Cast Steel for Ordnance

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Charles Sanderson, in a paper recently read before the British Society of Arts upon the subject of Iron, remarks that much has been advanced in favor of the manufacture of ordnance from cast steel, but he does not think that good and serviceable pieces of artillery can be manufactured from such metal. There is no great practical difficulty in casting a mass of steel two or even three tuns weight, but the irregular crystallization of so large a body of steel, melted in parcels of fifty pounds in a crucible is unfavorable to that uniform molecular structure which such castings should possess, since upon their excellence f often depends the issue of a siege or action. Although wrought iron ordnance cannot be depended upon, they are better than cast steel, but their perfection is much impaired by the necessity of piling masses of iron together. He admits that a weld can be perfectly made, but two surfaces when oxydized can never become one amalgamated body, without the oxygen be reduced at the moment when the union is effected. Wrought iron guns have given excellent results when fired at slow intervals, but if a continuous quick firing were kept up, he doubts their being able to withstand the shocks ; they would, he thinks, after each round become gradually weaker through the welded surfaces.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 13 Issue 49This article was published with the title “Cast Steel for Ordnance” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 13 No. 49 (), p. 390
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican08141858-390a

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe