Possible iron shot or...ball bearing?

[quijote]

This was found 30 centimeters in the ground in Compton, California. It was found near the Rancho Dominguez Adobe Museum. It is part of an ongoing excavation. I thought you all might have seen something like this before and could provide some useful information. It is 98% Iron with some other trace elements.

There was a battle during 1846 in this area that did involve a 4-pounder cannon used by the Californios against the Americans. Is it possible that this is iron shot used in a cannon? How could I tell if it is a ball bearing or iron shot (possibly makeshift).

Here is a photo showing the metric size.



Any information would be helpful!

Thank you

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Davers]

Interesting ...

You say Compton Ca, & This Georgia Boy thinks NWA & Gang War's but
the Area had to be something before that .

Sounds like you have knowledge of the site , seems too small to be cannon ball shot but it could have been "makeshift " as you said.

The words you use , it sounds like you/ yall know what your doing , do you have one of those
handheld analyzers that told you the exact content of metals in the ball?
If so cool ,Sorry no answer maybe any other finds will answer your question.
Davers.

 

[quijote]

You say Compton Ca, & This Georgia Boy thinks NWA & Gang War's but
the Area had to be something before that .

Sounds like you have knowledge of the site , seems too small to be cannon ball shot but it could have been "makeshift " as you said.

The words you use , it sounds like you/ yall know what your doing , do you have one of those
handheld analyzers that told you the exact content of metals in the ball?
If so cool ,Sorry no answer maybe any other finds will answer your question.
Davers.

We have some folk history about the site but there has been no tangible evidence of the cannon being used right near the adobe house. This would be a big find for the site and museum located on site.

Yes, we used a portable XRF machine to tell us the metal content. It isn't exact but I think it is quite accurate. Other trace elements included titanium, chromium, calcium, tin, and lead.

I'm very new to battlefield artifacts so this has been quite the mystery! Thank you for your reply and interest in the object!

 

[Davers]

No Problem .
All dig,s are interesting to me.
My math SU# , but it looks to me like you Iron ball is est, 3/4 inch , Would that make it 70 or 75 cal.
I have seen 69 cal round balls & even different cal, Minie Balls used in canister Shells from the Civil War .
The smallest Iron Shot I know of is golf ball size (or a bit smaller) But I,m DEF, no expert.
Best Wishes & Hope things go well out there.
Davers

 

[Curious The George]

It is a piece of canister shot. The cannon would not have to be used in the area you found it. Could be where the target they were shooting at was.

 

[TheCannonballGuy]

Quijote wrote:
> There was a battle during 1846 in this area that did involve a 4-pounder cannon used by the Californios
> against the Americans. Is it possible that this is iron shot used in a cannon?
> How could I tell if it is a ball bearing or iron shot (possibly makeshift).

First... welcome to TreasureNet.

As my posting-name indicates, my specialty area in historical relic study is pre-1900s artillery projectiles. I've been doing that for almost 40 years, and wrote a major book on civil war artillery projectiles. (See the "About me" section in my TreasureNet member profile.) In my professional opinion, your approximately 17-millimeter/.70-inch iron ball is extremely unlikely to be an artillery ball, for the following reasons.

1- A 4-Pounder caliber cannon is a Colonial-era Smoothbore cannon. You say the battle took place in 1847. By the very-early 1800s, it had been discovered that Smoothbore cannon artillery balls smaller than 1-inch in diameter needed to be made of lead in order to have sufficient impact-force to be deadly (except, of course, at extremely short range). That is why there never have been any iron-bodied bullets. The British Army tested very-small-size iron artillery antipersonnel balls in the 1750s, and found that many failed to penetrate a wooden target.

Check the precise sizes of various artillery balls (cannon balls, Grapeshot balls, and Canister-ammo balls) in the US 1861 Ordnance Manual, here:
www.civilwarartillery.com/shottables.htm
You will see that the only artillery balls which are smaller than 1-inch diameter are 12-Pounder Howitzer Canister balls, which were lead musketballs. (See the chart on Canister ball sizes.)

Of course, there is at least a slight possibility that the Mexican Californios were using obsolete or "makeshift" cannon-ammunition contents in their obsolete Colonial-era 4-Pounder Smoothbore cannon. I'm just saying that the historical artillery data suggests it is highly unlikely that your 17millimeter/.70-inch iron ball is an artillery ball.

I should mention... antipersonnel artillery ammunition contained dozens of balls in EACH "round" of ammo. Therefore, a battlesite where antipersonnel artillery ammo was used tends to produce many dozens of that kind of ball -- not just one. If you eventually find several more balls exactly like the one you found at the dig-site, it would increase the (currently very slight) possibility that the ball is an artillery ball.

You asked "How could I tell if it is a ball bearing or iron shot (possibly makeshift)." That is a question which were cannonball-collectors (and scholars) frequently have to deal with, because of the existence of literally multi-millions of Civilian-usage (non-artillery) metal balls... such as rock-crusher balls used by the Mining-&-Stonemilling industry, other "pulverizer" balls, and ball-bearings, etc. So, we cannonball-collectors use the Ordnance Manual's precise size-&-weight charts for artillery balls, and we do very-precise measuring and weighing (using a digital caliper and a super-accurate Postal Shipping scale, to see if a ball's very-exact size-&-weight match up precisely with any of the artillery balls in the Ordnance Manual's specifications charts.

For example... the Manual's specifications say a 6-Pounder caliber Solid-Shot cannonball should be 3.58" in diameter, and weigh 6.1 pounds. So, if an iron ball measures (let's say) precisely 3.50" or weighs 6.5 pounds, it is not a cannonball.

 

[Curious The George]

CannonballGuy, Great information that you posted. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

The last paragraph brings up something that I have pondered many hours. Let's say I find a round iron ball in an area that it likely could be a cannon ball. How do you calculate or allow for or deal with the rust factor? I dug up a British 2 lb. ball (guessing right now, didn't weigh it). It is known that at the location the Royal Governor of North Carolina brought troops to on two different occasions and he brought 2 lb. cannons with him. They were pack horse cannons. Barrel on one horse or mule and carriage on another horse or mule. These cannons were used at a dust up with The Regulators at a site 20 miles away. The place I found it is a hay field now. But the record shows his troops came there both before and after the fight.

This happened in 1771, pre Revolutionary War. Came up from 18" down in the ground and was rusty. All the loose flaking rust had to be removed for preservation. It was examined by a guy working for the NC Dept. of History and Archeology that is an expert on Revolutionary era weapons and projectiles. His conclusion was that period and it came from Gov. Tryon's expedition to put down the Regulator revolt.

What is your thoughts of how to adjust the Ordinance Manual data for an unknown factor as to how much weight and how much diameter is lost from rust degradation?