hockey puck, connected by a narrow, long, wrought-iron bar, which appears to be square-bodied. They were recovered from the shipwreck of the French Frigate Machault, scuttled after an engagement with the British Navy in 1760. The reported calibers are of course French, being:
4-Pounder (3.18") caliber
8-Pounder (3.99") caliber
12-Pounder (4.66") caliber.
The very-extensive (598 pages) book does not report any flat-ended Bar-Shot having been made by any country other than France.

As a longtime dealer of civil war and Colonial Era projectiles, I've learned to be very cautious about trusting non-excavated ("non-dug") Colonial Era ones, because being non-excavated they lack the visual evidence of rust-corrosion from being buried in the ground (or in water) for two centuries. Thus, non-excavated ones are easily faked, or misidentified... their true age (and purpose) cannot be solidly confirmed.

Therefore, based on the newly-published evidence, from a Colonial Era military shipwreck, I now accept that some flat-ended Bar-Shot did exist. But please note, they consist of two perfectly flat cast-iron discs, connected by a long wrought-iron bar... shown as #17 in one of the photos posted by Romeo-1. The (thick) stub of the broken bar on the object he found means it is a "1-piece solid-cast" object, not consisting of cast-iron ends with a wrought-iron bar... because a wrought-iron bar doesn't break apart like what seems to be showing on the object found by Romeo-1.

I have serious doubt about the non-excavated, still-shiny iron object posted in the first photo in reply #4 in this discussion, for two reasons:
1- The edges of the discs on it are clearly smoothly rounded, not "square-edged" as we see on item #17 in another photo in that post.
2- The ruler in the photo shows the flat disc's diameter is approximately 2-to-2.25 inches. That size is a lot smaller than the smallest size (3.19"-caliber) of flat-ended Bar-Shot listed in the Biemeck book.

I have a "tactical" objection to the "double headed bar shot" (reported to weigh 50 pounds) at the link posted by Smithbrown (reply #11). Quoting from Biemeck's book:
"It's unknown if the British [or anybody else] produced a cross-bar shot in calibers larger than 12-pounder. Larger calibers were so heavy they had so much kinetic energy they would cut ropes or sails so cleanly (like a hot knife in butter) they would not stress [the rigging's] pulleys and masts, resulting in secondary damage. They had so much force they produced less damage than the smaller caliber rounds that snarled ropes and stressed [the ship's] sailing system."

ARRC... as Villagenut said, you did "assume without warrant" that my post was a "stab/poke" at you. If I were ever to do such a thing to a fellow T-Net member, no assuming would be needed... my statement would be crystal-clear and direct. You did jump to an unwarranted conclusion. I'm going to ask you to take my word of Honor that when I wrote my post neither you nor anything you'd said was in my mind. As my post specifically said, I was referring to archeologists whom I've had personal (real-life) experience with. I've had none with you. Also, you've said (in reply #13 in this discussion) you are not an archeologist... so, you are not among the people I was talking about.

Because you've recently said you have "no hard feelings whatsoever concerning this matter" I will say the same, and view the matter as closed on that note.

In conclusion, please permit me to well-intendedly add a clarification. You also said in reply #13, "UM ... CBG ...? Um expanding shot was NOT made with 'chain' as you stated." I did not state that. Please re-read what I wrote.
"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." Those two are clearly named in the photo as being Chain-Shot (#22 and #23)... a type which does "spread out" when fired, but I was not saying they are Expanding Bar-Shot, which (as you noted) are connected by two sliding bars. I thought my saying "shown as #18" was clarification about which one of the types in the photo I was calling Expanding Bar-Shot.

 

[ARC]

#1. Village nut you are a natural "mediator" !!! you have "ironed out" the wrinkles.
#2. CBG I am sure you are knowledgeable in early American cannon etc. AND I look forward to more posts because I love cannon. heh maybe we could start a Co. together "Cannon Life"
Produce some stickers like "I love cannon" , "My cannon is bigger than yours", "salty cannon life"... "I have big cannon balls" heh.

I am still new to this "forum" thing.
I use to be online in the mid to late 90's on the Undernet using a real time program called MIRC.
Since those days I rarely even e-mail.
I do not text... hate it and think it is like going back to the typewriter...I am more a face to face OR phone conversation guy.
Texting on a phone ? didn't the phone get invented so we did not have to type? heh
Anyway... like I said... It's all good.

P.S> CBG ... look into the Cowpens S.C. area... I have seen some incredible Civil War relics surface around there.
There are some little known areas around the "battle of Cowpens" area that are loaded.

P.S.S> I still think "It looks like bar shot " lol

 

[wainzoid]

I have a buddy that has a cannon that a friends dad had made. Back in the 70's he kept it at their cottage on the river. We partied there almost every weekend. Sooner or later, they would break out the cannon. It launched golf balls hundreds of yards down river. This happened most weekend for years. Im suprised no one ever got hurt. Today we would probably be arrested for terrorists. There has to be hundreds and hundreds of golf balls in the river. I wonder what people will think some day when they are discovered. Its totally wooded on both sides of the river, so I can't imagine they will think a golfer did it.

 

[romeo-1]

I'm not sure if my piece is one piece or multiple...there is a considerable amount of corrosion on the piece which I am now working on removing...but if you're looking for French artillery relics you could not look in a more likely location than where this was found...

 

[Smithbrown]

here's another "straight" bar shot, also Napoleonic period, also from a Spanish ship: Bar shot fired from the Spanish ship the 'Santisima Trinidada' into HMS' Victory' at the Battle of Trafalgar - unknown - Royal Museums Greenwich Prints I wonder whether Spain had less access to cast-iron and used wrought iron for shot, which is easier to make square than round.