Cannon ball?

[Garabaldi]

Found this round piece of iron at a colonial cellar hole. Is it a cannon ball?
Thanks!

[Zodiacdiverdave]

It is very possible, there were cannonballs that were hollow and filled with powder for an explosive charge.
This piece looks very corroded so it is difficult to tell for sure. Try putting it through electrolisis, it may take several weeks and 2 amps or lower. There are lots of instructions for doing this on the "Cleaning and Preservation" forum.
When we get solid cannonballs out out of the ocean we usually let them sit in it for months and then take them out and put them on the bench to dry for several days. During this time they can get up to 2 inches of salt crystals growing on them.
Once you clean it you may be able to tell what it was. Please post a pic of the cleaned item.
Good luck,
ZDD

[baywalker]

Looks more like a crushable ( not sure of spelling ) used to melt metal in ?

Jonnie

[Breezie]

Looks more like a crushable ( not sure of spelling ) used to melt metal in ?

Jonnie

Jonnie, I think you're right, and I knew what you meant by your spelling. It's spelled "crucible." Breezie

[baywalker]

Looks more like a crushable ( not sure of spelling ) used to melt metal in ?

Jonnie

Jonnie, I think you're right, and I knew what you meant by your spelling. It's spelled "crucible." Breezie

Thanks breezie I try Jonnie

[Garabaldi]

Crucible seems more probable than cannon ball.

[TheCannonballGuy]

Definitely not a cannonball. The "walls" of an artillery roundshell have to be quite thick, in order to be able to withstand the blast of firing, which will shatter thin iron.

By the way... the bigger the shell, the bigger the cannon's propellant powder-charge needed to be. So, the "shellwall" of bigger shells had to be thicker than smaller shells.

If anybody wants to know... the thinnest shellwall for a cannonball was in the 6-pounder (3.67"-caliber) antipersonnel shell (known as a "Case-Shot" shell). Its shellwall was about .40-inch thick. For a 6-pounder Common-Shell (no antipersonnel balls inside it), the shellwall thickness was about .60-inch.

Speaking of thickness... a crucible's walls are significantly thicker than a cast-iron pot's walls. You'll need to clean the rust-crust off of your find and measure its thickness to know for sure. To me, it seems like without the rust-crust, your find is about the right thickness for an iron pot.

[Garabaldi]

Definitely not a cannonball. The "walls" of an artillery roundshell have to be quite thick, in order to be able to withstand the blast of firing, which will shatter thin iron.

By the way... the bigger the shell, the bigger the cannon's propellant powder-charge needed to be. So, the "shellwall" of bigger shells had to be thicker than smaller shells.

If anybody wants to know... the thinnest shellwall for a cannonball was in the 6-pounder (3.67"-caliber) antipersonnel shell (known as a "Case-Shot" shell). Its shellwall was about .40-inch thick. For a 6-pounder Common-Shell (no antipersonnel balls inside it), the shellwall thickness was about .60-inch.

Speaking of thickness... a crucible's walls are significantly thicker than a cast-iron pot's walls. You'll need to clean the rust-crust off of your find and measure its thickness to know for sure. To me, it seems like without the rust-crust, your find is about the right thickness for an iron pot.

Thank you all,
I don't have teh time and energy to clean this artifact, so I am content with it not being a cannon ball.

[Brian C.]

Here is my 24lb. cannon ball/ counter weight. Interesting find you have there. Nt