Is iron essential for fire arms

That happened in OTL: instead of being forged in iron cannons were soon to cast in bronze. That had the great advantage that you could standardize the caliber.
 
Questionable, but not because of the materials themselves. Bronze makes quite viable firearms (though lead makes better bullets than stone).

The logistics of gunpowder armies, though, require a fairly high level of connectedness and technology. Large amounts of charcoal, saltpetre, and sulphur have to be brought together on a regular basis. An advanced bronze age society could manage it, but of you have a society with advanced bureaucratic mechanisms, large trade volumes, experimental-minded metallurgy and strong military organisations (a single gunman ain't worth jack in a fight), at some point it becomes hard to see how nobody figures out iron.
 
Many bronze age culture did have a very effective bureaucracy and a relative large trade volume. So it is possible that firearms could be developed before the use of iron became widespread. Do not forget that some inventions were known for centuries before they became widespread.
 
I agree with Carlton; whilst you COULD do it, there may well be no good reason TO DO it. Any society that is developed enough to figure out making bronze fire arms, would also have discovered how to smelt iron awe. Of course, if there is not much iron around it would make sense

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The oldest surviving cannons were cast in bronze. China was the first country using cannons (since 1132). The Mamluks were using cannons at least since 1260. The first use of iron for cannons was during the Hundred Years' War (since 1326).
 
Cannons yes, handguns no. Handguns were made possible due to advances in steel metallurgy, and no alloy of copper-zinc-lead is remotely as strong as steel per unit weight.
 
China made do with bamboo rocket launchers.

Light weight, and, easy material to replace! (Growing bamboo versus mining, I know what I'd rather do.)




from http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/siegeweapons-handheldrocketlaunchers.html
Illustration of Ming Dynasty (A.D. 1368-1644) Rocket Infantry During an Assault

sketch-mingyiwofeng.jpg
 
Cannons yes, handguns no. Handguns were made possible due to advances in steel metallurgy, and no alloy of copper-zinc-lead is remotely as strong as steel per unit weight.

Actually, the Tannenberg gun, an extant early fifteenth century stave-mounted handgun, is cast bronze. I don't think you can make successful muskets from bronze, but basic handguns will work.
 
I recall reading a section on a rather weighty tome on the RN (To Rule the Waves by Arthur Herman) which stated that England changed to using iron cannons around the Spanish Armada era and before most other European states as bronze cannons were far more costly to produce despite that bronze cannons invariably were only made in small calibres unlike iron, because England could not afford large quantities of bronze cannons which their Iberian counterparts could. In addition, I recall Neil Oliver in his History of Ancient Britain series recently pointing out that Bronze cannot be recast once shattered (or if it can, it fatally weakens the material, or something) and that bronze, which does not bend, is far more liable to eventually break from use too. These things would suggest that it would be very costly and inefficient to create bronze firearms, though by no means impossible. I'd go so far as to speculate that an iron-less society would still see bronze as a prestige weapon, and thus not the kind to be placed into the hands of every man in an army - so in other words, as Maxwell Edison II said above, likely for artillery but not handguns. If bronze truly is more brittle than iron, it may actually be a liability to give to your troops. A fair amount would likely die every battle from their weapons exploding.
 
Cannons yes, handguns no. Handguns were made possible due to advances in steel metallurgy, and no alloy of copper-zinc-lead is remotely as strong as steel per unit weight.

Wrong. The Chinese cast handcannon, musket and pistol barrels out of bronze, and even as late as the 18th century European gunmakers were making cast bronze musket barrels for some high-end private hunting and personal protection guns. Indeed, the only reason it wasn't used more widely is that iron was so much cheaper.

In some ways, up until the late 19th century when high-quality steel became available in large quantities, bronze was a BETTER material for gun barrels, for the simple reason that if a crack developed in the metal you could actually see it and know to stop using it...whereas with an iron barrel, you couldn't see it and wouldn't know about it until it blew up in your face.
 
didn't they make cannons out of brass back in the day?

The earliest cannons were made like barrels; wooden staves held together with iron bands, firing stone balls. Before the advent of cast iron almost all cannons were bronze, an alloy of tin and copper. Brass, an alloy of zinc and copper, is too soft for the purpose; a brass gun would balloon and likely split under the pressure.
 
I've seen a documentary film about the cannons of the Elizabethian Age and there they said that the cannons used during the rule of Henry VIII were forged (and they really looked liked barrels). They also used long bows on board of Henry's ships. During Elizabth's rule they used cannons made of cast iron and muskets. The reason for cast iron cannons were simple: they were cheap and they had standardized calibers (something forged cannons did not have).
 
Bronze is a very good material, better than iron in many respects. Iron became dominant because it is much more abundant and cheaper to make. Its economics, not metallurgy, which promotes the use of iron over bronze.

I personally think that any society advanced enough to figure out gunpowder to the extent they are building cannons would have already discovered iron deposits and realized it is more economic to make steel weapons instead of bronze.
 

Flubber

Banned
The reason for the preponderance of iron/steel in firearms is entirely economic.

Iron is the fourth most abundant element in the planet's crust. The elements needed for bronze/brass are nowhere near as abundant with copper being 26th, zinc 25th, tin 48th, and lead 37th.

Iron also appears in more readily usable ores once furnace temperatures can be reached.
 
...

I personally think that any society advanced enough to figure out gunpowder to the extent they are building cannons would have already discovered iron deposits and realized it is more economic to make steel weapons instead of bronze.
No, because the discovery of gunpowder is not necessary linked to the use of iron. The ingredients of gunpowder are saltpetre, charcoal and sulfur, ingredients that do not require the use of iron. In OTL gunpowder was discovered in Byzantium as an alternative to the already known greek fire (since aprox. 500 AD), but it could have been discovered centuries earlier. OTL is not the best TL in regards of technological discoveries.
 
Top