Talk:Mons Meg

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force British military history task force European military history task force

I've updated it with information from the Royal Armouries monograph, which seems to be the most up to date source of information on Mons Meg.Calcinations (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but your additions state two differect calibres: 18" and 20". Which is correct? Also, what does it mean that "Megs official statistics were"? Have they changed? And if so how and when? Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, missed one. I'm working off the Royal Armouries monograph, which describes the most up to date research I've seen- they even X-rayed Meg to find out how it was made, but I am not yet sure how to put footnotes into the text. Calcinations (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Looking at the page, I am having trouble working out how to put references in, and since the first writer didn't, I don't know which bits are quoted from which sources, therefore I could re-write the entire page with references if I can only work out how. That would be much better, but I don't have access to some of the sources mentioned in the notes. So would that count as losing information or what? Calcinations (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.It seems to be the biggest pre-18th century cannon... Maybe calibre records for firearms by date, much like the "Timeline_of_three_tallest_structures_in_the_world" could be made... And one for muzzle velocity too... 2.What's Mons Meg's muzzle velocity?Undead Herle King (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - The 15th-century

Great Turkish Bombard apparently had a calibre of 750mm. And 2 - I have no idea. But maybe the book Calcinations mentioned could tell you. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Since I (And I assume millions more) saw Mon Meg firing on the battlements of the Castle to bring in 2010, I've added a wee part to the article. The Telegraph have an article on it - http://living.scotsman.com/hogmanayandthechristmasfestivals/Hogmanay-will-be-a-blast.2286348.jp

Kaenei (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I concur http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/tna/+/http://www.mod.uk:80/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/PeopleInDefence/shannonTheCannonEdinburghsDistrictGunner.htm Brendandh (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good enough for me, thats all i wanted was verification. thanks Smitty1337 (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any records of this weapon actually seeing any combat use, or has it turned out to be a bit of a white elephant? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article quotes shot "weighing about 400 lb (180 kg)". I assume this is iron, most probably cast iron. If solid wrought iron, it should weigh closer to 1200 lb (520 kg). I calculate this from the well-known geometrical formula volume of a sphere v = 4/3*pi*r^3. Diameter = 20 inches --> radius = 10 inches --> r^3 = 1000. 1000*4/3=1333.33*pi cu. in. = 4189 cu. in. or, equivalently, 0.0686 m^3. Since cast iron weighs (depending on the specific alloy) between 6800-7800 kg per m^3, this calculates to a weight (at 2.2 lb per kg) of 1026-1178 lb for a solid cast iron ball 20 inches diameter. If plain iron,(e.g. wrought iron, a density of 0.286 lb/in^3 can be assumed, whence the 1200 lb estimate first mentioned. Not 400 lb. Jornadigan (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Handling and loading a shot weighing about half a ton seems an excessive challenge. That is, I doubt tht the people who had the idea of creating this weapon were intending to set any imaginable gun crew a task like that. And the shot itself is - obviously - a 'disposable', short-life /single-use product - so fairly cheap-and-cheerful production techniques were probably intended. What do we know about iron-casting and -wreaking technique at the time? And smelting? Is it likely tht designers were expecting the shot to include a lot of voids? or slag from a low-quality smelting process? Basically, what would be the actual composition of a contemporary 20"-dia "iron" round-shot? Anyone know about this? Anyone have any relevant sources? – SquisherDa (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, there is no mention in the article of this weapon being deployed at sea, yet "Used by Royal Scots Navy" appears in the infobox. Anyone know why?--

An IP editor has taken it down. Thanks.--

AntientNestor (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

]