A very interesting and thought-provking posting. Thank you very much for taking the time to write and post it. There is much that is accurate in it. I do apologize for taking so long to respond, but it is the end of the school year and it is quite hectic and busy with state testing, etc
Just to set the record straight I was not being condescending to anyone recommending that gunnery and ballistics texts should be read. That was merely a recommendation based on the subject matter being discussed. The issue of ammunition is an interesting one and without a little basic reference to gunnery and ballistics it might be difficult to understand how artillery rounds 'act' when fired and go down range. Some of the artillery manuals of the period, such as Smola's, Tousard's and others are quite technical and have a lot of mathematics in them, some of it concerned with the ballistic flight of projectiles and how rounds perform when fired. I was merely trying to be helpful. During a discussion of this type I consult the artillery references that I have before replying and I have quite a few in my library. Many times as you know it is difficult to communicate 'attitude' when posting or in an email especially when you're not trying to provoke.
I certainly believe that everyone has a right to his or her say. That being the case, when something being posted is incorrect, as was being done by some of the members regarding what a canister round does when it is fired, then correction is due if possible. I do believe that I provided correct primary source information as well as methods to find the answer. If that is not accepted, then that's fine also. There is a difference, however between tolerance and acceptance. We should all be tolerant of others' opinions, but there is no requirement to accept incorrect information. And as I was neither rude nor disrepectful to anyone, I really don't understand your response.
I don't accept the analogy between the flight of a canister round and the galloping of a horse The idea to me was somewhat ludicrous, though I didn't say that. Perhaps this is a better one: rifling has been known and understood for centuries. at least from the mid-1500s. Basically, artillerymen knew that it put spin on the round and made it more accurate. Those gunsmiths that produced rifled long arms also knew what it did to the ball-it put spin on the round which gave it better range and accuracy. There were no cameras to film it-it was known through experience and the results of what happened when fired. It's the same with canister-tests were done and the results seen and inspected-the tin canister ruptured in the bore and the contents, the iron balls inside the tin can, were discharged by the piece in a cone that grew as the balls traveled down range. I have seen no evidence given to the contrary.
Interestingly, you took me to task for relying on secondary sources during the Plattsburg discussion. That was fair, but you wouldn't let it go when I suggested that we should 'agree to disagree.' That's fine also. Now, however, you are taking me to task when I have provided primary source material to support the argument and both Stephen and Paul have not. That presents a conundrum logically to me, but perhaps you could ponder the conundrum and present one of your usual well-thought out postings on the subject.