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.
