A Question about cannon balls

I came across this old articletoday about a cannonball someone attempted to bring onto an airplane in their luggage.

In the article, the projectile is described as “live” (in the title) and “explosively viable”. So my question is, is this just sloppy journalism? I thought cannonballs were inert peices of, usually, metal that were strictly a ballistic projectile relying on kinetic energy to cause damage. I was of the impression that explosive projectiles were called something else, bombs or missiles or something. Bomb seems like it should be the correct term but that would be too obvious.

The Master Speaks

And previous SDMB threads:

Say I find a cannonball…
How does a cannonball work?
Do cannonballs explode?

Technically, a round cannonball shaped object that is hollow and designed to be filled with some sort of explosive is called a “shell”. When most people hear the word “shell” though they think of a more modern type of shell that is shaped more like a big bullet. “Explosive cannonball” is probably the best way to describe a round shell to someone without a lot of technical expertise in the various things that can come out of a cannon.

From the picture in that article, I can’t tell if the thing is actually round or not. It shows up pretty small on my screen and it’s so encrusted with junk from the sea floor that it’s hard to tell what it’s original shape was.

Things that can come out of a cannon:

Cannonball, aka Round Shot, Ball, Solid Shot - exactly what the name implies, generally a solid spherical hunk of metal.

Shell - Older shells were round. More modern shells have a typical “shell” shape that most people associate with the word Shell. Depending on how the shell is designed and what it is filled with, it may be called an explosive shell or a shrapnel shell.

Grape Shot (aka shot) - Basically a bag full of musket balls. Turns the cannon into a great big shotgun, effectively.

Chain Shot - Basically, chains with weights attached to them. Horribly inaccurate at any decent range, but were excellent at destroying your enemy ship’s rigging.

Split Shot - Similar to chain shot, this was basically two hunks of metal attached by a metal bar. It was also used against ship rigging.

This is off the top of my head so I may be forgetting some things.

ETA: Early bombs were also round, which is why they are depicted as round things with a fuse in early cartoons.

(and I was ninja’d by Crafter_Man’s links - I need to type faster)

cool, thanks y’all

I got to see a firing demonstration at Shiloh a few years ago. The lecture covered the same information summarized above. The solid shot was used against enemy cannons. We were told the shot was aimed to hit slightly in front of the enemy gun, hoping for it to bounce up and knock it off its carriage, effectively neutralizing it.

The actual firing was impressive. We saw one gun fire several rounds. The thing that stands out to me was the incredible noise. A line of artillery going off together must sound like the wrath of the gods.

Did they use real 1865 era formula black powder? I hear that stuff created a ton of smoke.

Until you examine it closely you cannot be certain if it is live or not. Odds are from the era it comes from (1750-1800) it would not have any bursting shell effect. THe TSA wasn’t wrong to be suspicious of such an object, even after knowing what it was and where it came from. THe reporter may have just ben quoting TSA agents who stated they were treating the cannonball as ‘live’.

Well, it would be a very bad idea to use modern powder in a replica Civil War cannon.

But yes, black powder by its nature makes a lot of smoke.

Yes, but they could have been using Pyrodex or the like. A lot safer than black powder, but without the higher pressures of modern powders.

In the cartoons, cannonballs always have a fuse and often explode before they’re supposed to.

This provides me with an excuse to tell one of my favorite stories.

I was at a “living history” place for July 4th, one year, and there was a group of Civil War reenactors there. The captain was giving a little lecture before they fired the cannon.

He told about doing research, and how he stumbled across a letter than an artilleryman wrote to his family. The letter said that in the roar of battle, the only way that he could tell when his particular cannon fired was by the recoil.

That’s how noisy the battlefield was.

My brother knows a guy who takes cannon balls that are found, and makes them safe to display in museums and living history settings. Apparently they call the process ‘deflowering’. Just thought I would share.

Keep in mind that some “cannonballs” might have actually been mortar rounds, which were basically big bombs with fuses. Fuses that had to be lit right before firing to light the powder inside. There is still some potential danger there.

I don’t know. There was plenty of smoke. The guys doing the actual firing were reenactors in full kit.

Beck,

…sigh…

deflowering and cannon balls

snerk

you forgot the smiley with your post maybe

Sorry, tried not to, but my mind went there anyway.:slight_smile:

To the original point, though, pyrodex is still essentially black powder (charcoal, sulfur, potassium nitrate) and makes just about as much smoke.

But they might not use the full amount would they?

I hear they once fired a civil war cannon located in a fort in Biloxi. I’d be surprised it would be safe considering how the metal could have gone bad. Or maybe they set it off remotely from a safe distance.

Eh, I’ve seen a lot of Civil War era weapons where the metal isn’t in all that bad of shape. Sure it may have a bunch of surface rust on it, but the metal underneath is fine. You have to be a bit more careful with the thinner metal barrel of a musket, but even with those there are plenty of surviving Civil War muskets that are still in operational condition and are safe to fire. Percentage-wise, a bit of surface rust isn’t going to affect the barrel of a cannon much.

There are a lot of old cannons that are still in good enough shape that you can fire a ball with a full powder load out of them. Also, with modern equipment you can x-ray the barrel and use other instruments that can detect cracks and other flaws that might not be visible on the surface of the barrel. It’s actually probably safer to shoot one of these cannons now than it was back in the day, when such hidden flaws wouldn’t be detected until the cannon exploded or maybe at least bulged its barrel.

For re-enactments they also often don’t load the ball, which puts significantly less strain on the cannon’s barrel.

I personally would be surprised if they didn’t use black powder for their re-enactments. I’m not even a re-enactor and I only use black powder in my reproduction muskets. It’s more fun to use the weapon in a completely authentic way. In my experience, modern powders like pyrodex are used more by hunters during muzzle loading season than by folks using antique or reproduction antique weapons.

not worth the risk. smokeless powders generally are far slower-burning than black powder. old guns would be made with thick, heavy walls of the chamber and first portion of the barrel and relatively thin walls towards the muzzle. this was especially a problem with shotguns in the early days of smokeless powder. Many had barrels made of “Damascus” steel, and got unzipped by the pressures of smokeless powder.

I can report from experience that standing beside a Civil War cannon is loud, but nothing like standing in front of one, even a long way away. I was at a demo where they fired cannons more-or-less in our direction (no projectiles, of course, and possibly reduced powder charges) from across a valley. Even from a distance, being in the cone of shock emanating from the cannon’s muzzle was impressive. The guns across the valley, pointed at us, were alarmingly louder than the ones next to us.