I think the key problem here has been identified in the question "weapons were not really standardised". This was a period when artillery was almost entirely bespoke. You went to a cannon maker and told him what you wanted and he made it to order. For most of the period there were no standard sizes, or calibres, or even names for these weapons.
Only towards the end of the 17th century does a degree of standardisation appear as the European nations started forming standing navies. Once you start arming arming multiple ships with dozens of cannon, it makes logistics much easier if the guns can share ammunition, tools and carriages.
In his introduction to Appendix II, of The Armouries of the Tower of London, The Ordinance, H L Blackmore summarises the problem and suggests why creating a definitive list might be a fool's errand.
The following selection of tables, reprinted here in condensed form as a convenient aide-memoire, give some idea of the wide divergence of opinion amongst contemporary writers as to the sizes of the different types of cannon. For example, the tables given by Harrison in his introduction to Holinshed's Chronicles and those compiled by William Bourne, both published in the same year, 1587, agree on hardly an particular. Some tables appear to have been republished by different authors over a period of years with little attempt to check them with guns in actual use. Here, it may be added, a comparison between the tables given in this Appendix with those of Appendix I is illuminating. John Sheriffe's tables of c. 1590 were thus used by Sir William Monson in c. 1630 and by John Smith in 1627 and 1652 with little alteration. These early tables can, therefore, be used only as a very general guide. Well might the English translator of the 1588 edition of Tartaglio's Arte of Shooting write: 'through the intolerable fault of careless or unskilful gunfounders all our great pieces of one name are not of one length, and of an equal weight, nor of one height of their mouths, and therefore the gunners' books and tables which do show that all our great pieces of one name are of equal length, and of equal weight, and of an equal height in their mouths, are erroneous'. The Italian gunfounder Biringuccio was one of the few honest members of his craft. 'It is possible' he said in his Pirotechnica of 1540, 'to say of the guns we call antique as well as of those that are modern to us today that I have never found a uniform size in any kind that is seen. Those masters who say, in order to make a reputation, that they have them depart from the truth...'
Even when authorities had given up the attempts to place cannon into categories by name and listed them under their weight of shot and length, the continual experimenting with the various lengths, weights of metal and allowances for windage still leads to confusion in a gun's identification today.
Almost by way of confirmation of this confusion, it should be noted that none of the twenty or so cannon types in the Harrison or Bourne lists given in the book's Appendix appear in the list given in the question.
From W. Harrison's list (from Holinshed's Chronicles (1587)):
| Name |
Wt of Piece (lbs) |
Diameter of Shot (ins) |
Wt of Shot (lbs) |
| Basilisk |
9000 |
8.50 |
60.0 |
| Old Cannon |
8000 |
6.75 |
42.0 |
| Cannon |
7000 |
7.75 |
60.0 |
| Demi-Cannon |
6000 |
6.25 |
30.0 |
| Culverin |
4000 |
5.25 |
18.0 |
| Demi-Culverin |
3000 |
4.00 |
9.0 |
| Saker |
1500 |
3.25 |
5.0 |
| Minion |
1100 |
3.00 |
4.5 |
| Falcon |
800 |
2.25 |
2.5 |
| Falconet |
500 |
1.75 |
2.0 |
| Robinet |
200 |
1.00 |
1.0 |
From William Bourne's list (from The Arte of Shooting in great Ordnaunce (1587)):
| Name |
Wt of Piece (lbs) |
Diameter of Shot (ins) |
Wt of Shot (lbs) |
| Old Double Cannon |
8000 |
8.00 |
70.0 |
| Ordinary Double Cannon |
7500 |
7.75 |
64.0 |
| French Double Cannon |
7000 |
7.50 |
58.0 |
| Old Demi-Cannon |
6000 |
6.50 |
38.0 |
| Ordinary Demi-Cannon |
5500 |
6.25 |
33.0 |
| Small Demi-Cannon |
5000, 5400 |
6.00 |
30.0 |
| Foreign Demi-Cannon |
5000 |
5.75 |
26.5 |
| Old Culverin |
4800 |
5.25 |
20.0 |
| Ordinary Culverin |
4500 |
5.00 |
17.0 |
| Small Culverin |
4300 |
4.75 |
15.0 |
| Old Demi-Culverin |
3200 |
4.50 |
12.5 |
| Ordinary Demi-Culverin |
2700 |
4.25 |
10.75 |
| Small Demi-Culverin |
2200 |
4.00 |
9.0 |
| Old Saker |
1800 |
3.75 |
7.25 |
| Ordinary Saker |
1500 |
3.5 |
6.0 |
| Small Saker |
1300, 1400 |
3.25 |
5.0 |
| (old) Minion |
1000 |
3.00 |
3.75 |
| Ordinary Minion |
900 |
2.75 |
3.0 |
| Falcon |
700, 750 |
2.50 |
2.12 |
| Foreign Falcon |
600, 650 |
2.25 |
1.75 |
| Falconet |
360, 400 |
2.00 |
1.12 |
[Some details have been omitted from the above tables to fit the page]
From the same Appendix, there are a number of other tables drawn from publications during the period. One of particular interest is from a volume by Robert Ward, Amimadversions of Warre (1639), which includes a number of "non-standard cannon" types. An abridged version appears below:
| Name |
a.k.a. |
Wt. of Piece (lbs) |
Wt. of Shot (lbs) |
| Bastard Double Culverin |
Basilisk |
14660 |
48.0 |
| Double Culverin |
Dragon |
14000 |
- |
| Bastard Culverin |
Serpentine |
8100 |
24.0 |
| Bastard Demi-Culverin |
Aspike |
7600 |
12.0 |
| Half-Culverin |
Saker |
2650 |
- |
| Bastard Quarter Culverin |
Pelican |
2550 |
6.0 |
| Bastard Base |
|
450 |
- |
| Base |
|
300 |
- |
