TEXAS CANNON

[sloanrodgers]

What do we know about the metal composition of Texas cannon in the
various revolutionary sources, expecially when most of this artillery no
longer exists? Surely most of the cannon were made of iron or bronze,
but there are a few reports of brass cannon. Although, I went to Basic
Training at the Home of the U.S. Field Artillery at Fort Silll, Ok., I have
only recently become interested in the miriad of cannon types. Please
be gentle with my artillery ignorance.

[stuart]

Bronze and brass are essentially one and the same. Both are alloys of tin and copper. I'll let somebody more knowledgable chime in with the recommended proportions but essentially bronze has a lesser quantity of tin, hence its browner look, while brass looks whiter because it has more tin.

So far as artillery goes. Brass was normally reckoned better than iron as it was softer and hence easier to bore out more accurately, and less prone to bursting. However it was also a lot heavier than iron, which is why iron guns were common on shipboard and for big guns - 18 pounders and 24 pounders. Iron was also cheaper. The real drawback about iron was that because it has less "give" a flawed casting was more likely to burst.

Now as to who used what; the only halfway reliable rule of thumb was that Mexican army guns were brass/bronze, while the Texians' guns came from all over and need to be accounted for individually

[sloanrodgers]

I've read mostly about iron and bronze cannons in history and little about
brass artillery. I've come under the impresession recently that true bronze
is an alloy of mostly copper and some tin, while real brass is 55-95% copper
and the rest zinc. Bronze was certainly more durable and lighter than iron or
brass cannon, but more expensive. It appears to me that folks way back may
have confused polished bronze cannon for brass. True brass without additional
elements seems mostly to be a display metal for musical instruments, houseware, toys and similar items. I may be wrong as I'm not a metallurgy expert.

[Rich Curilla]

rangerrod said:

It appears to me that folks way back may
have confused polished bronze cannon for brass.

This, I believe, is correct. At least I remember reading that 1836 folks used the terms interchangeably.

[sloanrodgers]

rlcgtt said:

This, I believe, is correct. At least I remember reading that 1836 folks used the terms interchangeably.

As Stuart implied, I don't think the Texans could afford to be picky with
the iron, bronze or supposed brass cannon that were acquired. The Twin
Sisters were obviouly iron, The Come and Take it Cannon was bronze, but
I'm not sure about the metal compositions of the various Alamo and Goliad
cannon. It is interesting that some cannon are given names like their little
brother rifles.

[bmoses]

I'm not an artillery expert, but I have information on six of the seven gun tubes displayed around the Alamo:

One is an 18-pdr., probably a “gunade” and probably American made in the early-19th century. This is the only one that was made of bronze (corrected to 12-pdr., iron, see discussion below).

One iron 4-pdr., with a large “B” stamped on the trunion. The design has been shown to be British and likely dates to the Napoleonic Wars.

Two iron 2-pdrs., possibly dating to the early 18th century. Both are similar and are likely Spanish in origin. They actually measure to be a 2½-pdrs., but this appears to be the result of the extremely worn barrels.

Two iron guns with odd (ca. 2¾ –inch) bores. Both guns could be of British manufacture although it is not definite. One appears to be quite old, possibly dating to the early 18th century.

All of these tubes are corroded and appear to have been buried. This has made obtaining accurate measurements on the weapons difficult.

[marklemon]

Bruce,
I believe you'll find that the gunade is a 12-pounder, and made of iron. Recently, Rick Range, of Garland, Texas, has located a brass(bronze) 4-pounder in an as-yet-to be-disclosed location, which has an excellent provenance, and bears the same damaged trunnions as the other known Alamo guns. If this piece is eventually determined to be a probable Alamo gun, it will be the only known brass Alamo gun yet located.
Mark

[bmoses]

marklemon said:

I believe you'll find that the gunade is a 12-pounder, and made of iron. Recently, Rick Range, of Garland, Texas, has located a brass(bronze) 4-pounder in an as-yet-to be-disclosed location, which has an excellent provenance, and bears the same damaged trunnions as the other known Alamo guns. If this piece is eventually determined to be a probable Alamo gun, it will be the only known brass Alamo gun yet located.

Thanks for the clarification on the gunade Mark, I have several notes listing it as a 18 pounder but see a note from John Wilson listing it as a 12-pounder.

Also, I found a brief mention of the seventh artillery piece on display at the Alamo. This gun is the only one that does not appear to be heavily corroded and probably has a different history than the others. As Mark indicated, it is also iron and is probably a 4-pounder. The piece is completely unmarked with very thick walls and its appearance suggests a possible mid-19th century manufacture.

[scroggwe]

Rangerrod states that the "Come and Take It" cannon was bronze. I have read this in several other posts and it confuses me. The Gonzales Memorial Museum has an iron cannon that it claims is the "Come and Take It" cannon. This is the one that was uncovered by flooding in the 1930's and it's location matched discriptions of where the original was buried. If I recall correctly, one of the previous owners had the cannon examined and it matched Noah Smithwick's discription of the cannon that he unspiked and sleeved the touchhole on. My question is why is it believed that the Gonzales cannon was bronze and was Noah Smithwick , in fact, mistaken on the cannon that he repaired? Is there some documentation that proves that the Gonzales "Come and Take It" cannon was in fact a brass/bronze 6 pounder, as the late Tom Lindley claimed? I don't know alot about this subject and am curious about the actual facts.

[stuart]

There's a very full discussion (including a refutation of Tom Lindley's theory) on the Sons of De Witt Colony website www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/dewitt.htm
Just type Gonzales Cannon into the search

[sloanrodgers]

scroggwe said:

Rangerrod states that the "Come and Take It" cannon was bronze. I have read this in several other posts and it confuses me. The Gonzales Memorial Museum has an iron cannon that it claims is the "Come and Take It" cannon. This is the one that was uncovered by flooding in the 1930's and it's location matched discriptions of where the original was buried. If I recall correctly, one of the previous owners had the cannon examined and it matched Noah Smithwick's discription of the cannon that he unspiked and sleeved the touchhole on. My question is why is it believed that the Gonzales cannon was bronze and was Noah Smithwick , in fact, mistaken on the cannon that he repaired? Is there some documentation that proves that the Gonzales "Come and Take It" cannon was in fact a brass/bronze 6 pounder, as the late Tom Lindley claimed? I don't know alot about this subject and am curious about the actual facts.

I believe this is a controversial debate from the old forum. I can't seem
to locate it in searches, so it may have been deleted or censored like a
few other valued topics. I think we all pretty much came to a conclusion
that there were two cannon ( a usable bronze and a unusable iron one )
at the battle of Gonzales. Blacksmithy Smithwick arrived the day after the
fight and worked on the iron cannon that he mistakenly thought was used
in the battle. It is hard to believe that a good iron worker would mistake a
bronze or brass cannon for the principal metal of his trade, so the tiny Pat
Wagner cannon at the Gonzales Museum doesn't seem to match the tube
Smithwick refurbished or the famous Come and Take it Cannon.

[sloanrodgers]

Here's one of those mysterious brass cannon that keep popping
up in Texas history. This Republic Claim shows the Jan. 14, 1836
purchase of a cannon, possibly for the schooner Ingham below
on the same date. This is probably the U.S. Cutter Ingham that
Texas just bought and renamed the Independence. The claim
reads as follows:

Jan. 1836

14) Brass 6 pound cannon 695 lbs. @ 20 / 208.50
in Transportation of same over the river / 2.00


Republic Claim 130-619
tslarc.tsl.state.tx.us/repclaims/130/13000619.pdf

[dimbo33]

I think that it is fine to call the cannons brass or bronze. I have never seen the Mexican documents differentiate between brass and iron so I do not know what they would have called them. I do have an inventory of Mexican artillery accoutrement's that has the following: granados de bronce de 7p--cargados

There is another column for 6p and a separate column for descargados.

I read this as 7pulgado (.92 English inches to a pulgado) bronze howitzer shells--loaded (descargado would be unloaded)--this would refer to the fact that they had the gunpowder inside or did not.

The Texans refereed to the Mexican shot (musket balls and canister) as copper shot. They were convinced that the Mexicans were evil and vile to use copper shot as it was known to be highly poisonous. The Texans were civilized and used lead shot--lead can not cause poisoning.

[sloanrodgers]

I think I'd rather get lead poisoning from a Texan ball than a copper
complexion from a Mexican one. I'm not prejudice, I swear.

[mustanggray]

Without having access to any of Mr. Lindley's work on the various cannons floating about during the Texian War for Independence I may be asking a silly question but... I came across mention of two cannons being hauled from Gonzales to Bexar. Are these guns supposed to be part of the guns in use at the Alamo? Just curious... I'm sure someone else has already covered this but I thought I'd ask anyway!