Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Staale Sannerud wrote:
Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would

make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which

sometimes

did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as

iron

ones by the way.

do you have a cite for this 4x figure.

vince



The table at
http://www.cwartillery.org/art-cost.html

shows bronze guns costing between 4 times and 6 times
an iron gun in the early 1860's

Keith


not for gun of about the same size.

the 3 inch ordnance rifle cost $330 the Comparably sized 12pounder
napoleon cost 490. Most of the cost of a cannon is in the boring and
turning , which don't change much with the size.

Vince

"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Keith Willshaw wrote:
"Vince Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Staale Sannerud wrote:
Including the price of the guns in the ship building price would

make sense if the guns were cast especially for that ship, which

sometimes

did happen esp. with bronze guns. They were around 4x as expensive as

iron

ones by the way.

do you have a cite for this 4x figure.

vince



The table at
http://www.cwartillery.org/art-cost.html

shows bronze guns costing between 4 times and 6 times
an iron gun in the early 1860's

Keith


not for gun of about the same size.

the 3 inch ordnance rifle cost $330 the Comparably sized 12pounder
napoleon cost 490. Most of the cost of a cannon is in the boring and
turning , which don't change much with the size.


You are comparing Apples and Oranges

The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
much less boring and turning than a rifle

The true comparison is between an iron
smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
while admittedly larger than the napoleons
were also smoothbores

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:


The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
much less boring and turning than a rifle

The true comparison is between an iron
smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
while admittedly larger than the napoleons
were also smoothbores

I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much. The cost of boring
(drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same. Bronz if
anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron.

Vince

vincent Brannigan wrote in message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote:


The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
much less boring and turning than a rifle

The true comparison is between an iron
smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
while admittedly larger than the napoleons
were also smoothbores

I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much. The cost of boring
(drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same. Bronz if
anything is cheaper to bore and turn than iron.

Rifling costs nothing. It's knowing the pitch of the
rifling that costs a fortune. Which is why
smoothbores still do what they've always done on
the battlefield. Which is die in numbers too large
to fit in New York City, or Gettysburg. So we
have are forced to open new cemetaries in Washington, D.C.





Vince

In message , "Keith Willshaw" wrote:

You are comparing Apples and Oranges

The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
much less boring and turning than a rifle

The true comparison is between an iron
smoothbore and a napoleon.

Wrought Iron or cast iron? The 3-inch Ordnance Rifle was far more expensive
than the cast iron Parrot. The Columbiads though were coastal/siege artillery,
and also not comparable to a field gun. A better comparison would be between
the iron guns and the bronze James Rifles (pattern II?) (though I'm not certain
if the latter were wrought or cast bronze). Unfortunately, info on the James
(the manufactured as rifles version and not the old rifled 6 pounder
smoothbores) is rather rare.

--
Regards,

Michael P. Reed