✅ SOLVED Early site cannonball ID help

[SC Keith]

Found this solid shot at an early site and think it could be Rev War but will see if I can get an expert to chime in.
Thanks!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

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

[Locke]

Can’t help with ID but that’s a hell of a find!

 

[smokeythecat]

Yes, I'd say British Rev War for two reasons. First is the sprue mark, I found similar ones on northern sites. Also, it has that diagnostic seam mark, so yes!

 

[ARC]

Yes, I'd say British Rev War for two reasons. First is the sprue mark, I found similar ones on northern sites. Also, it has that diagnostic seam mark, so yes!

Agreed.

 

[SC Keith]

Yes, I'd say British Rev War for two reasons. First is the sprue mark, I found similar ones on northern sites. Also, it has that diagnostic seam mark, so yes!

I was hoping you would see this post and reply (was told by a friend that you are the author of a Rev War relic book that I own and enjoy!) So this confirms the history of the Low Country site to me!

Agreed.

. And Im glad also you replied here with your expertise on relics that I have seen in your previous posts! Thank you!

 

[ARC]

And Im glad also you replied here with your expertise on relics that I have seen in your previous posts! Thank you!

Perhaps CannonBallGuy will also pipe in on this to give a final confirmation.

I personally have not handled Rev War balls... hmmm that did not sound right :/

 

[devldog]

SC Keith, great save and find of the cannon ball. A piece of History and A True Blast from the Past.

 

[SC Keith]

I was hoping you would see this post and reply (was told by a friend that you are the author of a Rev War relic book that I own and enjoy!) So this confirms the history of the Low Country site to me!

. And Im glad also you replied here with your expertise on relics that I have seen in your previous posts! Thank you!

Perhaps CannonBallGuy will also pipe in on this to give a final confirmation.

I personally have not handled Rev War balls... hmmm that did not sound right :/
�� Me either!!

SC Keith, great save and find of the cannon ball. A piece of History and A True Blast from the Past.

Thanks!

 

[Doug H]

So I have a question...is that thing dangerous in its current state?

 

[SC Keith]

So I have a question...is that thing dangerous in its current state?

It is a solid ball of iron- so no it is not dangerous at all .

 

[Inspector Comet]

It is a solid ball of iron- so no it is not dangerous at all .

Yep, should be fine as long as it's not travelling at high speed. Or dropped on someone's foot...

 

[devldog]

It is a solid ball of iron- so no it is not dangerous at all .

Only if it's dropped on your toes while wearing flip flops. Lol

 

[smokeythecat]

No, don't drop it on your foot.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Been out-of-commission for a while due to illness, but my friend AARC called my name, so I'm rousing myself to reply.

First let me say... speaking as a longtime cannonball hunter myself, when I see an ID-request here about an iron ball, I always start with the sincere hope that it will turn out to actually be a cannonball.

Unfortunately, in this case, although as Smokythecat correctly noted it does look very much like a British-made RevWar cannonball, it fails to pass three crucial ID-tests for a cannonball.

1- In the calipers photo, your ball appears to be somewhat egg-shaped... wheras, actual cannonballs were a "true Sphere" (as near-perfectly round as a marble).

2 - The calipers-measurement photo shows your ball is larger than the "nearest size" of actual cannonball, a 3-Pounder caliber. That type's diameter was specified to be 2.84-inches, and the diameter of yours is 2.96-inches. A 3-Pounder cannon's bore diameter was 2.90-inches, thus your 2.96" ball would not fit into that cannon's muzzle.​

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/shottables.htm

3- Even if there's .12" of rust/dirt encrustation on your ball, thereby increasing its actual iron diameter, its weight of 3.408 pounds (3 lb. 6 oz.) is significantly greater than the 3.05 pounds (3 lb. 1 oz.) specified for the weight of a 3-Pounder caliber cannonball. (The specified weight is given in the Shot Tables chart at the link above.)

Being significantly overweight is the biggest problem. Here is what I believe is the answer to the conundrum of your ball being only 1/8th-inch larger than a 3-Pounder caliber cannonball, but fully 5 ounces heavier. All actual cannonballs were cast-iron. Steel is a denser alloy of iron than cast-iron, and steel thereby weighs "about" 10% more than the same size of a cast-iron ball. Doing the math:
a 3-Pounder caliber ball weighs 49 ounces,
and "about" 10% of 49 ounces is 5 ounces,
totaling 54 ounces,
which is very-very close to your ball's 55-ounce weight.​

So, I believe your ball is made of steel. There were no steel cannonballs. (The sole exception to that rule is a civil war era British Navy 10" Heavy Caliber solid-shot cannonball, made to smash the armor of an ironclad warship.)​

 

[SC Keith]

Been out-of-commission for a while due to illness, but my friend AARC called my name, so I'm rousing myself to reply.

First let me say... speaking as a longtime cannonball hunter myself, when I see an ID-request here about an iron ball, I always start with the sincere hope that it will turn out to actually be a cannonball.

Unfortunately, in this case, although as Smokythecat correctly noted it does look very much like a British-made RevWar cannonball, it fails to pass three crucial ID-tests for a cannonball.

1- In the calipers photo, your ball appears to be somewhat egg-shaped... wheras, actual cannonballs were a "true Sphere" (as near-perfectly round as a marble).

2 - The calipers-measurement photo shows your ball is larger than the "nearest size" of actual cannonball, a 3-Pounder caliber. That type's diameter was specified to be 2.84-inches, and the diameter of yours is 2.96-inches. A 3-Pounder cannon's bore diameter was 2.90-inches, thus your 2.96" ball would not fit into that cannon's muzzle.​

http://www.civilwarartillery.com/shottables.htm

3- Even if there's .12" of rust/dirt encrustation on your ball, thereby increasing its actual iron diameter, its weight of 3.408 pounds (3 lb. 6 oz.) is significantly greater than the 3.05 pounds (3 lb. 1 oz.) specified for the weight of a 3-Pounder caliber cannonball. (The specified weight is given in the Shot Tables chart at the link above.)

Being significantly overweight is the biggest problem. Here is what I believe is the answer to the conundrum of your ball being only 1/8th-inch larger than a 3-Pounder cannonball, but fully 5 ounces heavier. All actual cannonballs were cast-iron. Steel is a denser alloy of iron than cast-iron, and steel thereby weighs "about" 10% more than the same size of a cast-iron ball. Doing the math:
a 3-Pounder caliber ball weighs 49 ounces,
and "about" 10% of 49 ounces is 5 ounces,
totaling 54 ounces,
which is very-very close to your ball's 55-ounce weight.​

So, I believe your ball is made of steel. There were no steel cannonballs. (The sole exception to that rule is a civil war era British Navy 10" Heavy Caliber solid-shot cannonball, made to smash the armor of an ironclad warship.)


​

. Thank you very much CBG for your expertise. i had a suspicion that it was a little off the normal standards and I really appreciate you taking time to help clear up the mystery of the ball! I hope you get well soon from the illness.
Keith