And it was truly an art, and art is usually difficult to quantify. By the late 18th century, the appropiate amounts of carbon, manganese, phosphorus, silicon, etc weren't yet known and tool steel wasn't where it needed to be. Today we're fortunate to be able to measure to the nth degree. In hindsight we tend to lump history into one event and forget the advances as they surfaced in the timeline. But to only quantize a unit in one of today's unit is a mistake. The original intent of bore or gauge was to be integers and possibly nothing less. The term probably originated for cannon dimensions with which iron was used. Early on, iron was probably difficult to melt and the element of lead was chosen due to the change of state at a lower tempature. The English had a factor of 12 fetish and could possibly explain the dominance of the 12 bore. 16 bore, a favorite of the continent, just happens to be a 1 oz weight/density and could have originally gone hand in hand w/ the term zweilothige kugeln. So where is the Bureau of Standards 12 bore and 16 bore lead spheres(who's inch/pounce, density, pound)? More than likely, they don't exist and insight can be achieved thru understanding the method or technique of the era, not mirco-measuring. An attempt was made in the 1887 rules w/ the "vulgar fractions" to make an equation between bore and inches w/ some variances which were now noted.
Regarding the cartridges, Berdan, Boxer, Daw, ect. were trying to make their mark on gunnery as well as pinfire being in full swing. Many held fast to the belief that the muzzle loader was king and that breechloaders were a passing fad. Others were having their muzzle loaders converted. So one has to look at the cartridge manufactures like H. Uttendoerffer in Nuernberg, Eley and many other to get an idea of what cartridges were available because standardization just didn't exist.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Last edited by ellenbr; 05/23/08 10:54 PM.
