TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
In this e-text, the following transcriptions are used: italics are
represented _between underscores_, bold face text is represented
=between equals symbols=, and small capitals have been changed to ALL
CAPITALS.
More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of the text.
[Illustration: _PLATE. 1._
ANGULARLY LAMINATED STEEL BARRELED GUN
LAMINATED STEEL BARRELED GUN]
GUNNERY IN 1858:
BEING A TREATISE ON
RIFLES, CANNON, AND SPORTING ARMS;
EXPLAINING THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENCE OF GUNNERY,
AND DESCRIBING THE
NEWEST IMPROVEMENTS IN FIRE-ARMS.
BY WILLIAM GREENER, C.E.,
INVENTOR OF THE EXPANSIVE PRINCIPLE AS APPLIED IN THE MINIE AND
ENFIELD RIFLES, AND AUTHOR OF “THE GUN,” ETC. ETC.
_WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS._
LONDON:
SMITH, ELDER AND CO., 56, CORNHILL.
1858.
(_The Right of Translation is reserved._)
PREFACE.
The urgent need for practical information on the important subject of
Gunnery is evinced by the numerous patents taken out during the last few
years, most of which have fallen still-born, through deficient practical
science on the part of the inventors. My aim in producing this book has
been to point out the errors into which many ingenious inventors have
fallen, and to show how similar failures may be avoided in future, by
indicating the only right road to improvement in Gunnery,--the strict
observance of scientific principles in every old process and in all new
inventions: for it is to the ignorance or neglect of the principles of
the science that failures in Gunnery are due.
The necessity for progress in the science of Gunnery is now rendered
more than ever imperative on our Government by the prodigious energy and
activity of foreign Governments in providing armaments for land and sea
service, the efficiency of which is ensured by adopting all the newest
improvements in fire-arms. But the obstinate reluctance which all our
previous Governments have shown to enter upon the, to them unwelcome,
duty of investigating and experimenting on warlike inventions,
necessitates strong “pressure from without;” for it may be truly said
that all great improvements in Gunnery in England have been forced upon
the authorities by absolute necessity, and it is still a question
whether we shall profit by our recent experiences, or, as before, allow
war to find us unprepared. We have, doubtless, armaments of gigantic
proportions, and mammoth vessels of war, capable of discharging an
ordinary ship’s cargo of shot and shell at a broadside; yet while
millions have been thus expended, the _improvement of the Gun_, without
which they would be mere masses of wood, and targets for more skilful
opponents, has been neglected.
The GUN and its PROJECTILE will decide the victory in future fights.
Indeed, we are even now waging war with our neighbours,--not on the
battle-field or the ocean wave, but in the foundry; engineers being our
generals, and founders our admirals. The present able ruler of France is
actively at work, while we are but looking on: he is casting cannon the
like of which have never been seen, while we are spending thousands in
experimenting on cast-iron and foundries; and by the time our officials
have discovered the best cast-iron for heavy guns, the French batteries
on sea and land will be bristling with RIFLED STEEL CANNON of tremendous
range and endless endurance.
Woe betide this country if at the commencement of a war we should find
ourselves just where we are.
The Emperor Napoleon, as is well known, is well versed, theoretically
and practically, in everything relating to Gunnery. Keenly alive to the
minutest points of progress he receives, investigates, and immediately
adopts all inventions of value; having the ability to perceive, the
sagacity to appreciate, and the liberality to reward merit wherever it
is shown.
Compare his system with ours, where men are placed in official
positions, and entrusted with power, not because of their ability to
fulfil the duties of their office, but for very inferior and often
unworthy reasons; where talent and fitness are not considered, and
consequently a long routine of forms is made to serve as “a buffer” to
resist the troublesome pertinacity of inventors, who are apt to disturb
the serenity of reluctant or indifferent officials. And when at last a
trial is granted, the invention is either rejected or approved by
incompetent or prejudiced judges. While this practice prevails, England
must ever be behindhand in Gunnery; for improvements in cannon and
projectiles cannot be carried out by private enterprise.
In thus strongly expressing my opinion of the way in which progress is
balked, I am not merely echoing a cry, but speaking from my own
knowledge and experience. I am actuated by no feeling of disappointment,
for my invention of “the expansive bullet” has been at last adopted
here, after it had been copied in France. My object is to induce public
investigation and inquiry, and to ventilate this important subject; and
I trust that my antecedents, and the fulfilment of my predictions in
matters of Gunnery, will give weight to this deliberate and
disinterested expression of opinion.
The great favour shown by lovers of shooting to my former efforts to
disseminate a better understanding of the principles of Gunnery, has
been an additional stimulus to the production of the present work; and I
have taken especial care that my observations should tend to the
improvement of sporting arms, and the increased safety of the sportsman.
Nor has the ingenious mechanic been overlooked, for perfection of
gun-manufacture must ever go hand in hand with scientific principle; and
the desire to promote their combination has prompted my endeavours to
elucidate the subject.
Leaving to the reader to determine how far I have succeeded in my
efforts, I merely wish to add that I make no pretension to literary
style, but have aimed to produce a practical work for practical men. I
have drawn upon my previous works for such portions of information as
were needful to give completeness to this view of the science of
Gunnery, its present state, and probable future.
WILLIAM GREENER.
_Aston New Town,
September 3rd, 1858._
ILLUSTRATIONS.
LIST OF PLATES.
Plate 1.--Laminated Steel Barrels--_To face Title_.
„ 2.--Damascus and Fancy Steel Barrels _To face Page 228_
„ 3.--Stub Twist and Stub Damascus Barrels „ _234_
„ 4.--Charcoal Iron and “Threepenny” Iron Barrels „ _241_
„ 5.--“Twopenny” Iron and “Sham Damn” Iron Barrels „ _240_
WOODCUTS.
PAGE
Cannon of 1390 6
Iron ship gun of 1540 10
Paixhan gun and traversing bed 64
Carronade 67
New plan of casting a hollow axle 95
Mallet’s monster mortar 100
Russian 56-pounder 114
Eight-inch British gun 114
Sixty-eight pound carronade 116
Monck’s 56-pounder 117
Ten-inch or 86-pounder 117
Thirteen-inch sea service mortar 119
Thirteen-inch land service mortar 119
Welding steel 155
Wire twist and Damascus iron 160
Steel and iron twist 173
Spirals of Damascus, &c. 187
Spirals of charcoal and skelp 188
Spirals of Wednesbury and “sham damn” iron 189
Barrel welding 191
Method of plating barrels 195
Boring barrels 198
Sections of conical breeches, double barrel 209
London and Birmingham proof marks 251
Mode of proving guns 254
Sections of nipples 283
Expansive plug bullet 343
Enfield barrel and bullet 377
Whitworth barrel and bullet 377
Swiss bullet 391
Greener’s model carbine 401
Poly-groove rifle 403
Tranter’s double trigger revolver 421
Tranter’s double action revolver 424
Webley’s revolver 425
Harpoon gun 432
Shot tower 435
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.--ANCIENT ARMS.
PAGE.
The bow--The sling--Crossbow--Field artillery of the Normans--
Artillery of the ancients--Range of the crossbow and longbow--The ram
of Vespasian--Guns first employed in 1327--Guns at the battle of
Cressy--Cannon of 1390--Skill of English archers--Defensive armour--
Portable firearms invented in 1430--Primitive hand-gun--Iron cannon
recovered from the _Mary Rose_, wrecked in 1545--“Chambers”--Match-
lock and wheel-lock--Fire-lock--Damascus gun-barrels--Birmingham
guns--Spanish pistol with magazine--Percussion lock--The revolving
pistol not a new invention--Colt’s revolver--Breech-loading guns 1
CHAPTER II.--ON GUNPOWDER.
Origin of its invention--Roger Bacon’s recipe--Accidental discovery
by a German monk--Gunpowder introduced by the Saracens--Its explosive
and propellant properties--Composition of gunpowder--Nitre its
essence--Properties of sulphur as an ingredient--Proportions and
constituents of French gunpowder--Sulphur not always indispensable--
Chemical principles of its composition--Component parts of different
gunpowders--Source of its explosive force--Explosion at Gateshead--
Variations in strength and quickness of fire--Granulation of sporting
gunpowder and of artillery gunpowder--Importance of suitable
granulation for different firearms--Large grain powder the more
effectual expellant--Fine powder dangerous--Principle of granulation--
Gun-cotton--Imperfect instrument for testing gunpowder--Charcoal--
Operation of making gunpowder described--“Glazing” detrimental--
Utility of granulation--Fine grain powder--Dr. Ure on the projectile
force of gunpowder--Dr. Hutton’s calculations and experiments--Mode
of controlling the destructive force of gunpowder--Experiments to test
the velocity of explosive force of different granulations--The grain
should be proportioned to the length and bore of the gun--Chlorate of
potassa used by the French in making gunpowder--Similar powder
proposed by Mr. Parr, and condemned by Sir William Congreve--Velocity
in projectile force must be gradual--Curious experiment--Operation of
blasting stone, &c., with gunpowder--English sporting gunpowder--
Military and naval gunpowder--Fame of English gunpowder makers 18
CHAPTER III.--ARTILLERY.
Definition of the term--Modern field gun--English artillery behind
the march of science--Official obstacles to improvement--Various kinds
of British artillery--Table of measurements, and range of iron
ordnance--Brass guns--Their peculiar property--Firing of brass and
iron guns compared--Range of brass ordnance--Paixhan guns--Traversing
beds for ship guns--Ranges of Paixhan guns and howitzers--Mortars--
Their uses and varieties--Monster mortar at siege of Antwerp--Table of
English mortar practice--Carronades--Table of weights of guns and shot
--Causes of Recoil--Guns of our ancestors--Metal required in rear of
the breech--Results of Hutton’s experiments--Weight in fore-part of
gun injurious--Firm base for a gun essential--Leaden bed for mortars
suggested--New materials desirable for projectiles--Mr. Monk’s gun
unequalled--Principle of its construction--Wilkinson’s opinion--Waste
of explosive force in ordnance--The propellant force should be
accelerative--This attainable by a proper granulation of powder--
Government powder--Gunnery only in its infancy--Compound shot--Lead
better than iron for cannon shot--Expenditure of shot at sieges of
Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajos--Hutton’s experiments--The shrapnell
shell--Improvements in gunnery--The Greenerian rifle--Dangerous
inefficiency of English artillery--Best metal for cannon--Increased
range destroys guns--Cause of mortars bursting--The Lancaster gun--
English cast-iron inferior--Mallet’s monster mortar--Wrought-iron
unsuited to large guns--Reason why--Shaft of the _Leviathan_--New
method of welding iron shafts--Railway carriage axles--Nasmyth’s
monster cannon--Light gun-barrels stronger than heavy ones--Brass guns
inferior to cast-iron--Defect of hoop and stave gun--Form and
dimensions of Mallet’s monster mortar (with engraving)--Cause of
deterioration of English cast-iron--Russian cast-iron more durable,
and why--Krupp’s steel gun--Laminated steel gun-barrels--Captain
Dalgren’s improvements in American ordnance--Russian guns--Reinforce
rings and trunnions objectionable, and why--Rifled cannon essential--
Range of steel rifled cannon--Best form of gun--Professor Barlow on
the strength of iron--Our artillery not constructed on scientific
principles--Russian 56-pounder, English 8-inch gun, English carronade,
Monck’s 56-pounder, and 10-inch gun (with cuts)--Land and sea service
mortars (with cuts)--Joseph Manton’s rifle cannon--Projectiles for
rifled cannon--Rifle rockets--Mr. Whitworth’s improvements in rifled
guns--His polygonal projectile--Experiments with Mr. Armstrong’s
field-piece--Increased range and accuracy of rifled cannon with
elongated projectiles--Table of comparative range of smooth-bored and
rifled cannon--Shells for rifled cannon--Spiral motion of projectiles
from smooth-bored guns--Breech-loading cannon useless and unsafe 58
CHAPTER IV.--MANUFACTURE OF IRON FOR GUN-BARRELS.
Improvement in gun barrels depends on the iron--Continental
manufacturers advance while English stand still--Cheap and inferior
guns of “Park-paling”--Scarcity of horse-nail stubs--Importance of
iron manufacture--Great value of steel in ancient times--Iron
originally made with wood charcoal--Coal coke unfit for making best
iron--British iron ore inferior--Mr. Mushet on steel-iron--English
workmen employed abroad--English gun-makers’ names forged in Belgium--
Indian Iron and Steel Company--Indian process of making steel--Hammer-
hardening recommended--Difference of “Silver steel” and “Twist steel”
--Method of making laminated steel--It is spoilt by over-twisting--
Watering of Damascus barrels--Proportions of carbon in steel and iron
--Damascus barrels often plated--Modern method of making Damascus iron
(with cuts)--Objection to wire-twist iron--Figured barrels--Damascus
barrels made in Belgium--Damascus iron inferior in strength--Use of
old horse-shoe nails for gun-barrels--Stub iron alone insufficient--
Prejudices of provincial gun-makers--Mixture of steel and stub iron--
Importance of welding on an air furnace--Proportions of steel and stub
iron--Efficacy of hammer-hardening and reworking iron--Improvements in
superior iron owing to gun-makers--Explosions of steam-boilers owing
to neglect or bad construction--Boiler iron improveable--Steel-
Damascus barrel iron--Manufacture of “charcoal iron”--Imitation of
“smoke brown”--Gains from using inferior iron--Frauds in barrel making
--Advice of Edward Davies in 1619--“Threepenny skelp iron”--
“Wednesbury skelp”--Test of a safe gun--“Sham damn skelp”--Base guns
made to sell--Their injurious effect on the gun-making trade--“Swaff-
iron forging.” 146
CHAPTER V.--GUN-MAKING.
Barrel welding--Birmingham welders--Different twists of metal
(illustrated with cuts)--Process of welding--Hammer-hardening--Belgium
welders--Mode of plating barrels--Belgium method (with cut)--Profits
of fraud--Qualifications of a good gun-barrel maker--Processes of
boring and grinding--Proper inclination of double barrels--Elevation
of barrels should be proportionate to charge and distance--Brazing of
barrels detrimental--Mr. Wilkinson’s opinion--Solid ribs requisite--
Advantage of the patent breech--Best shape of breech (with cut)--Gun
locks--Their scientific construction--The Barside lock--Messrs.
Braziers’ locks--The stock, fittings, &c.--Recipe for staining steel
barrels--Birmingham method of browning--Belgian method--Varieties of
iron for best barrels--Laminated steel barrels never known to burst--
Base imitations of laminated steel--Cost of laminated steel barrels--
Author’s method of laminating--Stub Damascus passed off for steel--
Birmingham guns--Practice of forging names of eminent makers--Author’s
offer--Improved metal for axles--Author’s imitation Damascus (with
plate)--Joseph Manton’s merits--Prize medals awarded to author--
Advantages of Birmingham for gun making--“London-made guns”--Foreign
imitations of English guns--Periodical exhibition of guns recommended
--Steel-twist and stub Damascus (with plate)--Barrels of charcoal
iron--Inferior guns--Cost of skelp-iron guns--Cost of “sham damn iron”
guns--Sham guns (with plate)--Cost of “park-paling” guns 185
CHAPTER VI.--THE PROOF OF GUN BARRELS.
Proof-house of Gun-maker’s Company--Proof Acts of 1813 and 1815--
Provisions of Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1855--Penal clauses--Schedule B
--Proof marks--Scale of charges for Proof--Mode of proving (with cut)
--Number of barrels proved in 1857 243
CHAPTER VII.--THE SCIENCE OF GUNNERY.
New principle--Improved rifles--Useless inventions--Scientific
principles of gunnery: 1. The explosive power and its velocity. 2. The
retarding agents. 3. Construction of the tube. 4. Form of projectile--
Robins’s theory--Hutton’s experiments--Suitable velocity the germ of
the science--Author’s experiments and their results--Penetrating power
of bullets--Resistance of the atmosphere--Friction detrimental--
Construction of the tube--The Cylindro-conoidal form best suited for
projectiles--Jacob’s and Whitworth’s bullets--Lengthened projectiles
tend to burst the barrel--Amount of heat needful to explode gunpowder
--Advantage of unglazed powder--Percussion powder--Best form of nipple
(with cuts)--Propellant velocity the grand desideratum--Why short guns
shoot better than long ones--True science of gunnery--Cause of guns
bursting--Mr. Blaine’s difference of opinion with the author on
explosive force--Shooting powers of different gun barrels--Tables of
strength and pressure--Colonel Hawker’s axiom--Mr. Daniel’s remarks on
shot--Duck and swivel guns--The wire cartridge--Bell-muzzle guns--Mr.
Blaine on long barrels--The just medium--Belgium guns will not stand
English proof--Cause of their inferiority--French gun-makers behind
the age--Author’s notes on the “Specimens by French Gun-makers at the
Paris Exhibition”--On recoil in shooting--Causes and experiments--Mode
of determining the size of shot suited to the bore of gun--Mr.
Prince’s double gun 257
CHAPTER VIII.--THE FRENCH “CRUTCH,” OR BREECH-LOADING SHOT GUN.
Breech-loading fire-arms unsafe and inferior--Objections specified--
Trial of breech-loading against muzzle-loading guns--Danger from using
breech-loaders--Excessive recoil 329
CHAPTER IX.--THE RIFLE.
Robins’s prediction verified--Barrels first rifled at Vienna in 1498--
Earliest elongated bullets--Captain Delvigne’s bullet--The author’s
expansive bullet--His memorial to the Board of Ordnance--Report of its
trial by the 60th Rifles in 1836--Decision of the Board of Ordnance--
Progress of the author’s invention--Captain Delvigne’s patent of 1842
--Captain Minié’s bullet of 1847--Unsuccessful attempts of author to
have his claim to the invention of the expansive bullet recognised by
Government--Secret report of Select Committee on his invention--His
priority admitted by the Emperor Napoleon--The British Government
award the author 1,000_l._ for his invention--Principle of the
expansive rifle bullet--Projectiles may be lengthened with increase of
range--Action of the expansive bullet--Defects of the Minié bullet--
Colonel Hay’s improvement--Author’s experiments, and their result--
Spiral curve of the rifle barrel--Failure of the “Pritchett bullet”--
Captain Tamissier’s theory--Minié and Greenerian bullet contrasted
(with cuts)--Author’s improvement of 1852 (with cut)--General Jacob’s
bullet (with cuts)--Remarks of Lieutenant Symons--The Whitworth rifle
--Its defects--Report of trial of the Whitworth and Enfield rifles--
Author’s comments thereon (with cuts)--Importance of safety from
accident--The expansive bullet can be made superior to the Whitworth--
Fallacy of experiments--Comparative cost of ammunition for the
Whitworth and Enfield rifles--Defective cartridges--Hints to obviate
defects--Vital principle of elongated projectiles--A hollow bullet
proposed, its defects--The Swiss bullet--Doubtful utility of the
deepening groove--Government rifle, with sword bayonet--Double rifles
--Hints on rifle shooting--Author’s expanding screw bands--Mr.
Prince’s breech-loading carbine--Revolving rifles--French school of
rifle practice--English school of rifle shooting at Hythe--Double
rifled carbines recommended--Revolvers costly and fragile--Lieutenant
Kerr’s opinion of the Enfield or Greener’s carbine--Government pistol
and carbine--Efficient arms of the Irregular Cavalry of India--First
use of greased cartridges in India--The three-grooved and poly-grooved
rifle (with cut)--Spherical bullets indispensable to smooth bored
muskets--Length and bore of military rifle--Elliptical bored rifle--
Mr. Lancaster’s bullet superseded by the Greenerian bullet--Report of
committee on Lancaster’s rifle--The oval bore not a new invention--
Inferiority of the two-grooved or Brunswick rifle--The Prussian needle
gun--Enfield rifles made for France, Russia, and other states of
Europe--Trials of Whitworth and Enfield rifles--Unsatisfactory results
of the Whitworth rifle 338
CHAPTER X.--REVOLVING PISTOLS.
Immense demand for them--Their value--Best manufacturers--Colonel
Colt’s repeating pistol described--Its double action discussed--
Machine-made pistols not equal to hand-made--Dean and Adams’s revolver
described--Its improvements on Colt’s--Tranter’s double trigger
revolver--His lubricating bullet and other improvements--Webley’s
revolver--Comparison of self-acting and cocking-lock pistols--
Tendency of revolvers to foul--Lieut. Symons’s opinion--Other defects
to be overcome--Author’s preference for double-barrelled fire-arms in
warfare 413
CHAPTER XI.--ENFIELD RIFLES.
The name explained, and weapon described--Its origin--Author’s share
in its construction--American machinery for gun-making--Extent and
products of the Enfield manufactory 429
CHAPTER XII.--THE HARPOON-GUN FOR WHALE-SHOOTING. 432
CHAPTER XIII.--SHOT, CAPS, AND WADDING. 435
RIFLES, CANNON,
AND
SPORTING ARMS.
CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT ARMS.
From the earliest ages of the world, the jealousies and bickerings of
mankind have been fruitful causes of war. Sometimes, perhaps, justified
by political reasons; at others, it may be, arising solely from a
desire, on the part of ambitious chiefs, to extend their territories by
multiplying their conquests; while, in too many cases, the struggle for
religious ascendancy has led to the most sanguinary and cruel battles.
War has been considered as a science from the most remote ages, and the
ingenuity of the talented has successively been taxed to render it as
perfect as possible. It is true--
“Man’s earliest arms were fingers, teeth, and nails,
And stones and fragments from the branching woods;”
but these soon gave place to others, more calculated to decide unequal,
and often protracted, conflicts.
Arms, in a general sense, include all kinds of weapons, both offensive
and defensive; and amongst the earliest may be classed the bow and
arrow, as it gave facilities to man to capture the wild animals for
food, probably before their use was required for the purposes of war.
The bow and the sling were the first means invented, and next only to
the human arm for projecting bodies with an offensive aim: the great
principle which, to the present day, reigns unrivalled, developing the
ruling passion of man to injure, while remaining himself in comparative
safety,--“self-preservation” being “the first law of nature.”
To the bow and sling were soon added spears, swords, axes, and javelins,
all of which appear to have been used by the Jews. David destroyed
Goliath with a stone from the brook. The invention of the sling is
attributed, by ancient writers, to the Phœnicians, or the inhabitants of
the Balearic Islands. The great fame that these islanders obtained arose
from their assiduity in its use; their children were not allowed to eat
until they struck their food from the top of a pole with a stone from a
sling. From the accounts left us (probably fabulous), it appears that
the immense force with which a stone could be projected, can only be
exceeded by modern gunnery. Even at that early age, leaden balls were in
use as projectiles; though we cannot put much faith in Seneca’s account
of the velocity being so great as frequently to melt the lead. The use
of the sling continued over a long period of time, even as late as the
Huguenot war in 1572.
The bow is of equal, if not greater, antiquity. The first account we
find of it is in Genesis, 21st chapter and 20th verse, where the
Lawgiver, speaking of Ishmael, says, “And God was with the lad, and he
grew and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.” The arms of the
ancient Greeks and Persians were such as we have described, with the
addition of chariots armed with scythes, in which the chiefs sometimes
fought; though their main dependence was upon their heavy-armed
infantry. Elephants were afterwards used as adjuncts in their military
operations, but their use does not appear to have been very great or
very permanent.
The Romans were armed much in the same manner as the Greeks, with a
slight difference in the form of their weapons; and the arms of the
early Saxons were similar; those of the Normans were only altered in
their construction, except that to them appears to be awarded the
invention of the _cross-bow_, an instrument which afterwards became of
great repute in England and elsewhere. It has also been asserted, that
the Normans were the first to introduce a species of field artillery,
from which stones and darts were thrown, and arrows, headed with
combustible matter, for firing towns and shipping.
The artillery-proper of the ancients, as the engines for projecting
masses of stone and such like materials may be termed, reached to
wonderful perfection; and the velocity with which missiles of every
description could be thrown from them, attest the skill and ingenuity
exercised in their construction: indeed it is quite evident they are
only excelled by the _more portable_, and simply constructed, artillery
of our own day.
The great artillerist of the Sicilians, Archimedes, seems to have made
some of the most powerful engines; but he, considering any attention to
mechanics as beneath the philosopher, has not left us an account of any
one of them.
It is said of the cross-bow that a _quarrel_ could be projected from
them 200 yards, so that we may imagine the force with which one of these
lumps of iron would strike even the strongest armour,--as the velocity,
to range that distance, would not be far short of 900 or 1,000 feet per
second; nearly equal to the effect of a ball from one of our old
imperfectly constructed muskets.
We are told incredible stories of the abilities of some of our bygone
archers. Should it be true, as stated, that an arrow could be shot
nearly 700 yards, we can easily conceive the immense velocity with which
it must have left the bow; this range being quite equal, if not
superior, to that of the late unimproved rifles. Though we must bear in
mind, that the peculiar shape of the arrow fits it to cut the atmosphere
with less resistance then the half sphere of a bullet; and hence one
reason of its obtaining an extensive range. There is a story told of the
famous Robin Hood, and Little John, “who could shoot an arrow a measured
mile.” We suppose the mile was the reverse of an Irish one, or they had
the advantage of a precious stiff gale of wind. Historians sometimes
“draw the long-bow” as well as archers. Many statements have descended
to us of the power of the battering rams of old; but we have a much more
ready method of blowing open gates by a single bag of gunpowder; and a
68 lb. shot has all the force that could be given even to that famous
ram of Vespasian, “the length whereof was only fifty cubits, which came
not up to the size of many of the Grecian rams, had a head as thick as
ten men, and twenty-five horns, each of which was as thick as one man,
and placed a cubit distance from the rest; the weight, as was customary,
rested on the hinder part, and was no less than 1,500 talents; when it
was removed, without being taken to pieces, 150 yoke of oxen, or 300
pairs of horses and mules, laboured in drawing it, and 1,500 men
employed their utmost strength in forcing it against the walls.”
With these remarks we shall proceed to introduce the invention of
Gunnery.
Barbour, in his life of Bruce, informs us that guns were first employed
by the English at the battle of Werewater, which was fought in 1327,
about forty years after the death of Friar Bacon; and there is no doubt
that four guns were used at the battle of Cressy, fought in 1346, when
they were supposed to have been quite unknown to the French, and tended
to obtain for British arms the victory. Froissart gives an excellent
representation of a cannon and cannoneers, in 1390, a cut of which we
give in the following page.
The use of guns in warfare is, therefore, comparatively of modern date,
and the early specimens which are still extant, of which we have
drawings and descriptions, must have been of very little service
compared with those of the present day. The English musqueteer was
formerly a most encumbered soldier. “He had, besides the unwieldy weapon
itself, his coarse powder for loading in a flask, his fine powder for
priming in a touch-box, his bullets in a leathern bag, with strings to
draw to get at them, whilst in his hand were his musket-rest and his
burning match; and when he had discharged his piece, he had to draw his
sword in order to defend himself. Hence it became a question, and was so
for a long time, whether the bow did not deserve a preference over the
musket.”[1]
[1] Grose’s “Military Antiquities.”
[Illustration: Froisart’s Gun. 1390.]
The mention of the _long-bow_ is frequent in English history, and its
use contributed, in no mean degree, to many important victories. Perhaps
it might be that our forefathers were more skilful in the use of their
weapons than their adversaries.
In our wars in France, in the reign of Edward III., thousands suffered
by the English archery; and the brilliant success which attended them
was, at that time, attributed to their “superior skill, combined with
the valour of the Black Prince.” So highly was this practice esteemed,
that many statutes were enacted in successive reigns to encourage or
enforce it.
Archery furnished matter for oratorical display, both in the senate and
the pulpit; the palace and the cottage alike bore testimony to the great
importance which was attached to the art; and it was at once the study
and pastime of the whole nation. Thus, long after the introduction of
fire-arms, the long-bow was held in great esteem; and it is no wonder
that this favourite instrument should have been reluctantly
relinquished, after obtaining such universal popularity, and becoming so
intimately connected with many national and important events. It is now
superseded by the gun, a more potent and destructive engine. The bow, so
much valued, has vanished from our ranks by slow gradations, to make way
for the musket; and the quivers of cloth-yard shafts have been
supplanted by bristling bayonets. These things are now practically
unknown as military weapons, though they contended for superiority with
fire-arms during two centuries.
At this period, and for a long time previously, more attention was paid
to the fabrication of defensive armour, than to the invention of weapons
of an offensive character; hence the perfection that was attained in
the manufacture of mail, of every variety, during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. The splendid manner in which some of the chivalrous
knights of that age chose to have their armour constructed and
ornamented sometimes proved fatal to themselves. Froissart relates that
Raymond, nephew to Pope Clement, was taken prisoner, and put to death by
his captors, in order that they might become possessed of his
magnificent armour. Those gorgeous and costly fabrications were likewise
doomed to give place to the advancing knowledge and skill of succeeding
generations; being now only known as matters of history, and regarded as
valuable curiosities. So late, however, as the latter part of the
sixteenth century, armour formed part of the military equipment; and the
French cavalry, called _carabins_, are described as having the cuirass
sloped off the right shoulder, that they might the more readily couch
their cheeks to take aim, while their bridle arms were protected by an
elbow gauntlet.
The invention of portable fire-arms is awarded to the Italians by Sir
Samuel Meyrick, and, in a memoir in the Archæologia of the Society of
Antiquarians, he has named the year 1430 as the precise period of their
introduction.
We have already stated that cannon, or heavy ordnance, was in use in the
English army in 1327, more than a century before that time. It is not
improbable, however, that the Italians were the originators of small
fire-arms, for they had for many years been celebrated as skilful in
the art of making armour--Milanese armour being considered the most
valuable, and it is natural that their attention should be directed to
the construction of offensive weapons of a different description.
The invention of the portable fire-arm, in its primitive state, was one
of extreme simplicity; the gun consisting merely of a tube fixed to a
straight stock of wood, about three feet in length, furnished with
trunnions, cascable, and touch-hole: the latter was, in the first
instance, at the top, like a large cannon, but was afterwards altered to
the side where a small pan was placed to hold the priming, and lessen
the liability of its being blown away by the wind. This contrivance was
the first step to the gun-lock.
Before the adoption of the match-lock by the English, cannon, as I have
before shown, had been in use, though they were of a clumsy description.
[Illustration]
To the indefatigable exertions of Mr. Dean, we are indebted for the
recovery of several brass and iron guns, belonging to the “Mary
Rose,”--a vessel of war, wrecked in the reign of Henry VIII. of England,
and Francis I. of France, in 1545: “while standing along the coast,
during a distant firing from the French fleet, under Admiral Annebout,
she was overpowered by the weight of her ordnance, and sunk, together
with her commander and crew of 600 men.” One of these iron guns is in an
excellent state of preservation, considering it to have been immersed
above 300 years. The cut on next page will convey, together with the
following description, a faint idea of its unwieldy and inefficient
construction. It is composed of a tube of iron, whose joint or overlap
is as its length; upon this is a succession of iron hoops, composed of
iron three inches square, being in fact immense rings; these appear to
have been driven on while red hot, and thus, by their contraction,
forming a much stronger gun, when combined with the interior tube, than
the generality of accounts given of ancient guns would lead us to
expect. It will be perceived, that to describe it as “composed of iron
bars hooped together,” is not correct. We may also mention, that if
parties describing guns of this primitive manufacture will observe
accurately, they will find that this is the general method by which they
have been fabricated. They all appear to have been loaded by removing a
breech part, or chamber, inserting the charge, replacing the chamber,
and securing it by wedging it behind; as will be seen on a close
inspection. No means of raising or depressing the muzzle appear
available; the barrel or gun being sunk in a large block of timber, and
secured there by bolts, as a musket barrel is secured in its stock;
while a large piece of iron, or wood, was inserted perpendicularly into
the deck to prevent the recoil. The advantage of “chambers” was
perfectly understood even at this early period; they were apparently
slightly conical, with a spherical bottom. It is no mean evidence of
ancient skill, and knowledge of gunnery and mechanics combined, to
state, that only a few years ago, a gunmaker of some celebrity,
constructed a number of rifles and pistols to load at the breech, on the
very same principle adopted in this gun 312 years ago. Strange, evidence
from “the vasty deep” to show “there is nothing new under the sun.”
During the sixteenth century, fire-arms of every description then in use
underwent a variety of alterations and improvements; each change
bringing with it a change of name, which would neither be profitable or
interesting to enumerate here; our object being to trace out the
advances which have been made in the manufacture of fire-arms since
their general adoption as weapons of war, or auxiliaries to the sports
of the field.
When first introduced into England, the hand-gun, as it was termed, had
already received a slight improvement, in having a covering for the pan
which contained the priming, and a sight on the breech, to assist in
giving greater certainty to the aim; it remained thus until the trigger
of the cross-bow suggested a contrivance to convey, with equal
certainty and greater rapidity, the burning match to the pan.
The difficulty of using an instrument thus objectionably constructed,
was in some degree obviated by the Germans; who, together with the
Italians, were no doubt at this early period the principal
manufacturers; they effected this, to a certain degree, by giving the
stocks a crooked form, so that the breech could, with more ease, be
brought to the level of the eye; this was, however, only an alteration
of form, without involving any principle or leading feature of
mechanical invention. Succeeding the match-lock, in the progress of
improvement, came the “pyrites wheel-lock,” an invention then looked
upon as exceedingly curious and ingenious; this also is ascribed to the
Italians, and one of the first occasions of its being used, is said to
have been when Pope Leo X. and the Emperor Charles V. confederated
against France. Whether the Italians are fairly entitled to the merit of
this invention is, however, a matter of doubt, as it is well known that
wheel-locks were for a long period manufactured in Germany.
The “_snaphaunce_” or fire-lock, is distinctly stated by Grose to be of
Dutch origin,--hence the name. It was introduced into England in the
reign of Charles II., though its general adoption is stated not to have
taken place until the reign of William III., about 1692. Since that
period, until the present, their use has been general in all the armies
of Europe. How strange it seems that the Chinese and other Asiatics
should have only the match-lock to the present day, while there can be
no question that they used gunpowder some centuries before its
introduction into our portion of the habitable globe!
The Syrians were formerly celebrated for their skill in the working of
iron. Damascus gun-barrels were not to be obtained, at certain periods,
at a price less than their weight in silver. The elaborate mixtures in
their barrels, swords, and other weapons, entitle them justly to the
honour of being the best of iron workers, as we shall hereafter have
occasion to show; and the splendour displayed in their inlaying attests
their taste and ability: but as mechanicians, formers of complex
machinery, they never reached mediocrity. Turkey and Greece, as well as
other countries which were renowned as having been, in days of yore,
nurseries of the arts, but which have, in later times, degenerated into
a condition little better than semi-barbarous, were remarkable for the
great labour and pains which they bestowed upon the exterior ornaments
of their firearms; but they never succeeded in improving the machinery
of the lock in the slightest degree.
Although it was not until the latter part of the seventeenth, or the
beginning of the eighteenth century, that gun manufactories were
established in this kingdom, yet we have attained to a degree of
perfection and excellence unequalled by any other nation in the world.
Birmingham is the emporium of the world for guns, from the most
inferior--the “_park paling_,” so called, of the slave-trade, with which
ships might yet be freighted at the cost of eight shillings and sixpence
each--up to the elaborately-finished gun of the peer. Most of the
alterations which have been made in gun-locks in England, have been with
a view to simplify the machinery, and obtain the greatest quickness in
firing: much complication has been discarded; a thorough conviction
having seated itself in the minds of Englishmen, that to attain
perfection, simplicity must be combined.
Many splendid emanations of genius are left to us, consisting of complex
mechanism for gunnery. The most perfect we have ever seen, is a pistol
made in Spain about the end of the seventeenth century. By moving a
lever towards the butt-end, while the muzzle is depressed, the lock is
primed, half-cocked, and the hammer shut down; return the lever, the
powder is in the breech, and the ball before it. We have seen it fire
twenty-six shots without a failure, and with one supply of ammunition.
The magazine was in two tubes in the stock. The chance of blowing up was
thought remote; but it eventually blew up. In short, it would be
strictly advantageous to inventors in gunnery, to be sure that there has
been no previous invention combining their principle as well as their
arrangements.
The mine of complex inventions was exhausted during the last century;
and the greatest benefactor to the science of gunnery will be he, who,
blowing away the cobwebs of mystery, renders its principles as clear as
the silvered glass. Nothing now remains of the beautiful machinery of
the flint lock; the fancy cock and hammers have given place to a
“simple” hammer, striking on a copper thimble, covering a steel pivot.
What would the old lock-filers say to this, if they could return and
see their handiwork consigned to the scrap-box as old iron?
To those curious in the progress of invention as it relates to gunnery,
it would be highly interesting to visit the “Musée d’Artillerie” of
Paris, and there to study the classified selections in the possession of
the French Government. Among other specimens equally interesting, he
will find revolving pistols, revolving rifles, and swords and revolving
pistols combined in one; and these produced in the early part of the
seventeenth century. The revolving pistol did not therefore originate
with the present generation; and however universally we may use the
“Colt,” “Adams,” or “Tranter,” neither can lay the slightest claim to
originality. In that museum will be found four, five, and six charge
chambers; and though in all there is certainly an absence of movement in
the chamber, produced by the cocking of the lock, yet several present
the appearance of having formerly had some mechanical adjunct for
revolving the chamber: this, though well adapted to the present
percussion system, must certainly have been troublesome to manage in the
old flint lock; for when the first barrel was discharged, the priming of
the other barrels would be lost during the revolution of the chamber.
A great improvement was, however, soon introduced; a hammer and pan were
attached to each division of the chamber, and each being already primed,
presented itself in rotation in the face of the flint. The gun or pistol
was by these protuberances rendered clumsy and cumbersome, and thus
fell, no doubt, into disuse; but every real mechanic must see on
investigating the subject, that the principle was as perfect as that
which is now in use. Mr. Colt had considerable difficulty in securing a
patent for his revolver. The right of patent hinged on this simple
question: did he, or did he not, first introduce a crank or lever for
revolving the chambers during the cocking of the lock? After an
expensive trial it was decided that he _did_ introduce it; though doubts
are still entertained whether there is not now extant a pistol having
the same crank movement as that found in the “Colt” and other revolvers.
At all events the invention of revolving pistols originated with our
progenitors, more than 200 years ago, though their re-introduction is
unquestionably due to Mr. Colt; and the “old broth warmed up” has no
doubt proved more nutritious than the original concoction. In the Paris
museum, a number of breech-loading guns are to be seen; I think more
than sixty varieties. Many of them are highly ingenious, displaying
great mechanical knowledge and working skill, and the whole, kept in
splendid order, cannot fail to command attention.
Well had it been if the many hundred inventors in England and elsewhere
had studied, and made themselves intimately acquainted with the
productions there to be seen in such abundance. Monuments they are of
mis-spent skill and labour; samples of the almost hopeless task of
fabricating complicated machinery which shall resist the action of
explosive gases at high pressure. An experiment extending over two
hundred years, but unattended with success, notwithstanding all the
skill and ingenuity brought to bear upon it, is, we think, sufficient
to prove that breech-loading guns cannot be made sufficiently durable to
yield any reasonable return for the extra expense and trouble attending
their fabrication. Nevertheless, our “would-be mechanics hope against
hope;” and to such we would, in conclusion, tender a word of advice.
Before spending your money, make acquaintance (and an intimate one is
necessary) with all that has been done before, and if in your own
production you find principles which have been untouched by any previous
invention, and untainted by any of the previous causes of failure, then
patent your invention, and make a fortune--if you can.
Great mechanical skill, and even scientific principles, are to be found
in some of the earliest productions after the invention of fire-arms;
and thus is established the important fact, that want of experience was
the chief drawback under which they laboured: one elaborate machine
being unequal to their requirements was succeeded by another; and yet,
with all these examples patent to us, we still fruitlessly fall back on
exhausted principles.
A more intimate knowledge of what our predecessors have accomplished
would be a great boon to our race. Foreign nations, but especially
France, have provided for this by their museums; and we want here a
museum of progression, an epitome of the mind of the present age, and
which, continued to future generations, would leave to no man the
fruitless toil of hauling in an endless rope.