"Why the 1841 6pdr?" Topic

I'm having a hard time seeing why the Americans developed this during the 1830s and 40s. It doesn't appear to be any lighter or better than say the British 6pdr of the Napoleonic wars or the french XI French 6pdr.

The idea was for a light gun to uses in flying batteries. They would to supporting the advance of the Infantry and then if need be cover retreats. Also US Was more worried about defendinf frontier post, then massed battles.

The M1841 6 pound field gun was the final development from 1820 when they were trying to make them from iron. Multiple foundry problems persisted till they switched to bronze in 1835. The M1841 model became the primary field piece with 4 6 pounders and 2 12 pound howitzers to a battery

these guns performed very well in the Mexican-American war. By the time of the Civil War though it was apparent that these guns where ineffective for service as the 12 pound Napoleon was proving to be the weapon of choice along with the newer rifled guns.

In the eastern theater they would be quickly replaced by the Union and the Confederates followed suit soon after. In the west the Confederates kept them in use as supplies of newer pieces took longer. The Union took many of their 6 pounders and had them rifled (James Rifles).

The M1841 model was the final advancement of the 6 pounder and without a need to upgrade until the start of the civil war there was no push to produce large quantities of artillery when they already had a sufficient supply.

Kim

Yes, that's correct. The concept of "flying batteries" utilizing light 6 pounders was first developed during the Mexican American War, and when the ACW broke out, it was the prevalent existing gun, especially in the Western Confederate states. The Army of Tennessee was constantly outgunned by its better equipped Union adversaries.

I would recommend "Cannoneers in Gray" by Larry Daniel for an in-depth study of the Army of Tennessee's artillery, and the role and effectiveness of the 6 pounders.

But it wasnt that much lighter than the XI 6pdr used by France some 50 years earlier. So why not use that one?

Barrle weighed 399kg the carriage 408 for a total of 807kg with out ammo box.

The XI 6pdr weighed about 100kg more.
Seems like a lot of work to save 100kg. The XI 6pdr barrel was lighter than the 1841 barrel. It was the carriage that added the weight. So why not use the XI barrel and make a lighter carriage? It doesn't appear that the 1841 had a longer effective range.

I am going to go out on a limb and say "because its ours".

I suspect it comes down to the U.S. not only wanted to have a weapon that met its military's needs, but also one that could be reliably cast by American founders.

Bill is on the money. The development of our own 6 pounder begin around 1820, 5 years after the War of 1812. The US was at this point developing there own small arms and artillery. Relying on foreign arms would not make sense for an emerging power.

Remember the the 1841 model was the final evolution of the US development of almost 20 years. Even after France developed the 12 pound Napoleon, we did not purchase any, we made our on. When the Civil War started even the Confederates made their own.

Kim

But it wasnt that much lighter than the XI 6pdr used by France some 50 years earlier. So why not use that one?

Why develop the Springfield (1861) when there was the perfectly good Enfield (1853) already created and on the market?

1. It was patented by another country--it was built by another country a long ways away.
2. American manufacturers had to make it which had its own demands and capabilities.
3. The US believed it needed some minor specifics that the Enfield didn't possess.
4. It's the principle of the thing: Our country, our gun.

The M1841 6 pound field gun was the final development from 1820 when they were trying to make them from iron.

Ah, that explains why I occasionally run across mentions of iron 6-pdrs!

Don,

Yes, the switch to bronze started in 1835. There were many problems with iron metallurgy and casting methods that lead to a high percentage of guns that would fracture in proof testing causing entire lots to be rejected. The problem was not that they were made of iron, but poor foundry methods.

Bronze is much more forgiving and the greater ductility makes them much less susceptible fracture.

Kim

Also bronze is lighter (less dense).

Actually not. Bronze is about 8.1 density
While iron has 7.8.

Bronze guns were lighter because you needed less bronze per gun vs iron. Because iron was so brittle they used a lot of it to make them safe. So they became very heavy. While the bronze barrels could be made thinner, so lighter.

The 8.1 density is bronze with zinc. Which I assume was the most common bronze alloy used historically.

Bronze is copper alloyed with tin
Brass is copper alloyed with zinc

Now days there is a multitude of copper alloys with various chemical compositions for different applications.

Bronze is heavier then then iron, easier to cast (lower melting point).

Great for smoothbores, but will wear more then wrought iron or cast iron, which is why rifles where made of iron.

Pound for pound the wrought iron and cast iron guns are stronger so do not need as much mass as a bronze gun. This is why ACW rifled gun barrels way a whole lot less.

Early cast iron Parrott rifles hag issues with brittle fractures (especially the 20# guns). The wrought iron ordinance rifles had only one know such failure in the war.

With the advent of steel gun barrels, the size and weight of gun barrels was greatly reduced after the Civil War.

Kim

One of the only pre-war artillery companies in Tennessee was the Steuben Artillery of Memphis, who possessed one iron 6 pound gun.

An important feature of bronze guns versus those of csst iron is that the failure of a bronze gun tube will result in a bulge or split rather than a violent shattering of the tube.

Parrot guns featured a cast iron barrel with a wrought iron reinforcing band shrunk upon the breech end. They had bad reputation among artillerists for "bursting" their cast iron barrels.

The bronze Napoleons had no such reputation.

Bronze was expensive, though.

B

Interesting! Never knew that about bronze density.

Bronze was expensive, though.

And I believe the Confederacy had very little of it. Not sure whether the bottleneck was the copper or the tin, or both. I've heard that's one reason they didn't copy rifles that used brass cartridges (so guess it was the copper). Always wondered how they managed to make percussion caps, then.

I believe church bells were melted down to make bronze cannon, and Lee once suggested melting old bronze 6-pdrs in order to make more Napoleons.

Don,

Lack of copper forced Tredegar Iron Works to start casting Napoleons out of iron in January of 1864. You can occasionally see one turn up on some battlefields or other memorial sights. I've seen a couple around Richmond.

Kim

I believe that the melting down of bronze 6-pounders to be re-cast as Napoleons by the Confederacy did in fact take place in the eastern theater of the war.

B

Don't forget, as already mentioned, bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. Most of the tin, if not all, was imported since there is still very little tin found in the US. Chances are that most of the tin-ware used in the US was made from British tin-plate.