In Volumes 25, No. 1 and 19, No. 1 The Artilleryman touched upon a subject that makes for interesting debate, viz. sponging cannon. In an endeavor to stir the pot I offer the following brief notes and observations from my own research as well as 40 years of not inapplicable actual experience with muzzleloading small arms and their safety rules.
I envy those who are permitted by government to fire real shot from muzzleloading artillery. My only experience with RML (Rifled Muzzle Loading) cannon is firing blanks at long intervals between shots at Fort Glanville, South Australia (2 pdr. Whitworth [1.75- inch/1.875-inch caliber], 6.3-inch and 10-inch RMLs). I am not an expert on the subject of prematures and accidents; that study has yet to be written by scientific people. (Did I miss it?)
I have re-read The Artilleryman Vol.19/1 and have thus refreshed my thoughts when writing this contribution, and together with your recent work, might spark (no pun intended) more up to date comments on the subject.
Mysterious explosions with guns and gunpowder have been happening ever since they were invented and we are still unsure as to precisely why each has occurred. The unfortunate thing with gunpowder accidents is that in the majority of cases nobody knows they are about to happen until it is too late. In the aftermath the victims are either in heaven or don’t want to divulge how silly they were, but not in all cases perhaps?
Forensic investigators can only make their best judgment or guess. There have been numerous factory explosions over the centuries, but after reading several published 19th century reports I am generally left with that feeling of uncertainty as to the actual causes, e.g., do we really know what happened upon the most recent occasion at GOEX?
In several cases the presumed cause has been unknown and hence for centuries government gunpowder magazine regulations or codes have been based upon both the known and the presumed causes. The known cause has and is generally a situation in which a spark is mixed with dusty gunpowder. This hazard has migrated to muzzleloading guns, particularly cannons.
Accidental explosions are a risk of far quicker action and deadlier consequence (when they occur) than that of high octane fuels mixed with hot engines and racing for time, even hang-glider folk have a chance to escape. Ascribing accidents to “acts of God” and forensic presumptions remains with us.
I am aware that it may not be politic, nor even worth putting to paper an analysis or long-winded verbiage about accidents, but as there is an apparent mystery about the problem I believe otherwise. Hopefully this guff will not encourage gunners to carry out risky experiments without the proper precautions and a knowledge of safety rules.
This subject really needs the input of forensic scientists as to what critical conditions are necessary, in detail, for a gunpowder explosion to occur in guns. Scientific experts might also explain the factors necessary to create electrostatic sparks during the loading cycle, e.g., are certain wool substitutes unsuitable for this reason, and is a wad of Al foil or other metal foils, even nylon or wool, capable of inducing sparks or shielding hot spots?
In the preface to his 3rd edition of The More Complete Cannoneer, Matt Switlik says his “remarks are based on the collective experience of a dozen individuals who have fired thousands of rounds from cannon over the past 30 years....” For the purposes of unraveling the mystery of prematures and accidents it would make interesting reading if the general details of some of these incidents were made public, including rapid fire. Perhaps too many of us would be bored by it? Perhaps The Artilleryman should be less conservative?
I take note about the perils of rapid fire, but wonder what the most common denominator is, excessive heat or carelessness? This may well be a touchy subject and taboo practice to contemplate and from which to survive; I would not advocate it with cannon (except in war!), but I know and have seen it practiced with firearms.
This begs the question regarding the propensity for accidents in firearms versus cannon, where do we draw the line, when does it become dangerous, at 1 inch caliber or what, or is the problem really, only or mainly, associated with bagged charges or larger masses of gunpowder?
Further to this, is it because field artillery was used at a higher rate of fire (than heavier ordnance), and that their barrels, especially the thinner and lighter howitzers, became hot enough to induce prematures? Is it because the large majority of today’s cannoneers fire field guns and hence inflate the accident statistics? Obviously field guns are easier to transport and cheaper to use, especially for the scaled down stuff.
My main contribution is with respect to extracts from books relating to naval guns, including boat howitzers. I include information from British and French sources, not just the excellent stuff from the USA. One of the sad things with British sources, even though they go back to the 16th century, is that the topic is not fully explained. I, of course, must have missed something!
I am unfortunate in not being now able to access British archives, which in any case would be a tiresome task. I would also need to be literate in old English and foreign languages. Unlike the USA, British reports were not widely circulated or published in the 19th century, and the various drill manuals, treatises, parliamentary papers and the press which I have seen have failed to explain the nitty-gritty of the “why” of sponging the gun. Perhaps Royal Artillery loading numbers were more expendable?
Before I list the sources consulted I wish to give my humble opinion as to the probable causes of prematures. Stupidity and carelessness are left for your imagination to ponder. Please take note of my constant use of words like “presume” and “probable.”
Probable causes
A remnant of cartridge bag, of whatever material, has become stuck in the cavity of an eroded or faulty vent on the inside of the gun and was not snuffed out by the sponge or “quenched” with a damp one. In this case the pricker may have failed to dislodge or push the live remnant back into the bore for snuffing or dousing.
If the vent had been properly served (stopped), i.e., that no air escaped past the thumb-stall or vent-server (a plug used in the later British service) then the theory is that dry sponges or even damp ones would have robbed the remnant of oxygen and it would have died of suffocation.
The action of sponging pushes the air out of the bore and chamber by forcing the air to escape past and through the material of the sponge. Are CO2 injectors yet compulsory?
Sponges for smooth bore guns were apparently designed to be a little over caliber (bore) size. The third edition of The (US) Ordnance Manual 1862, p.128, says that for the woven woolen sponge, the head was 1 inch less than caliber in diameter. This was to allow for a covering after the manner of Brussels Carpet (a worsted carpet with a heavy pile formed by uncut loops of wool on a linen warp).
The loops were noted as being .75 inches in depth. If uncut, then this would mean the sponge would be .5 inch over caliber, and which begs the question, how tight was this? If the pile was shorn back to .5 inch then the sponge would equal caliber, but was it then too loose? I presume it was.
The second edition of The (US) Artillerists’ Manual 1863, p.291, said that the covering ended up being .5 inch thick, so the final diameter was probably caliber size. I would presume that whether dry or wet (what happened when it was raining?) the sponge should maintain its diameter.
If it became worn the sponger would be obliged to ensure it swept the chamber area properly, and this would mean a lot more sponging and greater risk. How would he know, by feel or intuition? If anybody has experienced air compression when sponging then I would presume their sponge was faulty. A sponge covering of incorrect material or one that is all clogged up would most probably cause this.
Taking this to extremes we might find somebody pushing the whole scale-cannon back over the wet grass, somebody else putting their foot behind the wheel to stop this, and then finding the sponge as equally difficult to withdraw, or the sponge pops out under compressed air! (Do I hear laughter because I have struck a raw nerve?)
In heavy ordnance the gun drill allows for two men to work the sponge, but I would think not for field artillery, presuming of course we know where to draw the line between field, medium and heavy artillery, if these terms are appropriate. Surely the sponge should be just tight enough to sweep the bore and pick up (after twisting it the regulated number of turns in both directions) the remnants of the cartridge bag.
How often are remnants of cartridge bags found in the chamber? According to Boudriot’s French extracts (Book 8 hereunder) the sponge should draw out loose elements of the cartridge bag on the fleece. I would presume that an aluminum foil cartridge bag might tend to stick to chamber walls so firmly that both the worm and sponge might be ineffective in dislodging it. Does this happen, and is it more likely to happen after the first shot on a dry, damp or oiled bore?
A tight sponge would have the advantage of better reaching the cavity around the vent, but how could you be sure the ember was smothered? In times past it was the practice to take wax or gutta-percha impressions of the bore and vent after so many shots had been fired. Should the modern equivalent of this be done after every shoot?
The more I think about it the more I shudder at the possibility of something becoming faulty during a shoot, but I guess this is the risk cannoneers and others are willing to take when they do something which insurers are wary of. Do the latter know more than ye cannoneers?
If the gun is rifled then the sponge should be seen to scour the grooves as well as the bore. Ideally the grooves should not pass to the end of the chamber, but rather stop short of the bottom. A smooth chamber would be better than one cut with rifling grooves, surely? If your piece contains a steel sleeve made from a section of, for example, a modern 105mm barrel, then you might have a gun with rifling to the breech face.
In the 19th century one of the reasons for not running the rifling all the way to the breech face (not referring here to rifle-muskets) was to prevent a weakening of the strength of the chamber by the grooves. This practice, for example, was adopted in British RMLs using studded projectiles to ensure a consistent chamber space beneath the projectile when firing reduced charges, etc. These projectiles were stopped by their studs at the end of the rifling.
The question arises as to what effect the air, which escapes over or past the sponge, has upon a die-hard ember? This question includes the ramming phases of the cartridge and projectile. Sure, the vent is stopped, but the air still has to be displaced. I would think that the farther the vent is from the bottom of the chamber the greater the likelihood of the ember being fanned. Am I nit-picking? Quien sabe?
Any similar cavities, such as casting flaws, chaplets, rust scaling, cracked sleeves, imperfections in the joint between the breech plug and tube, or even rifling, could entrap or imbed an ember and cause a similar accident. The word “accident” ain’t really legally acceptable as a defense if the bore is never inspected.
A damp sponge should reduce the risk but not at the expense of leaving a puddle of water in the chamber which could cause a build up of unconsumed cartridge bags and/or gunpowder if the worm (called a searcher or wad hook in late 19th century British texts) lacks efficacy.
If it was not for this build up in the breech area I would have thought that water was the most logical thing to put out a fire with. If not snared by the worm (like Al foil has a propensity for doing [?]), then you may not know that a problem has started. I have no idea as to how far this problem might progress before the sober sponger felt something was wrong.
Putting historical authenticity aside for a moment, have worm types been tested to see which is the most effective? I can think of single and double prongs, light springy prongs, turks-heads, etc.
One thing to watch out for when loading is that the seam of sewn cartridge bags should be placed at the bottom side of the bore when entered at the muzzle. If it is a rifled gun some allowance might be made for the rifling twist so as to ensure the seam of the cartridge does not end up near the vent after seating, e.g. a half turn of the rifling could cause the seam to make a half turn in the bore, and if this regularly occurs or you don’t know, then you might end up with more crap in the vent cavity or vent than what you should.
Another cause of prematures might be any burr or sharp edge of metal in the bore or chamber, which could act as a “hot spot” or spark plug! It would be nice to know how hot these flaws would have to be before they caused ignition by having their temperature raised by the action of loading.
We know what the temperature of ignition of gunpowder dust is, don’t we? Still a mystery? What could encourage this process might be a cartridge bag getting torn on the burr, with the resulting escape of gunpowder and its dust being fanned by the ramming process (either when ramming the bag or shell) to disaster. Of course the burr would have to be fairly nasty, but I have seen such things in small arms, not to mention a gap between the breech plug face and inside of the barrel.
Muzzleloading small arms
The previous paragraph brings to mind a type of accident that has occurred with firearms in Australia, both were some years apart. I was present to record the known facts afterwards.
The rifles used were replica (new) percussion slug guns, i.e., they used groove diameter lead and lead alloy bullets. What these two target shooters were doing was to push a wet patch (wiper) down the bore to clean it of fouling and thus present the next delicate bullet with a nice clean or slick surface. The cleaning head was of the brass cannulared cylinder type, just big enough in diameter to take a tight fitting single cotton patch. There is nothing unusual or untoward in this.
About the only way muzzleers have of knowing if they have made the patch too wet is to see if the nipple exudes moisture, sometimes drops of water, during loading. Examining subsequent dry patches is not an effective way of recognizing the problem. Experimentation usually determines the best method.
The wet patch was then followed by a dry patch. In both cases the breech area was not scoured (only the rifling), thus allowing fouling to accumulate at the bottom where the vent was. Gunpowder FFg or FFFg was then poured in vertically from phials (powder horns and flasks are similarly disallowed under International Muzzleloading rules in case of prematures) and followed with a bullet in the one case, and with a wad separate to the bullet in the other.
They then short-started their bullets into the bore with a short-starter and followed with the ramrod. Both of them had their hammers on half-cock so as to allow the air to escape through the nipple (vent).
Note: The majority of muzzleers load with their hammers on half-cock (safety), and millions of shots are loaded in this way all over the world without accident. A certain percentage of them have their eyes and brain over the muzzle during the loading process. Eventually somebody’s number comes up, almost like automobile accidents, but not so frequently.
In most cases some of the air escapes past the bullet, and hence the amount of air compression during ramming varies, but in all cases, excepting the few who load with their hammers down (not necessarily air tight) air is forced through the whole length of the powder charge, aerating it with cool to hot air in the process and finally escaping out of the vent. The main reason for this is to prevent blocked nipples or vents and resulting hangfires and misfires.
While a percussion lock cannot have its vent (nipple hole) pricked, flintlock shooters can, but neither really serve their vents in the artillery sense. This practice of forcing air through a column of gunpowder sounds like we are all asking for trouble!
The air of course in the two cases being described had no escape past the bullet or tight fitting wad. At some point during the downstroke the powder ignited, sending the heavy (5/16-inch diameter) ramrods, in both cases, skywards. One ramrod wrapped itself around the rafter of the roof, but not before it, together with the ramrod guide, severely lacerated the shooter’s hand, but without broken bones. The bullet was later found nearby, looking like a mushroom. The other ramrod, not under a roof, landed, not on the car, but down range, and the T-handle end of the ramrod took off part of a finger.
These were cases of a high compression of air (some call it the diesel-effect), an aggregation of fouling (possibly damp), new gunpowder in the bottom of the chamber, and a possible hot spot.
As an aside, what has the putting of wet coke on a blacksmith’s forge fire got in common with this? I wonder! Both rifles were warm at the time (the barrels were not too hot to hold with the bare hands). In the case of the chap with the lacerated hand he now cleans the bore after the wad is set in place, but still allows the fouling to build up in the chamber each day.
In the other case it was found that his nipple drum, where it entered the bore, had sharp edges (the threads) exposed. It was believed that this was a hot spot. This was the case with some of the ‘el cheapo’ caplocks of times past and maybe even the present.
Although it is difficult to believe that the delays in reloading would not allow a hot spot to cool down, nevertheless with high compression, more than what occurs in a bicycle pump, it appears that such things are a potential problem. You might think that this is exaggerating the problem, but when unexplained accidents continue to reoccur we should not forget them — if only we knew why!
Not all firearms and cannons of the same model necessarily have the same characteristics, but another question needs to be asked, and that is, how much greater is the risk for an accidental explosion to occur when loading as the temperature of the barrel rises? It can’t be less.
Would the use of Cannon grade gunpowder reduce the risk of prematures? I refer here to real cannon powder, i.e. large granules or pellets. I am implying that when (not if) rifle powders are used in real cannons there is a much larger propensity for the powder, as the granules decrease in size, to contain dust, i.e. gunpowder in its finest and most highly dangerous form. Cheap gunpowders are the main offenders, but other factors also play a part, e.g. powder which has been shaken a lot during transport and carriage upon the person. Examine the contents of your powder horn for dust.
One of the aforementioned victims now sieves his gunpowder in an effort not only to maintain accuracy at the target, but to rid it of dust. With the possible exception of Swiss powder, today’s gunpowders are of such varying quality he may be wasting his time.
Since gunpowder dust is, I believe, the greatest threat to the user, its presence should always be defended against. Wearing Magazine shoes on the range won’t really help!
Reference books
One of the presumptions which we should not make is taking drill manuals too literally. Just because the text repeatedly makes no mention of certain things does not mean they did not occur. This depended upon the compiler/author of the manual in the first edition, implying that subsequent revisers did not take a new approach and perhaps believed that whatever was missing would either be passed on by the artillery instructors at the guns or that it was common sense or intuition. [The big Oxford English Dictionary’s definitions of these words may be enlightening, Richard Craniums excepted]. Reports of unexplained accidents are probably the result of interpreting these words.
It is also highly probable that the manuals were kept reasonably short because what purpose would have been served by filling them with ifs and buts if all it did was to raise the fears of those who served the guns. I presume that prematures were just one of the risks, like getting up in the morning.
The US Government certainly made inroads into detailed information, but unfortunately not all in the same book. Sea service practice may or may not have strictly applied to the land service, especially with the much used field artillery. The mind boggles at the frequency of prematures during the wars of past centuries. I suppose such things generally went unrecorded except during peace time.
The following books are the only ones I found which gave additional information (to your references) of relevance and interest:
Book 1. The Artillerist’s Manual 1860 by John Gibbon. (Reprint 1970)
p.257- “Loading — In long pieces, the vent should always be kept carefully closed while the loading is going on, especially when sponging, to prevent the current of air from passing out and collecting there pieces of thread, paper, &c from the cartridge bag, which would retain fire in the gun, and cause premature explosion the next time the gun was loaded. This precaution is the more necessary when the sponge fits the bore tight, and acts as a piston. The sponge should be well pressed down against the bottom of the bore and turned, so as to leave no remnant of the cartridge bag.”
p.260- “In loading the mountain howitzer it is best to keep the sponge moistened, especially when the piece is fired rapidly.”
p.338- “Sponge bucket — This bucket is used to contain water for dipping the sponge in when washing out the pieces.” (This does not mention sponging.)
Book 2. Instructions for Heavy Artillery. GPO Washington 1863
p.25- Art. 54:- “No.1 envelopes the sponge head in the wiper, and wipes out the bore...”
p.28- Art. 58:- Service of 10 inch Siege Mortar. (The wiper listed among the implements refers to the wiping of the bore as described at p.450 of Book 3. Also in Book 3, Art. 448 under duties of No. 4, it says that “he provides an empty cartridge bag for wiping shell.”
p.31- Art. 64:- “the gunner ... introduces the cartridge into the mouth of the chamber with the right hand, and carefully pours in the powder; returns the cartridge bag to No. 4, and distributes the powder evenly over the bottom of the chamber.” [This messy job required the chap with his arm in the bore to wear “sleeves,” especially useful for the longer heavy mortars. The reason for this job was to vary the charge for different ranges.]
p.39- Art. 88:- Service of a 10 inch Seacoast Mortar — “The cartridge, its bag being of bombazine (a silk-worsted mix) or flannel, is put directly into the chamber...”
p.42-43- Part 1, Lesson 9, Art. 97:- Service of a gun mounted on a Barbette Carriage. (There is no mention of “sponge bucket.” A water bucket for “washing” out would not be listed among implements for the gun, rather it would be part of general stores, correct?)
p.46- Art. 105:- “Sponge — No’s 1 & 2 pressing the sponge firmly against the bottom of the bore, turn it three times right to left and three times left to right...”
p.50- Art. 114:- “Cease firing — Whether the cannoneers are loading by detail or for action the piece is sponged out and all resume their posts.” (Not to be confused with washing it out.)
Book 3. Ordnance Instructions for the United States Navy 1866. GPO Washington (in 3 parts)
Part 1, Chapter 4, p.48, Art. 211- Preparation of Vessels of War for Battle:- Exercise of Broadside guns, 9 inch Shell gun:- “The Side-Tacklemen...moisten the sponge, being certain that the end of the sponge which touches the bottom of the bore is thoroughly wet...”
p.49- Art. 220- “Serve the vent and sponge — No. 4 receives the moist sponge from No. 6...”
p.54- Art. 229- “the loader swabs the deck to collect any loose powder which may have been scattered on it.”
p.61- Art. 242- Exercise of Pivot guns 11 inch Shell gun, Equipment and Implements:- includes “Water-buckets and large swab,” one per gun.
p.64- Art. 245- Exercise of Pivot 11 inch Cannon, “Cast Loose” — Buckets of water, fill; Wet swabs, bring. (Footnote:- “Principally to moisten the Sponge, which ought never to be omitted, as there is nothing so effectual in extinguishing any fragments that might remain burning in the Bore, and cause accidental explosion in loading, particularly in blank firing. It is a mistake to suppose that this practice increases the foulness of the Bore; on the contrary, it prevents from hardening and accumulating, as long experience has shown. Sometimes it is convenient for the Spongers to dip the Sponge alongside, [in the sea?] and they soon acquire the habit. Superfluous moisture is easily gotten rid of by twirling the Sponge at the handle.”
p.74- Art. 256-258- “Notes upon the Manual Exercise, Fourth Command, “Serve vent and sponge!” “The Gun Captain serves, then stops the vent!”
Art. 256- “A difference of opinion being entertained among artillerists with regard to the utility of stopping the vent, the continuance of the practice, as directed in the text, is recommended.
The thumbstall has been made of various materials, but its use is sometimes inconvenient for the Gun Captain, and he cannot feel that the vent is stopped. At the Experimental Battery at the Ordnance Yard the naked thumb is used, and experience shows that the gun is never so hot as to occasion the least inconvenience, except with howitzers.”
Art. 257- “It has been the uniform practice at the Experimental Battery at the Ordnance Yard, Washington, also on board the Gunnery Ship Plymouth, in 1857-’58, to use a moist sponge; and as no accident from premature explosion has taken place in either case, the inference is that the method is a safe one, and might obviate other precautions, especially where reloading is necessary, as in firing salutes, when, there being no shot over the cartridge, it is imperfectly consumed.”
Art. 258- “Strikes the staff several smart taps under the muzzle!” to shake off any adhering fragments of cartridge. Should any burning fragments be drawn out, the Loader extinguishes them with the wet swab; the Gun Captain again commands ‘Sponge.’”
p.102, 3- Art.392 (Chapter 5, Rifled Cannon):- “It is, however, essential —
1st. That the base of every rifle projectile, especially the Parrott, shall be thickly greased before entering it into the gun. (Footnote:- The Schenkl, Hotchkiss and some other projectiles, have a small quantity of grease attached.) For this purpose common pork slush, prepared by several washings in hot fresh water, may be used.
2d. That the bores of all guns shall be frequently washed, the grooves of rifled guns cleaned of all residuum and dirt, and a moist sponge invariably used. After firing, the bore should be oiled with a sponge.” ...etc. re fouling.
p.109- Art.421 (Chapter 6, Monitors, Long and Short 15 inch Guns, Manual Exercise...Right Gun, “Serve vent and Sponge!”
“Gun Captain serves, then stops the Vent. No. 3 passes to left of muzzle. No. 4 receives the moist Sponge-head from 6, and, assisted by 3, enters it in the Bore and forces it down as far as the first section.”...
p.116-7- Art.450 Manual Exercise 13 inch Mortar, “Serve vent and Sponge!
1st Captain inserts his priming-wire and clears the vent. No. 3 scrapes the chamber and bore, removes scrapings with the spoon. [for the coffee?] No. 4 takes the empty cartridge-bag and wipes out the mortar, then uses the sponge to thoroughly cleanse the chamber and bore; as soon as this operation is performed, the Captain again serves the vent. Should there be any fire or dirt pushed down, the sponging will be repeated.” [If raining use umbrella?] Note: A sketch of this combination scraper/spoon is at PL.13, No. 221 in the Artillerist’s Manual 1860.
p.15- Part 2, Art.27b- The Equipment and Manoeuvre of Boats — The Boat Howitzer:-
“Too much care cannot be used in sponging, as a premature explosion endangers life and limb. A moist sponge is to be preferred, for contact with it must surely extinguish every trace of fire in the bore.”
“It may be considered as a safeguard against accident, for during many years’ practice, in proving pieces and exercising the men to fire rapidly — ordinarily, seven or eight times in a minute — not a single instance of premature explosion has occurred.”
Book 4 American Artillerists’ Companion by Louis de Tousard, 1809 (Reprint 1969)
Vol. 2, p.402-3- “Of Naval Gunnery — there are three steps in the loading process of interest:-
“The spunge into the Gun! — The spungers press the spunge to the bottom of the bores.”
“Spunge your Gun! — They withdraw the spunge one foot from the bottom and press them again; turning the spunge three times, so that every particle of fire may be extinguished which might otherwise have remained with the bottom of the cartridge, or some light threads of the wad.”
“Strike your Spunge on the gun! — He strikes the spunge on the chace in order to shake off whatever may remain on the spunge.” [I would have thought that this happened with all cannon, but does not get a mention in many books.]
Book 5. A Treatise on Naval Gunnery, 1855 by General Sir Howard Douglas. (Reprint 1982)
p.442- Art.422- On the Manual Exercise of Naval Artillery — At the word “Sponge, No.4 ...forces it hard home to the bottom of the bore in two motions, gives it two round turns, withdraws it hand over hand, gives it two smart taps under the muzzle...”
p.454- Art.428- “Stop the vent, sponge and give the rammer,” in the 2nd motion — the sponger, aided by the loader, turns the sponge several times at the bottom of the bore, so as to make use also of the worm, which is let into the centre of the sponge head; he then withdraws it, turning it round continually, and gives it several blows to throw off any dirt &c.... The right rear-man...inspects the sponge...”
Book 6. Manual of Artillery Exercises 1873, HMSO, London.UK.
Rifled Field Artillery:
p.3 “A sponge for rifled guns should be high (high or maximum gauge), it should be allowed to take the twist of the rifling and forced to the bottom of the bore. The sponge should be kept well damped, as the loading is thereby facilitated.” [Note: What the author(s) does not say is how! He may be referring to avoiding the embarrassment of blowing away nose-scratchers, or he may be referring to the lubricating effect which a wet bore has when ramming (pushing, not battering) heavy cylindro-conoidal studded projectiles into rifled and fouled bores.]
p.5- “...and forces the sponge head home... He then gives the sponge two half turns...at the same time pressing the sponge against the bottom of the bore.”
p.16- Rifled Breechloading Armstrong. This section mentions the use of water to sponge the bore and refers to the draught which occurs when the breech is opened, causing smoldering remnants to flare up in the chamber.
p.36- Heavy RML Ordnance — “Prepare for Action” includes:-”sponge bucket filled, water brush,... the sponge bucket near the sponge head.”
p.41- “Cease firing”— “After firing, the bore should be washed out..., and, when the bore is dry the tampeon (or tompion) put in.”
p.50- 7, 9, 10, 11 & 12 inch RMLs on Traversing Platforms — “No.6...cleans the sponge with the brush and damps it.”
p.80- 8, 10 & 13 inch Land Service Mortars — “Sponge bucket, filled; and sheepskin,(to wipe the bottom of shells and carcass prior to loading).”
Book 7 Siege and Garrison Artillery Exercises 1877, HMSO, London
No mention of a sponge bucket is made regarding various natures of RML and SB guns.
p.208 & 249- 7 and 10 inch RMLs — “At the end of each day’s practice the guns will be washed out and placed under metal (muzzles depressed), and when dry, lightly oiled with a sponge to prevent rusting....the muzzle closed with tampeons. When not in use the bores will be lacquered.”
p.219 and 242- 7 & 9inch RMLs— “after withdrawal of the sponge the No .4 cleans and damps the sponge.”
Book 8 The Seventy Four Gun Ship by Jean Boudriot 1986 (English edition)
This is a secondary source but is based upon numerous French and some English sources, and refers to the late 18th century. It is very well illustrated.
Vol. 2, p.169- “Swab — is made of handfuls of hemp fibres 2’-2.5’ long, doubled over in the middle and made to take a handle,... the strands unravel at the ends and form a mop. Each gun has its own half-tub filled with water....A swab is dipped in the half-tub and used to swab out (not sponge out) the gun or to wet and mop up any loose powder scattered on the port-sill or in front of the carriage”.
Vol. 4, p.123- “Orders in Exercising the Great Guns — The tompion is a circular plug of cork well greased with tallow...”
p.124- The lead apron is pushed forward during action. The vent when beneath the apron is plugged with a small twist of tow soaked with tallow. “...then the sponge is withdrawn with a twisting movement and laid across the muzzle where it is struck three times against the swelling to shake off any sparks or fragments of the cartridge.” (Compare with Book 9)
There is no mention of wetting the sponge. Did Boudriot overlook this? However, he says, “Whenever the opportunity arises the bore may also be washed out with fresh water” and “At the first sign of rusting the bore must be carefully sponged with a mixture of hot tallow and oil.”
p.126 “If...the vent is properly stopped, the sponge smothers the glowing fragments.”
Book 9. Falconer’s Marine Dictionary (1780) (reprint 1970)
p.64- “Cannon...the spunge...is used to clean the pieces after firing, and to extinguish any sparks that may remain behind.”
p.119- “Exercise of the Great Guns- Spunge your Gun— The spunge is to be rammed down to the bottom of the chamber, and then twisted round, to extinguish effectually any remains of fire; and when drawn out, to be struck against the outside of the muzzle, to shake off any sparks or scraps of the cartridge that may have come out with it,..”
Note:- The “Exercise of the Great Guns” has also been reprinted as a separate booklet.
Book 10. Manual for South Australian Garrison Artillery 1888.
Gun drill, Mechanical Loading, for the 10 inch 20 ton RML Armstrong (radial vent).
In the Armstrong mechanical loading system of the late 1870s, both sea and land service, there was no sponge. Instead of this there was a hydraulic water jet apparatus, i.e. a pump operated by a hydraulic accumulator, and which squirted water up the bore into the 12 inch diameter chamber to quench any remnants of silk cartridge bags. The rate of fire for this 10 inch gun was around 1.5 minutes.
The drill said that the searcher (worm) was used when necessary, and it gets a mention at the commencement of the drill but not thereafter. Perhaps in this instance the searcher was used to locate dead marines or cats? Maybe it was unnecessary to use the searcher after every shot, especially in such a large gun (minimum of 100 lbs. charge) where the silk was no thicker than that used in smaller calibers. I presume that any build up in the bottom of the chamber was negligible in this gun.
In a way this example is not exactly relevant to field artillery because the cartridge was only 9.5 inches diameter, and was not rammed to fill the chamber, so one could say that the vent, at 19 inches from the bottom of the chamber, never got close enough to the cartridge bag to touch it.
The 2,000 pdr. RMLs on Gibraltar and Malta as well as on some of the battleships of both the British and Italian navies also used this system. All of the guns were pointed into the loading gallery during the loading cycle, and I gather the authorities were fairly confident that prematures would not occur, provided, of course, that the impressions of the vent and bore were regularly taken, such being fairly critical where the bigger the caliber the shorter the barrel life, referring here to erosion of the rifling (and vent) and therefore accuracy.
Unfortunately, all of the secondary (modern) books consulted failed to detail what actually happens during sponging, almost as if it was unnecessary to say so,..... common sense?
In view of the litigious tendencies of certain people today, especially somebody who is slapped in the face by a smoldering severed hand or arm, I would not only support the practice of using a wet and a dry sponge, but also all of those other safety practices mentioned in the National Safety Rules and Procedures for Shooting Muzzleloading Artillery (USA).
About the author: Frank Garie of South Australia is a longtime Artilleryman contributor. He hopes this article will generate some discussion. We took the liberty of Americanizing his English spellings and, by the way, he notes that no Australian uses the term “Down-Under.”