CHAPTER VII.

THE SCIENCE OF GUNNERY.

“Science begins at the point where mind dominates matter, where the

attempt is made to subject the mass of experience to the scrutiny of

reason. Science is mind brought into connection with nature.”--COSMOS.

A new era in the science of gunnery may be dated from the commencement

of the latter half of the nineteenth century; and long before its close

other improvements may be effected which shall eclipse even those of our

day. A new elementary principle has been infused into the science.

Rifles are now really weapons of the highest order; in truth we may be

said to have only recently become acquainted with the principles on

which they should be constructed. Little of science had hitherto been

applied to them; as military arms they were neglected for centuries, to

be ushered into notice at last by the unassisted efforts of private

individuals; Government, to whom arms were of the greatest importance,

having systematically neglected all improvement, by invariably refusing

pecuniary aid, the only grease at all calculated to overcome the

friction retarding the wheels of progress. It is an old proverb, that

“one extreme begets another,” and when changes are once started, the

difficulty is to stop them; the tendency is to rush on from one

alteration to another, before we are really well acquainted with what we

have so hastily thrown aside. Improvement does not always follow a

change; the human race, and the English more especially, have an

inordinate desire for “the marvellous;” and multitudes of “wonderful

discoveries” and inventions of the utmost value are heralded daily by

the ever eager press, often to be as hastily forgotten, or discovered,

even by their promulgators, to be myths.

Improvement, to be at all beneficial, must bring with it all the

elements of improvement; and to render it easy of attainment, none of

its essential points should be costly. In gunnery more especially, it is

essential to avoid all unnecessary friction, excess of recoil, and waste

of gunpowder; whilst, at the same time, transport of the gun must not be

cumbersome, and durability in all its points is essential.

How few study the subject in all its bearings! How rapidly conclusions

are jumped at! Even in getting range, if it is to be purchased at the

cost of other essential principles, it is not economy to sacrifice

several even moderately valuable principles for the sake of range alone.

The experience of the present age has shown that all our important

discoveries have their limits: the locomotive cannot be used with

advantage beyond a certain limited speed; steam vessels attempted to be

propelled at an unusual velocity have but a very brief endurance, and

rapidly decay. All matter has power only to effect a certain amount of

work, and this is endured best at a medium application; showing most

clearly that “the race is not always to the swift or the battle to the

strong.”

Experience is required in the greatest of modern inventions.

Electricity, at a moderate immersion, subjected to a moderate

superincumbent weight, is an effectual messenger, swift as thought; but

when overweighted by immersion to depths where the superincumbent

pressure amounts to thousands of pounds upon the square inch, then the

messenger becomes paralysed, and refuses to obey man’s will; showing

very clearly that until that pressure be artificially removed by

insulating the conducting wire in tubes equal to restrain or keep from

it that enormous load, the lasting success of an Atlantic telegraph is

very doubtful. Many similar instances might be cited to show the

necessity of considering well the established laws of nature, and their

bearing on the object pursued. In no science is this of more importance

than in gunnery; and the hundreds of useless inventions in gunnery are

to be ascribed to the non-observance of these rules. The two-grooved

rifle, the “steam gun,” “the sciva,” “Warner’s long-range myth,” and

many other inventions equally absurd, engage the attention for a time,

but soon vanish: in fact, all experience shows that improvement can only

be effected in accordance with certain established principles of nature

and practical science.

Iron, in quantities sufficient for all reasonable requirements, is a

dutiful servant; but, when required of colossal proportions, it refuses

to obey: giving us a hint from nature, that we should be content with

moderation.

All the principles appertaining to science are based on certain

established laws; the unsoundness of one renders the superstructure

unsound also; and any deductions drawn from unsound principles are

comparatively worthless. Gunnery, as a science, must be in uniformity

with truth in all its parts, or no science exists in its arrangements.

This will be best illustrated by dividing the subject into several

heads: 1st, the explosive power and its velocity; 2nd, the retarding

agents, air and friction; 3rd, the construction of the projectile tubes;

and 4th, the form of projectile best calculated to attain a perfect

result.

1st. The explosive power. Gunpowder has been stated by different

authorities to liberate its gases with very different degrees of

rapidity. Hutton has given to it a much greater rapidity than Robins has

evidently even surmised; though, no doubt, as we have already shown,

high velocity in gunpowder depends on several circumstances--the degree

of purification of its ingredients, their intimate mechanical mixture

(that the elements may exert their affinities with the utmost facility),

and, lastly, the degree of granulation observed: and in addition, the

suitability of the tubes or vessels for carrying on correctly such

important experiments. Robins and Hutton unquestionably may be regarded

as the English, if not the European, authorities, and any work on the

science of gunnery would be very incomplete without their valuable

elucidations.

Previously to the researches of Robins, the theory of atmospheric

resistance was but imperfectly surmised, and when he made his statements

of the immense resistance which the fluidity of the air offered to

projectiles in a high state of velocity, they were treated as the idle

chimeras of a speculative brain; and yet he only was enabled to estimate

the real effect of the explosive nature and force of gunpowder to a very

limited extent: indeed, so limited, that Hutton, only twenty years

subsequently, speaking of Robins’ theory, says, “Mr. Robins and other

authors, it may be said, have only guessed at, rather than determined.

That ingenious philosopher, in a simple experiment, truly showed that,

by the firing of a parcel of gunpowder, a quantity of elastic air was

disengaged; which, when confined in the space only occupied by the

powder before it was fired, was found to be nearly 250 times stronger

than the weight or elasticity of the common air. He then heated the same

parcel of air to the degree of red hot iron, and found it in that

temperature to be about four times as strong as before; whence he

inferred, that the first strength of the inflamed fluid must be nearly

1,000 times the pressure of the atmosphere. But this was merely guessing

at the degree of heat in the inflamed fluid, and, consequently, of its

first strength; both which in fact are found to be much greater. It is

true that this assumed degree of strength accorded pretty well with that

author’s experiments; but this seeming agreement, it might easily be

shown, could only be owing to the inaccuracy of his own further

experiments; and, in fact, with far better opportunities than fell to

the lot of Mr. Robins, we have shown that inflamed gunpowder is about

double the strength that he has assigned to it, and that it expands

itself with the velocity of about 5,000 feet per second.” On the same

subject he further says:--“On this principle it was that Mr. Robins made

all his experiments and performed all his calculations in gunnery. But

it is manifest that this method of guessing at the degree of heat of the

flame must be very uncertain and unsatisfactory, being much below the

truth; since all our notions and experience of the heat of inflamed

powder convince us that it is higher than that of red hot iron, and,

indeed, it has clearly appeared from our experiments, that its heat is

at least double that of red hot iron, and that it increases the

elasticity of the elastic fluid more than eight times.”

Here is evidence, though not conclusive, of the immense force of

gunpowder, and also of the progress of knowledge on the subject; yet it

clearly shows the evil of coming to hasty conclusions, however well

supported by apparent facts, as it has had in this case a tendency to

check inquiry and retard the advancement of knowledge. For the extensive

experiments of Hutton were but limited in discovery, because they were

not carried to a sufficient extent, and thus, they are quite unsuited to

the present day. He was satisfied because he had gone further than any

of his predecessors; and though he established and clearly proved the

soundness of his own theory, yet he could not either view the subject to

its utmost bounds, nor yet go sufficiently far, but that others, taking

up the question where he left it, may pursue the subject to a much more

remote limit. The subject, indeed, was limited to him. He far excelled

Robins, no doubt, as he has shown; but that involves no detraction from

the merit due to Robins for his experiments and discoveries, no more

than any individual proving the subject to be a more extensive one than

Hutton did, would excel Hutton; for the value of improvement is more to

be attributed to him who lays the foundation, than to him who raises the

building. So is it in this case; Robins laid the foundation for an

extensive knowledge of the nature and power of the explosive fluids, and

Hutton built upon that foundation a certain extent of superstructure,

and there he left it, without roofing the building: he considered the

question as settled. Common consent has, as yet, received his conclusion

as unshaken and uncontroverted; and it is not my intention to make the

attempt to controvert it, but merely to show that his deductions fall

short of what the principles of gunpowder-making admit--carried out in

the more extensive way it has been within the last few years--owing to

the limited nature of his experiments. This is rather an extensive

position for me to occupy, or endeavour to hold: but I do not mean the

size of the _tools_ of _experiment_ so much as the diversity of them;

for exploding ten thousand tons of powder in the same machine and in

the same way, would but give the same or similar results; it is the

variety and the singularity of experiments that expand and increase the

fund of knowledge, and enable the mind to conceive and comprehend the

immensity of the power and velocity of this wonderful combination. We

have been principally indebted to the exertions of the chemist for means

of purifying and extracting from the ingredients which form this

astonishing compound force, the impurities and foreign substances which

exist, to a certain extent, in all the three, and thus tending to form a

more perfect combustion by increasing the affinities.

Hutton shows that gunpowder is but so much condensed air; for he says

“We may hence, also, deduce the amazing degree of condensation of the

elastic air in the nitre and gunpowder, and the astonishing force

experienced by its explosion. It has been found by Mr. Robins, and other

philosophers, that 3-10ths of the mass of the powder consists of the

pure condensed air, or that the weight of the condensed air is equal to

3-10ths of the whole composition. But the whole composition of the

powder consists of eight parts by weight, of which six parts are nitre,

one part sulphur, one charcoal; of which the nitre or 3-4ths of the

composition furnishes the whole of the condensed air, while the sulphur

and charcoal only give the fire that produces the explosion. But 3-10ths

of the whole mass of eight parts is equal to 4-10ths of the six parts

of nitre, that is 4-10ths or 2-5ths of the nitre consists of condensed

air, or the weight of the gross matter in the nitre as four to six, or

as two to three; and these two parts, it is probable, are of equal

density or specific gravity. Yet the specific gravity of nitre is 1,900,

that of water being 1,000, and of air 1·2, which is contained in 1,900,

as much as 1,583 times; that is, the air in the nitre must be condensed

the amazing quantity of 1,583 times, if its specific gravity be equal to

the compound nitre itself.” Also, “The air is condensed in the nitre

about 1,600 times, nearly double the density of water, which may well be

considered as probably the greatest degree of compression that air is

capable of. Hence it may be perceived that a prodigious force must be

exerted by nature in generating nitre; and as this great force actually

exists in nature, it is very probable that the air in the nitre is thus

compressed into the most dense state possible, and in this consists the

similitude among the different particles of nitre.”

This extract from Hutton enables us to divest the question of any

technicalities, and puts it in so plain a garb that the simplest mind

may comprehend it. Now, the great improvement of chemistry has been to

extract from the nitre the gross material which is contained in the

proportions--2-5ths impurities, and 2-5ths condensed air; thus, half the

quantity being useless, the extraction of these alloys gives a greater

quantity of condensed gases in the same quantity of matter; for if we

take away 2-5ths of the proportions of useless matter, and supply its

place with 2-5ths more condensed air, we thus get 4-5th explosive matter

in the same bulk of material, and thus simply obtain an immense increase

of power without an increase in bulk. We have here evidence of the

progress that has been made in the science of explosive force.

Considering the difference between gunpowder in 1783 and gunpowder in

1858, I cannot say, with Hutton, that the force is doubled now to what

it was when he wrote; but I believe that this would not be far from the

truth; for it must be quite clear--if he is correct (which I believe he

is) in saying the force of gunpowder consists in the quantity of

explosive matter let loose and expanded by heat--that the greater the

quantity of condensed matter we may have in any given weight, the

greater the force, and the more rapid the explosion: purified saltpetre

thus forming nearly pure gaseous matter; as the diamond is pure carbon.

It seems singular, and is rather presumptuous to say, that Hutton was

not much of a chemist; but had he been more so, he must have perceived

that in the extraction of the foreign matter from the nitre, existed the

means of obtaining an increased quantity of explosive power, and a

proportionate increase of speed or velocity in that explosive material.

To ascertain the velocity best suited to all projectiles, constitutes

the germ of the science; and that we are approaching a new era in even

that more intimate portion of the science, is daily apparent. Science

shows clearly that if a given force, a quantity to be correctly

ascertained, can produce a certain result, the use of more is waste, and

unworthy of the seeker after perfection; and thus we have to determine

upon, or define, what is the degree or size of gun for certain effects:

a mere calculation nearly allied to that portion of engineering which

would define what power of engine would work a thousand cotton spindles,

or raise a million gallons of water; and all this will eventually be

done. Science requires that there should be no excess, no waste, no

unnecessary recoil, and all that combined with the utmost range of

projectile; this will have to be defined accurately before we can

clearly or truly say we are masters of the science of gunpowder. True it

is that the granulation of gunpowder gives a clear road to its

attainment; but it will be a wearisome journey to reach the summit: yet

it must and will be effected, and the nation that first attempts and

carries out the attainment, will evince a real love for and mastery of

science.

The following practical experiments illustrate the degree of velocity

and the effects of projectiles so clearly, that they alone will convey

some idea of the high velocity of the evolutions of the gases in

gunpowder.

My experiments are, like Robins’, on a small scale; nor would I, like

Hutton, try a brass gun of sixty calibres in length, carrying a

one-pound ball; for one is strictly more limited than the other, and

thus rendered the results laid down by him imperfect: for, as he says,

“If you fill the tube with powder you get no greater velocity, as there

is not a duration in the confinement to enable the powder to explode.”

If he had assimilated the grain of his powder to the gun, he would have

obtained a different result; and a knowledge of this fact, I apprehend,

makes all the difference. The greatest velocity he obtained was with

powder 1-1/2 times the weight of the ball in a gun of sixty calibres in

length, and the velocity he then obtained was only 3,181 feet per

second. The inferences that probably induced him to recommend others not

to endeavour to obtain a greater velocity than 2,000 feet per second,

were, like these experiments, drawn from imperfect data. With a ball of

an ounce weight in a barrel of sixty calibres, and with 3-4ths the

weight of ball in powder, or 12 drachms, a velocity can be given to the

ball to equal it in force to 46,875 pounds. The velocity of this ball I

leave to the calculations of the mathematical world. But, however, I

will give the results of a round of experiments tried to ascertain this;

and if the data laid down be correct, that the velocity of a ball must

be multiplied by its weight to find the force, the result will be the

establishment of a system of velocity never yet dreamt of. I cannot but

imagine that there exists some error; though where it is I know not:

every deduction I have drawn is consequent upon the results hereafter

described.

“The power required to force a punch 0·50 inch diameter through an iron

plate 0·08 inch thick is 6,025 pounds, through copper 3,938 pounds. A

simple rule for determining the force required for punching may thus be

deduced:--

“Taking one inch diameter and one inch in thickness as the units of

calculation it is shown that 150,000 is the constant number for

wrought-iron plates, and 96,000 for copper plates.

“Multiply the constant number by the given diameter in inches, the

product is the pressure in pounds which will be required to punch a hole

of a given diameter through a plate of a given thickness.”

Now an idea struck me, that this would form a very good test of the

comparative force of gunpowder, and I consequently commenced an

extensive round of experiments.

In the first attempt I found the results to vary with the weight of the

pendulum of iron plate, and that it was necessary to obtain uniformity

of size and surface; as it must be comprehended that the only resisting

medium to the pendulous plate was atmospheric resistance, and a

dissimilarity of size of surface would invariably give different

results. Having a number of plates of the different thicknesses

hereafter described, I continued increasing the charge from a definite

quantity, until the projectile was driven with sufficient velocity to

perforate the plate suspended. The gun selected for this purpose was of

heavy material, weighing nearly seventeen pounds, it was three feet

long, the metal of the barrel as thick at the muzzle as at the breech,

and carried a spherical ball of sixteen to the pound, or one ounce, and

which fitted tight with the thinnest patch procurable. The bore was

perfectly cylindrical, and plain inside, being polished longitudinally

to a high state of fineness. With a charge of twelve drachms of Curtis

and Harvey’s diamond grain powder, the ball went through the half-inch

plate, but went only a few yards further; denoting that the effort

necessary had nearly exhausted its velocity and momentum.

The recoil of the gun was of the most severe description, and the

shoulder had to be protected for many explosions previous to this high

charge. The larger sized grain was insufficient, ten drachms effecting

the greatest extent of power it seemed capable of, and it became quite

apparent that the tube would not explode more powder, as indications

convinced me: when any more was added, a portion came out unburnt.

The force necessary to effect this, by the above calculation, is 46,795

pounds.

The next plate was 7-16ths thick, and a charge of ten drachms punched

the piece out clean; nine and a half drachms were equal to it, when the

centre of the pendulum could be hit fairly, because there was then an

equal resistance from the atmosphere, which cannot exist in cases where

the edge of the disc receives the blow.

I got with ease a perforation in a 6-16ths plate, with a charge of

either fine or coarse powder, not exceeding eight drachms; a charge of

seven drachms of fine grain was unequal to the task; but seven drachms

of the coarse showed evidently greater effects produced, though the

perforation was not perfect. Six and a half drachms of No. 2 grain

penetrated a plate of 5-16ths thick easily, while it took full six and

three-quarters drachms of fine grain; five drachms of the larger

perforated a quarter-inch plate, but it took full five and a half

drachms of fine grain to effect the same; while a 3-16ths plate took

three and three-quarters drachms of fine, or three and a quarter of No.

2 grain; and 1-8th plate was easily punched by a charge of two and a

half drachms coarse or three drachms fine. I will place the relative

results in a table, with the force effected by each:--

Oz. Drachms. Punched a boiler plate Equal in force to

1 ball 12 of powder Half-inch thick 46,875 lbs.

1 „ 10 „ 7-16ths „ 41,015 „

1 „ 8 „ 6-16ths „ 35,155 „

1 „ 6-1/2 „ 5-16ths „ 29,295 „

1 „ 5 „ 4-16ths „ 23,437 „

1 „ 3-1/4 „ 3-16ths „ 17,578 „

1 „ 2 „ 2-16ths „ 11,718 „

Were I to adopt the established method of calculation, multiplying the

weight of ball by the velocity, I should get an answer that would point

to the utter impossibility of any such velocity being possible. And yet

the result is, according to the rule of figures, correct; but in truth

there are exceptions to many rules, for they are only correct when

applied to known products.

That the velocity of these balls was much, very much, greater than 7,000

feet per second of time, there cannot be any doubt; it was nearly three

times that. Yet I must not conceal the fact, that this punching is the

more perfect, the higher the velocity; and it shows how the fibres of

iron are separated from a want of vibration to equilibrise the cohesion.

Mr. Colthurst found that duration of pressure lessened the ultimate

force necessary to punch through metal, and thus it may be that

extremely quick pressure may produce the same. Therefore I suspect it is

not the most correct theory that calculates force to be accomplished at

all times by extreme velocity; there will be found discrepancies in the

rule, and one of them arises from no calculation ever having been made

with extreme velocities: medium velocities may generally give such

conclusions, but the very extreme in this case can never have been taken

into consideration at all; as I have very little doubt--in fact, I am

certain--that no person ever obtained such high velocity before. It

must, and is a vast deal greater, incomprehensibly greater, than any

velocity obtained by Hutton; and much more extensive than ever could be

obtained, or, in fact, ever will, by any ordnance whatever. I wish much

I could have experimented with a gun of greater length and bore, for

with one in every way fitted for the purpose, I have no doubt of being

able to perforate an inch thickness of plate.

Should any person possessing the opportunity and means, wish to try the

experiment, I would advise them to get a barrel of 4-1/2 feet long, 8

bore, to carry a 2 oz. ball, and of a weight to allow of extending the

explosion up to 30 drs. of powder; they would then obtain the extent of

force I have suggested. There is a certain point to be strictly

observed: see that the plate you use is perfectly sound; for if

laminated, or composed of various plates not firmly welded and attached,

the experiment would be imperfect, as there would be an uneven vibration

created, and acting as the hammer does when held against the point of

the nail while driving it in, clinches the point, so does the substance

in the portions of plate prevent a perforation. An ounce ball, suspended

against the back of the pendulum, by the jar or blow it receives and

communicates, completely prevents the effect, and the ball is flattened,

instead of perforating the object struck: so is it if you place a

1/4-inch plate against any support; it thus has the power of perfectly

resisting the force of the ball, though fired with considerably more

power than is requisite under other circumstances. The effect appears to

be chiefly mechanical; the outer fibres are driven in upon those behind

them with such quickness that they lose cohesion, or are condensed

quicker than the waves of vibration travel, thus giving them no means of

communicating the vibration. But when punched, the rapidity of their

motion produces in the metal a sound of the most intense vivacity, which

plays upon the ear for a considerable period, with rather a pleasant

effect. Lead alone is capable of being used in this experiment; except,

of course, the precious metals, which it would not be _convenient_ to

use. Even an adulteration of the slightest quantity of solder is

sufficient to prevent the result which lead, pure, will invariably give.

Lead projected against lead, if sufficiently thick, cannot perforate,

but the lesser portion becomes flattened; a cast-iron ball fired against

lead, with a certain velocity, is broken into pieces, affecting the lead

comparatively little: showing beautifully the peculiarity of dense

incompressible bodies to resist most effectually the greater the

velocity with which they are struck. Water will, if struck very sharply

with the flat of a sword, act against the blow in a way to splinter the

blade into pieces. The greater the velocity with which a ball is fired

into water, the less the depth of penetration; thus showing clearly the

many excellent properties of dense incompressible bodies as projectiles,

and proving the objection that lead is too soft for artillery to be

without a foundation, and only entertained from a want of knowledge of

its nature.

A point of great importance was exemplified during these experiments;

and as the question has lately given rise to considerable discussion, it

will be well that the facts should be stated.

At very short distances from the muzzle of the gun the penetration was

found to be less than at distances more extended. At five yards the iron

plate could not be perforated; at ten yards the effect was much greater,

but fifteen yards was the least distance at which it could be said to be

effectually perforated; at twenty yards the result was still more

satisfactory, clearly demonstrating that bullets gain both in velocity

and penetration for a considerable distance after leaving the muzzle of

the gun. The following experiments verify this remark:--

In the report of the experiments which were carried on at Cork in 1852,

it is stated that the power of penetration of an elongated rifle bullet

gradually increases as the range is increased, up to 190 yards.

In order to prove this, experiments were carried on at Enfield for three

days with a variety of fire-arms, and different sorts of projectiles.

On the fourth day the experiments were repeated with the common musket

and Wilkinson’s rifle. The former, at forty yards, gave a penetration of

2·25 inches; and the latter averaged 2·75, in a target of green elm.

Again: at ninety yards, the musket penetrated 2·25 inches, and the rifle

3·5 inches. At 120 yards, the musket gave 2·5 inches, and the rifle

3·25. Both being subsequently fired at every successive ten yards up to

220, the result was that the penetration of the musket ball gradually

decreased in power as the distance increased, while the elongated bullet

gained power of penetration up to 190 yards; after which it slightly

decreased.

2nd. Consequent on the velocity of the explosive fluids is the

resistance of that aëriform fluid filling all space. It has been

calculated that in a vacuum, matter in motion would be a long time in

coming to rest; and very providentially it is that nature in her grand

arrangements has made one element to control another. In no other

portion of nature’s work has anything more wonderful than atmospheric

air been produced; its action on the velocity of projectiles is of so

extensive a nature, that without clearly understanding that action, the

science of gunnery never can be thoroughly acquired. The resistance of

the atmosphere is in proportion to the velocity of the attempt to

displace it; the higher that velocity becomes, the greater is the

resistance. This is shown by the actions of all the fulminates. A

quantity of the fulminate of silver exploded on a copper plate will

perforate that plate, or, if fired upon a piece of wood, will bury

itself in that substance, splintering it in proportion to the quantity.

Now, ordinary gunpowder has no such effect as this, because, though it

may produce the same amount of expansive gas, it produces it at

one-fourth the velocity of the fulminates: the air is driven back upon

itself so gradually as to offer no very important resistance; but the

action of the fulminates is so rapid and so violent that the high

elasticity of the air has not time to yield, and the force is driven

into the apparently more solid material, the copper or the wood.

The mode in which atmospheric resistance mostly interferes with

projectile force is owing to the columnar form it assumes in the tubes

of all descriptions of gunnery. If the velocity of gunpowder be as great

as we suppose it to be, the displacement of a column of air must be

effected by driving the whole column in a gun-barrel of many inches,

into a column probably less than half an inch in height; or, if the

length of the tube from the starting of the charge to the muzzle be 38

inches, then will the displacement require a force capable of condensing

thirty-eight atmospheres into one, or something like 570 lbs.; without

estimating the lateral pressure of that column on the sides of the

gun-barrel, which may be safely estimated at one-half more. It may be

supposed that the column would be partially in motion for a greater

distance than half an inch in front of the projectile; but this is

disproved by the fact that time is essential to put aëriform matter in

motion, and naturally it never does so at a greater velocity than it is

familiarly known to do in the shape of winds: but the fact is better

illustrated by the frequent bursting of barrels near the muzzle, caused

by a piece of snow or clay, a piece of paper or wadding. Were a current

established around this projection it would pass on, but the air strikes

these light obstructions when in a high state of condensation, amounting

to many atmospheres in one: so many as to be nearly equal to a solid

which is more powerful than the barrel; the latter therefore succumbs to

it.

The resistance of the air is so highly philosophical a question, that I

merely touch on its actual bearings on the passage of projectiles to

show how the quantity of force is absorbed or expended in relation to

the quantity of the gunpowder employed; which, it may be assumed, is a

proportion of nearly one-third of the whole, or a quantity independent

of that necessary to give velocity to the leaden projectile, to enable

it to overcome the still and uniform impeding agent up to the end of its

flight. The rapid exit of the bullet from the barrel, with a resisting

influence of this weight into the comparatively insignificant one of 15

lbs. to the square inch, will fully explain how it is that a bullet

increases in velocity even up to a considerable distance after leaving

the muzzle of the gun; and further showing that in all arrangements of

truly scientific gunnery, the increasing resistance must be met by a

fresh production of explosive fluid over every atom of space in that

tube, where it is demonstrable that the resistance is increasing in a

geometrical progression as the point of exit is becoming nearer; so that

gunnery, unless all the contingencies are provided for, must necessarily

remain an imperfect science.

Intimately allied to the displacement of the atmosphere is the amount of

friction. Gunnery is now rid of the anomaly of being assisted by

friction: the detention of the projectile in the tube by artificial

friction, to enable more force to be generated, is one of those

absurdities pardonable only in bygone days. Science is best consulted by

lessening friction; guns of steel, with interiors as fine as the polish

in a mirror, are found to shoot best: a rough road is but so much force

uselessly absorbed; the experience of the last few years having proved

that a range of 1,800 yards cannot be accomplished except with barrels

having surfaces as smooth as possible.

Rifles, no doubt, are now in use in which, by increasing the degree of

spiral, friction is more than doubled, perhaps trebled; but such

unscientific constructions are but as one error to counteract another.

Unscientifically formed projectiles not having in themselves the

principles necessary for true flight, have to receive a counteracting

agency in the shape of additional spinning, on an axis coincident to the

line of flight, to enable them to range a given distance, with, as it

will be perceived, an additional amount of expellant agency; but these

cannot be included in the category of scientific gunnery.

3rd. Next to absence of friction is the construction of the gun barrel.

Already have we shown that the inner surface of a gun barrel requires

to be like glass; next to this it is necessary that the metal should be

composed of the most unyielding structure. Metals absorb force in

proportion to their softness: a barrel constructed of lead gives the

worst result of any metal; in truth, as is the increase of tenacity and

density in the tube, so is the increase of range in projectiles. The

wonderful results displayed by the use of steel guns of all descriptions

bear out this assertion to the fullest extent. A yielding gun barrel may

be compared to the dragging of a heavily loaded waggon over boggy

ground, which rises in a wave before the wheels during its progress.

4th. Next in importance to the inflexibility of the gun barrel is the

form of projectile best calculated to displace the atmosphere during its

extended flight. Under the head of Rifles this subject will be more

fully discussed; but, as thousands of years have stamped the arrow as

being in accordance with nature’s laws, it should no doubt be the object

of science to approximate the leaden projectile to that form as much as

possible, and hence the cylindro-conoidal may be assumed to be the best

form of projectile.

That both Jacob’s and Whitworth’s bullets partake of a certain amount of

“_wabbling_” motion after leading the muzzle of the gun is certain, from

their length, as well as from the fact that in both the centre of

gravity is in the hinder part of the bullet; thus they are both in

reality bad in a scientific point of view.

If any merit can be claimed for either, it is on account of the

mechanical ingenuity displayed in neutralizing the effects of want of

scientific principle. The want of principle, however, is not the only

evil, were such guns to come into general use; their manufacture, in the

hands of that portion of the gun trade which never estimates

consequences, and never studies the theory of the science at all, but

manufactures all fire-arms by “rule of thumb,” would prove dangerous in

the extreme.

The bursting of barrels in any attempt to project lengthened projectiles

is of a very different description to that which ordinarily occurs, on

account of the different direction in which the force is applied. In

consequence of their greater length, and their increased friction

against the sides of the barrel, they are more reluctantly set in

motion--_i. e._, their inertia is with greater difficulty overcome. The

result of this is, that in overcoming their inertia the greatest strain

is exerted backward, on the breech of the gun; which, if not more firm

than usual, is blown out, entering the forehead of the shooter: an

accident which would prove fatal not only to the gun, but to the person

who used it.

This accident may no doubt be effectually guarded against by

strengthening the breech end of the gun as well as the breech itself;

but without that precaution it is to be feared that such accidents would

be of frequent occurrence.

A considerable error may easily be promulgated, as to the heat necessary

to be applied ere gunpowder will explode. A late writer says, it is

necessary to raise it to 600 degrees before it is explosive. This is a

splitting of hairs, and such a palpable mystification, that it is

scarcely worth noticing. But I will explain: if you place upon a plate a

few grains of powder, by heating the plate underneath (for instance, on

a smith’s fire,) you will see the sulphur giving out a blue flame, it

being easily fused. As the plate becomes heated to nearly a red heat,

the whole explodes, in consequence of the charcoal and nitre not being

hot enough to allow the gases generating the heat to be liberated; but

as soon as this does take place the explosion ensues. Now, it is a well

known fact, that the smallest particle of matter possessing above 600°

of heat, will ignite any quantity of powder it comes in immediate

contact with; we will suppose with one portion of charcoal, one of

sulphur, and one of nitre (it matters not how small they are: a ten

hundredth part of the substance of one of the smallest grains of powder

would suffice), and if it has the means of communicating to these small

portions 600°, this is sufficient, as their explosion induces also that

of the very largest quantity: for it ought to be perfectly understood,

that a great explosion is but so many millions of small ones combined,

and by their united force effecting the great results we see. The

ingredients of powder are ground and intimately mixed together on the

bed of the mill to the great extent they are, to the end that, if

possible, there shall not be in the composition two grains or portions

of one ingredient in immediate contact with each other; but that, when

the ignition does take place, each may be present to add its peculiar

gas, in order that each affinity may be supplied. Thus becomes evident

the necessity of a most extensive incorporation, a blending and equal

division of mixture throughout the whole material.

The advantage of unglazed gunpowder is here fully shown; for it presents

an inequality, a roughness of surface, over which the flame from the

percussion mixture cannot travel without igniting some of the prominent

parts, and thus the whole. You may glaze powder and make it so smooth

that it would be very difficult indeed to ignite; but except that it

enables the powder to resist moisture better, it is otherwise very

detrimental, as tending both to prevent ignition and lengthening the

period of effecting it.

The flame from the percussion powder is of that intense and vivid

description, that if a charge of powder in the breech of a gun is loose,

the flame will form a mass of condensed air round itself, and driving

the grains of powder before it, prevent the immediate contact of the

heat and the particles of powder, until the heat is expended; and thus

arises a “miss fire.” If the powder is up only to the nipple, there

being a quantity of air in the tube of that nipple, the explosion of the

fluid will drive down this air, and condense it between the powder and

top of the nipple to such an extent as to cause a certain “miss fire.”

It becomes requisite to find a remedy for this, and it can only be done

by bringing the powder into the very vicinity of the explosion on the

nipple. This can be effected in several ways, but the most perfect is

to obtain as direct a communication as possible; a widening of the

perforations of the breech, and space to allow the powder free access up

the nipple. For this purpose we propose an improved form of nipple. The

centre one of the three (here shown in section) is considerably broader

and shorter than the others. A cap made broader and not so deep would be

an improvement, as bringing the point of ignition nearer the charge, and

thus effecting a saving of time; for great and wonderfully quick as is

the explosion, it is clear to the senses that it may be quickened. We

are not finding fault with the “lightning being too slow,” as Colonel

Hawker says; but science means perfection, and the nearer we can come to

it the better.

[Illustration: OLD PLAN OF NIPPLE.

NEWEST PLAN OF NIPPLE.

IMPROVED NIPPLE OF 1835.]

The nipples now in general use have the smaller orifice at the bottom,

and, being lined with platina, never foul. Experience has shown that

admitting the gunpowder into the nipple “is not advantageous,”

especially with large grained powder; by constructing the nipple with

the small orifice at the bottom, the largest grain can be used

beneficially. As the velocity of the fulminating gas is much greater

than “a train” of gunpowder ever can be, quickness is also gained by

their adoption. I have used them for many years with great success;

nothing but cost deters their general adoption. The passing of the flame

through the very small opening in the platina, by this very high

impingement, increases its heat to a great extent, ensuring explosion.

The true science of gunnery consists in knowing that a certain force is

requisite to effect a certain purpose, or, in other words, to kill at a

certain distance; and also how to arrange that force so as to effect the

purpose without having any extra _force_, or any waste of powder, nor

yet too little, but with a corresponding result: a sufficiency; neither

more nor less. This we have shown is attainable by the mechanical

arrangement of granulation; for it is useless to use less, or to use an

iota more of fine grain powder, if the size larger will effect the

purpose without that iota. Propellant velocity is the grand desideratum

in all gunnery; the obtainment of this, to the greatest extent, is the

power of killing at the greatest distance: all ranges are dependent on

velocity; no extreme _range_ can be obtained without a corresponding

speed.

The very finest powder, it will be perceived, is fitted--perfectly

fitted, preferable, indeed--to coarser grain for guns of a short length

of tube, where a perfect combustion of the whole charge can be obtained

without any waste or want; but as such is quite unsuited for longer

barrels: I cannot too often repeat it. The column of air is the ruling

power. Look what its effects are by Hutton’s calculations, with the

very low velocities he obtained! So great as to bring all projectiles he

used to a medium velocity, before they were projected beyond a certain

distance. Then what must its resistance be where the velocities are

trebled? I say trebled, for my powder and the percussion combined have

more than trebled the velocities. You must then clearly have a powder of

such grain as suits the capacity of your gun. All barrels have a size of

grain that will suit them best, and manufacturers of gunpowder will

consult their own profit and the convenience of sportsmen, if they

assimilate the grain of powder to various sizes; as in shot, to No. 1,

No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on: eventually this system must be adopted.

This will explain quite clearly how the fact (singular to many) occurs,

of short guns excelling their longer competitors, and how frequently a

particular maker obtains an immensity of credit for an excellent gun

only twenty-two inches: “Beat my Lord So-and-so’s of thirty inches!” and

how, “When I cut four inches off my double, she shot better than ever

she did.” All these occurrences are perfectly dependent on a knowledge

of the generating of the explosive force, and may be reversed at any

time by a person possessed of sufficient knowledge of these facts: put

in coarse grain into the short gun, and fine into the long, and the

facts will be changed considerably, as will be easily seen. A degree of

mystery has hitherto existed as to the cause of this discrepancy; but I

trust this explanation will clear it up.

Experiment has shown the error of stating that only a certain quantity

of powder could be consumed: the proportion stated was considerably

below the actual quantity, as the experiments of punching the plates

show; for since twelve drachms can be burnt in a three-feet barrel,

therefore ten drachms may be consumed in one two feet eight inches, with

a given weight to lift. In addition to this, must be placed the fact of

improvement, both in the composition and granulation of the powder;

which we have no hesitation in stating has been considerable, within

only a very few years, all tending to the quickness of generating force.

The granulatory system, if acted upon, will give the sportsman or

soldier a completely new power in gunnery; for it must be evident, if we

have the means of projecting certain bodies with an extreme velocity,

say 5,000 feet per second, it becomes a simple calculation to ascertain

the quantity of force and length of tube to give to a certain weight.

Take, for instance, an ounce ball in a barrel two feet six inches long.

Extremely fine grain powder, from its rapidity of expansion, gives to

the ball this velocity at fifteen inches from the breech; the remaining

fifteen inches contain a column of air highly condensed, which will

inevitably reduce this velocity back nearly fifty per cent., or 2,500,

and with that velocity the ball leaves the muzzle. Therefore, as we have

already said, it must be evident you have here generated a high speed to

be as quickly reduced; and it shows clearly that if a different grain of

powder would expand from breech to muzzle, increasing the velocity on a

granulated scale until it obtained the highest, or 5,000 feet per

second, as the ball left the muzzle, you would save here clear 50 per

cent. in force, with less recoil, less internal strain on the barrel,

and with exactly the same weight of powder; thus showing that you have

just a definite quantity of force in a definite quantity of powder.

The true science of gunnery is the knowledge how to best arrange the

collateral parts, so that you may obtain the greatest result with the

least means. I have also clearly shown that the resistance of the

atmosphere is one, and the principal obstruction in the attainment of

high velocities; its resistance being regulated entirely by the degree

of speed with which it is wanted to be displaced. Thus it is true, as

both Robins and Hutton have shown, that only a certain velocity can be

obtained beneficially; though the degree is considerably greater then

either conceived, as far greater impetus has been obtained, and

projected bodies have ranged much beyond their calculations, and that

beneficially too. One drawback on the theory of these gentlemen is their

calculating the velocities with iron projectiles; for the heavier the

material the more powerful the momentum, and consequently the longer

retention of their velocity, from not presenting the same space to the

resisting medium, the air.

The development of the system of granulation must and does exercise

considerable control over the shooting of barrels of every description.

I have already explained what has been hitherto considered the curious

phenomena of short and long barrels shooting so dissimilarly, and this

illustration completely establishes the fact of the expulsive and

repulsive forces being controlled by each other: as either

preponderates, so is the result. The open-ended barrel projecting balls,

and eventually bursting, is a beautiful and interesting elucidation,

both of the force of gunpowder and the stubborn nature of the

atmospheric fluid. All these facts are valuable, inasmuch as they lay

bare circumstances which have never been satisfactorily accounted for,

and enable the mind of lowest capacity to understand the cause and

effect.

The superiority of one barrel in throwing shot stronger and more evenly

distributed, arises, it will be easily seen, from the absence, or

existence of, internal friction, when contrasted with the different

degrees of expelling force, and the degree of resistance from the

atmosphere; it also accounts clearly for the fact of guns shooting

stronger on one day than on another, in fine and in rough weather: the

weight, the resistance of the air, is the only cause of the variation;

for gunpowder cannot drive back a dense atmosphere as quickly as a

lighter one. The cause of guns bursting is to be placed to the account

of both air and the generation of the explosive fluid so

instantaneously; the solid front which air offers to quick compression,

throws the force on the barrel, and the sides of the tube give way

because they are weaker: this cannot occur so easily with powder of a

more gradually expansive force, therefore safety is consulted in its

use, in addition to the numerous advantages it otherwise possesses.

Mr. Blaine, in his Encyclopædia of Rural Sports, has the following: “The

increase of metal in the detonator, we think, with Colonel Hawker, to be

an essential requisite, first, to resist the quicker, and, consequently,

more forcible, expansive force applied by the ignition of the powder

through the agency of detonation, and tend to lessen the recoil so much

more forcibly felt in most detonators. This increased weight of

percussion Mr. Greener, however, objects to, and inquires, ‘Whether some

of the best flint guns met with, have not been very light?’ To this we

answer, that it was the principle on which the explosion of the flint

gun was effected that enabled it to be made lighter, and yet to remain

equally safe in using; but we also know, that where it was required to

add to the rapidity and force of the ignition, it then became necessary

to increase the substance of the barrel.”

Experience teaches the writer, and I dare say it would Mr. Blaine, if he

were to experiment to the extent I have done, that there is no rapidity

in the ignition further than the closing of that point of ignition by

the cock, and no “force” beyond what the comparative instantaneous

ignition of the gunpowder in the nipple creates. This is quite

sufficient to prevent the further penetration of the percussion flame;

and the only increase, to quote his own words, “to resist the quicker,

and, consequently, more expansive, force applied by the ignition of the

powder through the agency of detonation,” arises from an improvement (as

it is termed) in the granulation of the powder, which alone creates the

increased expansive force. This will be clearly understood by any one

reading this work from the beginning; the only difference between the

flint and percussion systems is the stopping of the orifice of ignition

in one, and allowing it to escape in the other; for the flame has to

travel to _windward_ (to use a nautical expression) in the flint; the

other has its own accumulating power to force ignition through the body

of the powder. This alone constitutes the difference. The necessity for

an increase of metal at the breech of a barrel does not arise from any

peculiarity in the mode of communicating the fire, but in the increased

inflammability of the powder alone. The extreme smallness of grain has

effected this more than the use of fulminating flame; and the continuous

cry for fine powder, to get better up the nipples, has produced an

alteration which is placed wrongfully to the credit of the percussion.

Again, he says, “Mr. Greener, however, would have us acquire this

increase of power of resistance, not by quantity of material, but by

increased tenacity and elasticity in the metal the gun is formed of, and

we agree that it would be a great improvement if it could be brought

about. But what is our prospect of it? Is it not the general complaint

that gun metal is not by any means what it was? We have shown that it is

not; and, therefore, we do not think, as Mr. Greener asserts, that any

recommendation of increased weight of metal to the percussion barrel

beyond that of the flint gun “is founded on ignorance;” but, on the

contrary, that the very reason Mr. Greener gives to prove it, is that

which we think affords evidence of its perfect rationality, _the

explosive force created_.” The answer given above applies to this also:

save on the score of lessening recoil, superior quality is preferable,

to quantity.

The shooting powers of gun barrels are dependent on two

circumstances--goodness of metal, and a proper shape of exterior: it

cannot be too often repeated, _that a gun barrel is a spring_, to all

intents and purposes; if you add metal, you add stubbornness, and

destroy that expansibility, without the existence of which the barrel

is, comparatively speaking, useless. Heavy, ponderous barrels do not

propel a charge of shot with either that smartness or degree of

closeness that a barrel more scientifically constructed does; you have

less recoil certainly, but the addition of half an inch of more metal

behind the butt of the breech would do this more effectually, and save

you carrying an additional weight. The gradual ignition of powder

obviates the necessity of a great thickness of metal in the sides of the

barrels; but if it is determined to persevere in the use of peculiarly

fine grained powder, you would certainly be justified, nay, required, to

have more and better metal than at present, for the electrical nature of

the explosion will throw upon the tube that force which would be more

judiciously employed in giving impetus to the charge of projectiles.

I have found that expansion will increase the shooting powers of a

barrel; but then it must not be the expansion of an unelastic piece of

metal, but of metal whose elasticity rebounds with a force equal to that

with which it expands; for whatever else you may obtain by creating

friction, by boring the breech end of the barrel wider you obtain a

greater expansion, as it no doubt has that tendency. We find it an

invariable fact, that when barrels are very heavy, compared with their

size of bore (if a cylinder), they shoot weak. Also, when barrels are

made of irons of different temperatures, where one is placed to prevent

the expansion or springing nature of the other, they are never found to

shoot well. As a proof of this fact, let any one take the best barrel he

ever shot with, and encase it with lead very tight; fire it at a dozen

sheets of paper, and see if the effect be equal to what it was when the

barrel was unencumbered. On the contrary, it will be found to have shot

very weak, though close. Let him then examine the lead; and, if any

moderate substance, he will find that the explosion has enlarged it

considerably. This experiment I have tried repeatedly, and can vouch for

its truth.

The proof of barrels is another fact corroborating the truth of our

assertion. What else can occasion the bulging, but the expansion? Where

the barrels are possessed of soft and hard portions (which is the result

of different tempers of different metals), one expands further than the

other, and then, of course, the soft part receives no assistance from

the hard, and it does not return to its original state.

Put on a barrel, from the breech end to the muzzle, a number of rings of

lead; be sure you have them tight, and not further apart than three or

four inches; fire that barrel with a usual charge, and if it be a

correct taper for shooting, it will have expanded the whole of the rings

an equal distance.

From the observations already made, the reader will perceive that the

shooting of all barrels depends on a certain degree of friction. The

degree of friction necessary, varies according to the nature and

substance of the metal. Those metals that require least shoot best. The

object of the friction is to create a greater force, by detaining the

charge longer in the barrel. If, then, there should not be an extra

quantity of powder to consume, the friction would be a decided evil.

This may be understood by rifle practice, in which we find that a short

barrel of eighteen inches, with a certain charge, will throw a ball as

straight, and quite as strong, or stronger, than a barrel of three feet,

loaded with a similar charge. I account for this fact thus: the barrel

of eighteen inches will burn all the powder put into it; the long one

can do no more. As soon as the ball has left the short barrel, it meets

with no impediment but the air. By the time the ball in the longer one

has travelled eighteen inches the powder is all consumed; the volume of

air in the remaining eighteen inches acts as a destroyer of the force

given to it, and it naturally drops its ball short of the other.

Increase the charge of powder to as much as the long one can burn, and

then it will throw its shot to nearly twice the distance of the other.

An addition of powder beyond the quantity the barrel can consume is

disadvantageous; the reverse will be found equally so. Thus it is with

fowling-pieces. The quantity of powder that a gun would burn in the

shape of a cylinder, would be too little, when, by altering that shape,

you increase the friction. The quantity must, therefore, be increased,

or this friction will diminish the force of the shot. It is on this that

the mistaken supposition is founded, that short barrels will shoot as

far as long ones. It is true that with a small charge, or very fine

powder, the short barrel will kill at the distance of thirty yards, as

well as the long one; but put in the long one as much powder as it can

consume, then try the two at twice the distance, and you will find out

the mistake under which you have been labouring.

It is on the nature of the metal that the goodness of the shooting

principally depends. That barrel which is possessed of the greatest

degree of elasticity and tenacity, will throw its shot strongest and

closest with the least artificial friction. It is on the knowledge of

the qualities and temperatures of the various irons, and on practice in

the art of shooting, that a man’s ability in making guns shoot with

precision must rest. All plans are merely methods by which an

unscientific maker has most frequently succeeded. It would be no

difficult task to produce a hundred barrels which will shoot nearly

alike; yet every barrel shall be different in its bore.

The length of friction depends entirely on the length of the barrel.

Long barrels require more than short, though the latter require it in a

greater degree. A mode of creating friction, much practised by those who

are ignorant of the true method, is to bore the barrels as rough and as

full of rings as possible. These rings are often taken for flaws; though

that may be ascertained by noticing whether or not they have the same

inclination as the twist, and whether or not they are at the jointing of

a spiral. If they be not, the chance is that the barrel is ring-bored,

as it is termed. This roughness, however, answers the same as friction

by relief; but barrels thus roughened are very liable to lead, and

become foul. While the well-bored barrel will fire forty shots as well

as twenty, these cannot be fired more than twenty times with safety and

effect.

Each of the barrels in the table below, if 3-16ths thick at the breech,

is equal to the pressure stated. The resistance of a charge of shot of

one ounce we find to be more than before stated; and the additional

increase of explosive force obtained at the moment of ignition, requires

the amount to be much greater in computation, therefore, we may safely

take a pressure of 1,700 pounds to the inch of tube. The reader will

perceive, on reference to the following table, that with the tube filled

with powder for an inch in length, which is a small charge, the

explosive force will be equal to 40,000 pounds, or nearly 1,700 pounds

to the inch.

Pressure of Surplus

charge. strength.

Laminated and other steel barrels lbs. lbs. lbs.

are equal to a pressure of 6,022 1,700 4,329

Wire twist 5,019-1/2 1,700 3,319-1/2

New stub twist mixture 5,555 1,700 3,855

Old stub twist 4,818 1,700 3,118

Charcoal iron 4,526 1,700 2,826

Threepenny skelp iron 3,841 1,700 2,141

Damascus iron 3,292 1,700 1,592

Fancy twisted steel 3,134 1,700 1,434

Twopenny skelp iron 2,840 1,700 1,140

If the charge he increased to one ounce and a half, the length it

occupies, and the lateral pressure by the jamming, will create an

additional pressure in proportion, or near 2,550 pounds, as under:--

Pressure of Surplus

1-1/2 oz. shot. strength.

Laminated and other steel barrels lbs. lbs. lbs.

are equal to a pressure of 6,022 2,550 3,472

Wire twist barrel 5,019-1/2 2,550 2,469-1/2

New stub twist mixture 5,555 2,550 3,005

Old stub twist 4,818 2,550 2,268

Charcoal iron 4,526 2,550 1,976

Threepenny skelp iron 3,841 2,550 1,291

Damascus iron 3,292 2,550 742

Fancy twisted steel 3,134 2,550 584

Twopenny skelp iron 2,840 2,550 290

A charge of shot two ounces weight will be greater in pressure than

barrels of these dimensions are equal to restrain, and, consequently, no

barrels should be charged to this extent at any time; but inferior

barrels, as a matter of certainty, are sure to give way if so loaded.

Pressure of Surplus.

2 oz. shot.

lbs. lbs. lbs.

Laminated barrels, &c. 6,022 3,400 2,622

Wire twist barrels 5,029-1/2 3,400 1,619-1/2

New stub twist mixture 5,555 3,400 2,155

Old stub twist 4,818 3,400 1,418

Charcoal iron 4,526 3,400 1,126

Threepenny skelp iron 3,841 3,400 441

Damascus iron 3,292 3,400

Fancy steel barrels 3,134 3,400

Twopenny skelp iron 2,840 3,400

The foregoing tables show clearly the danger of persevering in using

heavy charges of shot; for it must be borne in mind that accidental

circumstances will increase this pressure, and never can act so as to

lessen it: a foul gun, or a variety of other circumstances, being sure

to increase the danger.

Having fully explained the nature of gunpowder, it remains to say

something about the other portion, namely, the shot. That a barrel

creating explosive force, until the charge is in the act of leaving the

muzzle, will shoot better than another which does not do this, there

cannot exist a doubt; for this is the germ of the science. Also that the

column of air in barrels, where the explosive fluid is sooner expended,

acts upon the wadding, and influences the lateral direction of the shot,

there can also be no doubt; therefore, more attention is requisite to

this point than is generally given. I am quite certain that all

well-constructed barrels, both as regards metal and exterior shape,

shoot best, shoot so longest, and foul or lead less, than barrels having

the aid of friction: soft barrels require it, no doubt, but why make

soft barrels? The others cost but little more, and the superiority

admits of no question. The quantity of shot is a matter of the first

consequence, and I think that I have clearly established the fact, that

the less the weight, in proportion to the force, the greater the speed

or velocity given to that weight; hence it follows that to be beneficial

a certain quantity is suited.

All guns, according to their bore and length, will shoot a certain

weight and a certain size of shot best. A great deal of shot in a small

bore lies too far up the barrel, and creates an unnecessary friction;

and the shot, by the compression at the moment of explosion, becomes all

shapes: a circumstance which materially affects its flight. If of too

great a weight, the powder has not power to drive it with that speed and

force required to be efficacious, because the weight is too great in

proportion.

Those who reason from mathematical calculation will object to this

doctrine. They will say, the greater the weight the greater the effect.

No doubt it is so, if thrown with a proportionate force; but that cannot

be obtained with a small gun. We must adapt the weight of projectile

force to the power we are in possession of; and from many experiments, I

am inclined to think, that a fourteen gauge, two feet eight inches

barrel, should never be loaded with above one ounce and a quarter of

shot (No. 6 will suit best), and the utmost powder she will burn. A

fifteen gauge will not require more than one ounce; and no doubt No. 7

would be thrown by her quite as strong as No. 6 by the fourteen gauge

gun, and do as much execution at forty yards with less recoil. Setting

aside all other reasons, I should, on this account, prefer the fifteen

gauge-gun, if both be of a length; as I find as much execution can be

done at the same distance with one as with the other. To render a

fourteen gauge barrel superior, Colonel Hawker is right in stating, that

it should never be under thirty-four inches; which description of barrel

I very much approve. He also says, “You cannot have closeness and

strength in shooting combined, beyond a certain degree:” an observation,

in the truth of which I fully concur; it being found that where there is

a greater degree of either strength or closeness, the other requisite is

always wanting. Neither would it be advisable, as the sportsman will

find a medium decidedly the best: a medium that will give the shots

fairly spread over a space of thirty inches diameter, at forty yards;

and so regularly, that a space, which would allow a bird to escape,

shall not occur above twice out of five shots, and each shot to

penetrate through thirty sheets of paper. It will be found, that a gun

doing this regularly, is far superior to one throwing twice as close and

not one-half through the paper; as the latter will require four or five

pellets to kill a bird, when two of the other would be quite as

efficacious, on account of penetrating twice as far.

In favour of small shot, Mr. Daniel’s observations are so pertinent,

that I cannot do better than quote him. He says, “The velocity of a

charge of No. 7 being equal (we will say nearly) to one of No. 3 at

that distance (35 yards), and since small shot fly thicker than large in

proportion to its size; and as there are many parts about the body of a

bird, wherein a pellet of No. 7 will affect its vitality equal to a

pellet of No. 2, the chances by using the former are multiplied in the

workman’s favour; for it is the number and not the magnitude of the

particles that kills on the spot. They who prefer large shot, and

accustom themselves to fire at great distances, leave nearly as many

languishing in the field as immediately die. Whereas, those that use

small shot, and shoot fair, fill their bag with little spoil or waste

beyond what they take with them from the field.” To an old gamekeeper of

his (he tells us) he has often put the question, “Why he was so partial

to small shot,” and his reply was, “Sir, they go between the feathers

like pins and needles; whilst the large shot you use, as often glance

off as penetrate them.” No doubt, here Mr. Daniel is as correct as may

be. Mr. Blaine says, query? But he ought to be aware, as I suppose he

is, though allowing himself to lose sight of principles, that small shot

can be, and are, propelled from the barrel with an equal velocity with

the larger; it is only in the length of range that the greater triumphs;

but if we take thirty or thirty-five yards’ distance as an average, the

latter will not “_lead_” in the race. Therefore, the advocates of small

shot have unquestionably the better of the argument at this distance; at

greater, I will not dispute it, though I have picked up No. 5 shot 300

yards from the spot fired from; larger, No. 3, rarely reaches 400 yards.

Hard shot is not so liable to be mis-shaped, nor does it lose its

velocity by contact, as easily as soft.

Under the head mixed shot, Blaine observes, “We do not believe any law

in projectiles can be brought forward to prove its impropriety. The mass

of shot is propelled by the expansive power of the powder; it is ejected

in a mass; and when it separates, each shot carries with it its own

share of ejective force, with very little interference with any other,

it being evident that the projectile force acting on each shot is in the

proportion of its area of dimensions,” &c.

Here is a great mistake. The law of projectiles is not wanted to prove

its fallacy; the laws of motion will do that. If you take any number of

equal or dissimilar sizes of shot, and place it as a charge is placed in

a gun barrel, occupying 3/4 of an inch of tube, there is, of course, a

wadding between powder and shot; this wadding is, or ought to be, a

piston; velocity is communicated to this piston by the explosion; it

does so to the shot immediately above it, that to the layers above, and

so on until the whole mass is in motion. The velocity behind the piston

is increasing to a certain point, where it ceases; then it is that the

layer farthest from the piston, having received its maximum from the

layers below, travels quicker than its assistants; who, having parted

with their force, fall behind in proportion: so does each layer, even

until the last one which received it from the piston, having

communicated so much to his friends before him, is left without himself.

It is an undisputed law in motion that one body may convey to another,

by contact, nearly its own velocity, but in so doing, is sure to come to

rest immediately. Strike one billiard ball against another, if the blow

is centrical, the ball struck receives the motion, the other comes to

rest; and so is it with shot: it is only the layers next the muzzle

which strikes the target, the remainder fall without travelling the same

distance. I have fired three balls from a rifle, and having marked them

I found the uppermost projected farthest, and the others in proportion.

This is easily proved.

Thus, it is quite clear that in all charges of mixed shot, the larger

will extract the velocity from the smaller, and consequently become

useless for the purpose intended: this fact is unquestionable.

In speaking of the longest duck or swivel guns, I may instance Colonel

Hawker’s account of the performance of such fowling artillery. It

appears evident that they do not effect anything like the execution

which might be expected from their immense size and capability. The

reason of this is obvious. From the great space of the interior, in

order to receive that equal pressure on the inch which a common

fowling-piece receives, they should be charged in proportion to the

increased size; but then, I scarcely need add, they would become

ungovernable. In addition to this objection, they could not be forged of

malleable iron, so as to be safe; on account of the impossibility of

forging a barrel of that weight by hand hammers, and the little

probability of hammers ever being invented to work by steam to do it

sufficiently quick. The greater the weight of the barrel its strength is

gradually decreased, owing to the impossibility of sufficiently beating

it throughout the whole body.

It must be well known to any one versed in mechanics, that an

anchor-shank weighing some hundredweights is more easily broken than

iron one-twentieth part of the weight, which has had the advantage of

being forged by hammers where the blows were felt through the whole

mass. This cannot be the case in forging large barrels, as the workmen

cannot use hammers heavy enough; consequently the barrel is turned out

of hand with the pores more open than a piece of cast iron. They have

tried this with large guns for the artillery, and it has repeatedly

failed, entirely from the want of sufficient power to compress the iron.

All guns, therefore, of an unusual size, are not of strength in

proportion to a small gun; hence the reason they cannot with safety be

charged up to the corresponding scale. Neither are they of the length

they should be, if the bore is to be the criterion. It must be

remembered that to be charged in proportion, the pressure on the inch

should be as many times the pressure on the inch of the small gun, as

the one is the number of times larger than the other. If we come exactly

to the real state of the case, we doubt much (when taking into

consideration the difference of surface) that the pressure on the inch

in the large gun is equal even to that on a small gun. The comparison

might be carried up to the largest artillery, and I doubt whether it

would come up to this scale; as it is well known that the heaviest guns

will not throw their projectile as far in proportion as the small gun,

because you dare not generate the force required to do it. The same

principle is applicable to artillery as to fowling-pieces.

From the above data, I would say, never make duck-guns above

seven-eighths in the bore, if you wish them to kill at a great distance;

and not less than fifteen or sixteen pounds weight, and full four feet

long; because then you can generate strength sufficient. Therefore,

instead of the large stanchion-guns being one hundred pounds weight,

they should, strictly speaking, be two hundred, and so on. In proof of

this I may just mention that, upon repeated experiments, I have

ascertained that a double stanchion-gun, with each barrel of the same

bore, weight, and length, as a single gun, will kill further than the

latter; simply owing to the advantage of the greater weight of the

double gun. I have made observations, when trying moderate-sized and

shoulder duck-guns on that fine level piece of sand before spoken of,

and by tracing the grazing of the shots I have been enabled to pick them

up. The large shot from the duck-gun, mostly No. 2, I found scarcely 400

yards from the spot where she was fired; the small shot, five and six,

from a fourteen bore, were repeatedly picked up at 350 yards: thus

showing that the large gun had not much advantage; but yet making

probable many assertions made of killing at seventy, eighty, and

sometimes a hundred yards, with a common-sized gun. By this it appears

possible; for shot that will fly that distance must kill, if it hit

during its flight through the first quarter of such a range; but then,

at a single bird, above fifty-five or sixty yards, it is always twenty

to one against hitting the object at all; as the pellets begin to

separate rapidly at that distance, though their force is still

sufficient, and in large flocks is apt to do execution.

The invention of the patent wire cartridge is rather the production of a

scientific mind than the production of chance; though the invention of

General Shrapnell contains the principle, and the perfection attained is

but the extension of that principle: namely, the means of projecting a

number of bodies of a similarity in size without subjecting them to an

extreme jamming by the lateral expansion, and thus allowing each to

travel his allotted distance without any of his companions robbing him

of his speed by impact. The great peculiarity of the wire cartridge is,

that being less than the bore, and having no bottom wadding, the

explosive fluid acts all around, between the sides of the barrel and the

net, by what may not inaptly be termed the windage, and the shot are

thus expelled by a cushion-like force, which does not jam or compress

them in the way it is liable to by a wadding forcing it outwards. Here

the net is of use to keep the whole in a mass; but you must not suppose

the same would be obtained by a charge of shot, without a wadding

below. The net opens, after leaving the muzzle of the gun. The

introduction of bone-dust is intended for, and answers the purpose of

preventing the grains of shot being mis-shaped by the compression:

during their passage up the barrel they form with the bone-dust a

comparatively solid body, and keep the pellets from impact, thus

allowing them to go forth into the atmosphere beautifully round and

uninjured; and, as such, more likely to travel farther and stronger. The

latter arrangement possesses all the science, as the net can be

dispensed with; for it aids the combination but slightly, and in no case

more than a moderate quantity of good paper would do.

The science of this mechanical construction of projectiles is perfectly

in keeping with all the established laws of motion, and more

particularly good in thus avoiding the necessity of lateral pressure on

the sides of the tube of the gun, the upper end having the means of

better resisting the column of air in their progress outwards; for there

can be no question but this controls and induces the divergence of the

shot in leaving the muzzle. One of the old arrangements, often laughed

at, I mean the bell muzzle in old guns, intimates that our ancestors

possessed some smattering of science; as the relief in the muzzle of a

gun has a tendency, by allowing a gradual expansion laterally, to keep

the charge of shot better together: for it is quite apparent that any

body severely compressed for a certain distance, expands in proportion

when free of that restraint; and the consequence is a tendency to fly

off at a tangent, as the friction of a crooked barrel induces a ball to

fly in a curve contrary to the bend of the barrel.

The extreme relief we find in some old barrels is certainly not

required; but still it clearly shows that the principle was understood

and acted upon: the very extreme has been produced by ignorance, as

certainly as the suggestion was a proof of knowledge on the part of the

suggestor; for many think, if a small dose is good for a patient, a

large one must be equally so. Like ourselves of the present day, having

discovered that fine gunpowder was advantageous, we have carried the

principle so far as undoubtedly to overstep the line to which it was

beneficial we should advance; thus clearly establishing the truth of the

old adage, “One extreme begets another.”

Therefore, in advocating the adoption of gun-barrels of the very essence

of iron, I also say, let that part of the tube whose duty is the

generating of force be nearly cylindrical, and let there be a gradual

expansion of the bore for a few inches in approaching the muzzle, that

the restraint of the lateral pressure may not be too rapidly loosened.

But yet let that expansion be so graduated that there shall not be an

extreme either way--only a scarcely perceptible relief; yet such as will

influence and prevent the divergence of the projectiles to a

considerable extent.

Blaine says--“A very long barrel is liable to have the force of its

discharge lessened by the increase of counter pressure in the greater

volume of internal air in a long than in a short barrel.” The column of

air in the barrel is unquestionably calculated to lessen the force of

the discharge. But I have already shown that this is completely

controlled by the system of granulation. Further, he says--“Its force

must also suffer by the loss which the elasticity of the propelling gas

experiences in its lengthened transit through an extended range of

barrel.” He is here supposing an instantaneous generation of force,

which cannot possibly happen; and if it did, would be comparatively

useless. But he is evidently on the right scent, if he could only follow

it up. Again,--“In such cases, it is probable, that the shot, which

should leave the mouth of the piece at the instant when the propelling

force has gained its maximum, in a long barrel are detained beyond that

particular limit of capacity we have pointed out as inherent in each

barrel; and which properties, and which quantities of charge, nothing

but repeated and varied trials can teach the owner of the gun.”

This is an excellent illustration of the “theory” of the resistance of

the column of air in long barrels with very fine quickly-burnt powder;

and could he have pointed out the cause, the explanation would have been

perfect; as it must be quite apparent to the reader that it is not the

length of barrel which is in fault, but a want of a continuous producing

force in the powder; for when all the charge is exploded, the maximum

has been obtained. This clearly proves that the charge was too small to

keep up that maximum, or that the grain of the powder was too fine, and

thus too quickly expended. There is no discrepancy between the fact of

long barrels being preferable half a century ago, and short ones now;

for it is in the improvement of gunpowder burning in half the time now

that it did then, and leaves the question of length of barrel precisely

where it has ever been. You may have any length you like in moderation,

if you suit the grain of powder to it.

I am quite satisfied to steer between extremes; avoiding alike too small

a charge of projectiles and too wide a calibre with too heavy a charge

of the former, and preferring a size of bore that gives, under all

circumstances, the greatest range with the least amount of explosive

material; which neither requires that to be too fine a grain, nor too

coarse: namely, a bore of fifteen and two feet six inches long. Under

all the above circumstances combined, this size will long hold a

position in the front rank of sporting guns.

The Belgians have long been, and still are, our principal competitors in

supplying those parts of the world which do not rank gun manufacturing

among their staple trade. The cost of labour being small, they have

great facilities for producing cheap material; and the extent to which

they tempt the eye of those inexperienced in gunnery is quite obvious to

the world; but excepting the cheapness of the lower grade of guns, the

Belgian products are not at all to be placed on an equality with the

well made English manufacture.

In consequence of the relaxation of our custom laws, foreign gunnery is

now admitted at ten per cent. duty; and as soon as this change was

made, the Belgians sent large quantities of their guns and pistols to

London; whence they found their way through different parts of the

country. Regular establishments were opened for the sale of their very

highly ornamented barrels: ten different varieties were produced, even

to the imitation of laminated steel.

These barrels were at first sent in the bored and ground state, in large

quantities; their apparent low price and great beauty quite captivated

some of the “Brums,” so that for a period they were all the rage; and

the Belgians began to boast of the extensive trade they were doing. But

nothing in this world runs smooth. “The best laid schemes of mice and

men oft gang agee;” and so it was with the Belgian importations. Our

proof was not exactly to their liking, or perhaps the iron was not equal

to the proof; losses and discoveries began to accumulate: “Too soft, by

far,” says one; “They are all plated,” says another; “Filed it through,

by jingo!” exclaimed a third; “Common iron, by all that’s wonderful!”

protested a fourth; “Oh, twisted iron, under such inimitable Damascus!”

growled a fifth: in short, steel over iron turned out to be the secret

of the whole business.

It is very probable that such facts as these soon established the

inferiority of “the beautiful Damascus and arabesque” of the Belgian

manufacturers; and they have, I trust, disappeared for ever from the

English market: at least, they are not held in estimation by those

qualified to judge.

Their advocates have for years adduced the fact, that the Belgian laws

required guns to be twice proved; and our old laws not requiring this,

they had certainly a tangible argument; but our improved proof laws have

now removed that anomaly, and certainly our proof is now much superior,

even to that of the Belgians: so much so, indeed, that I have now before

me a letter from a Belgian barrel maker, who, in reply to the inquiry

why he did not send any more barrels, says very truly, “your English

proof is too severe.”

A very carefully conducted experiment on at least twenty best Belgian

barrels, satisfied me of the indisputable fact, that at least nineteen

out of the twenty were plated, and principally on twisted iron of the

softest description; as was shown by eating it entirely away, by a

lengthened immersion in a solution of the sulphate of copper. This may

be done in the course of a few hours, leaving the Damascus, and the

arabesque plating comparatively untouched. The production of that

extremely beautiful figure has to be effected by using metals of

considerable dissimilarity in their state of carbonization; the iron

evidently being entirely decarbonized before mixing with the steel, and

the steel even appearing extremely soft; although, no doubt, much of

this would be effected during the heating of the barrels to solder with

brass: and it is well known this cannot be done, except by heating them

to nearly a white heat.

As this is the universal practice with all barrels which the Belgians

finish, a good shooting gun is, by all fixed laws of science, a

scarcity with them. But a point of still greater importance arises from

this injurious proceeding. In the act of heating two tubes like gun

barrels, it is an impossibility to heat them equally, so that neither

shall be at a higher temperature than the other; and again in lifting

them from the furnace, and in cooling, all are subject to bend by

expansion and contraction alone; the result is that perfectly straight

Belgian hard soldered barrels are utterly unattainable. To an

unpractised eye the bending in and out appears trifling, but

professionally, it is a very serious defect indeed; and on that score

alone, the Belgian can never compete in quality with our own

manufacture. Time, however, will no doubt remedy this; already they are

great imitators, and they will, no doubt, become greater. They are

competitors whom respectable manufacturers need not fear; and though

they eschew the imitation of our higher quality, they imitate, even to

the name, the “marks” of our leading makers. I still would welcome and

fraternize with them, as highly skilled workers in elaborate mixtures of

metals suitable for ornamental gun-barrels.

The French gunmakers have not yet realized the true value of the

shooting of their fowling-pieces. This arises, in a great measure, no

doubt, from the want of a proper field for improvement. Necessity has

always been an important improver, and wild game creating the necessity

for good guns in England, a different direction has been given to the

manufacturer, owing to the continual cry for long killing guns; and not

a doubt can exist that English guns are better constructed for that

purpose, than those of any other country. Attention to the shooting has

always been the first study of every English gunmaker, and great

progress has been made during the last twenty years; indeed, a

comparison between the largest “target” of to-day, and the best that

Colonel Hawker ever made with his crack Joe Manton, will show a

progressive improvement of nearly 100 per cent., not only in closeness

of shooting, but also in penetration. All this may not be due entirely

to the gun, but in part to the gunpowder; and to the sensible course we

now pursue of using less weight of shot, avoiding artificial friction in

the barrels, instead of increasing it to retard the shot with the view

of increasing its power: also by having the expellant agent accelerative

to the greatest extent, closeness and strength of shooting are obtained,

with the least amount of recoil possible.

Our French competitors have paid much more attention to the artistic

decoration of their guns than to their usefulness; and the universal

result of this sort of proceeding, ever since the invention of gunnery,

has been a total neglect of their power of extreme projection. The

metal, like other portions of their work is, in all cases, manipulated

with a view to beauty only; as the fact of their veneering, or plating,

their barrels proves.

If at all masters of the science, they must be aware that this weakens

the shooting of the barrels, and is an injurious practice. But the

greater fact remains, that they continue to fix all their barrels

together, by brasing them with brass from end to end, as they do in

Belgium; thus lessening the strength of the barrels in point of safety,

and nearly destroying any smart shooting power they might have

possessed.

The French appear to me to have only reached that stage of progress

which we attained forty years ago, when every intelligent mechanic was

seeking after that “useless thing,” even when attained, “a perfect

safety gun;” which, from its complex character, might have been

designated “the dangerous gun;” indeed, experience taught (though not

without great cost) that few would use it when attained, and the

consequence was that it fell into disuse. Our Continental neighbours,

however, are mining it with great energy. A little more of our

experience, and they, also, will see the folly of the attempt. All the

facts go clearly to establish the truth of the assertion, that for all

useful purposes they are half a century behind us in the essential part

of gun manufacturing. The anxiety shown by all leading Continental

sportsmen to obtain a first-class English gun, and more especially of

laminated steel, is very strong evidence in support of this assertion.

All the guns I exhibited in Paris in 1855 were eagerly bought up at high

figures; and I have since executed many orders for France, Austria,

Prussia, Sardinia, and Russia, as well as for other northern states.

The display of artistically constructed guns by the French makers in

their Great Exposition of 1855, was very great, and by certain classes

of sportsmen would be considered superb. My notes, made at the time of

inspection, will show better than a description can do, in what state of

transition their manufacture is, and how they vacillate between their

old and our present style:--

Parisian gunmakers presented 36; Rheims, 1; St. Etienne, 14.

Leopold Bernard, barrel-maker.--Very good work; barrels made of two

spirals, inner and outer, with the twist running the reverse way; fine

figure; mixture of steel and iron.

Monsieur Gauvain.--Very good sound work; all highly artistic; the cock

formed so as to resemble a tree with a snake coiled round it, the head

of the snake striking on the nipple. Several other guns of the latest

English patterns.

Monsieur Beringer.--Guns ornamented arabesque; a medium show of work;

principally breech-loaders.

Monsieur Caron.--Showy, ornamental, very middling.

Lepage and Moutier.--Work good, ornamented, principally arabesque. Game

and English scroll pattern, engraving, cocks, &c., but inferior to the

English patterns of Gauvain.

Houllier Blanchard.--Good work; designs English; a very novel pattern of

figure in the barrels.

Monsieur Le Perrin.--All his guns artistic; raised, embossed, artistic,

ornamental, heavy cocks to imitate my shape; one good English pattern

soft gun.

Monsieur Lainê.--Good sound work; English pattern of twenty years ago.

Monsieur Andrê.--Good work; ornaments embossed; “Devisme” inlaying;

carving and embossing unequalled; several English pattern guns, but of

the standard twenty years ago.

“Thomas.”--Guns well inlaid; work medium.

Albert Benard, barrel-maker.--Iron very good, but all lined; bar

apparently reduced from a mass two inches square, which tenuates the

figure extremely, as the bars are only 1/4 inch thick.

Gastienne Renette.--All highly artistically ornamented; work good,

carving very elaborate. A novel mode of breech-loading: a piece on hinge

turns out, a cartridge, slides in return to its place, and a quoin like

a wedge forces it up into a chamber; the wedge and head receiving all

the force of the recoil.

Lenoir, barrel-maker.--Iron very good; thirty rods in a faggot 5 + 6,

and welded and drawn down into 3/8 of an inch square: an enormous

elongation of the fibres.

Doye.--Good English pattern-work--nothing else.

Fontereau.--Work, all English pattern; very good.

M. Brunn, successor to Armand and Bourbon.--Highly embossed work: a

novel breech-loader; artistic design for cock; female figures with

fishes’ tails in scroll on to the tumbler.

Guerin.--A novel safety guard; locks while on the nipple at half cock,

and full cock; swivel double like a split ring.

May.--A novel safety guard, very likely to break the finger: sure to do

it if on an English gun. Breech-loader: central fire, the same as now

made by Lancaster.

Loger, barrel-maker.--Bars faggoted 6 + 2, and so formed to imitate

laminated steel.

Dufour.--All breech-loading guns; but all work of the first class.

Juelle Magana, barrel-maker, St. Etienne.--Barrels well fitted and

figure varying, but not possessing the regularity observed in the

Belgian barrels.

Chapellon.--Coutereau.--Exhibit some barrels filled, with a charge of 12

inches of powder, 6-1/2 inches of shot, and warrant them not to burst on

firing that charge.

Delabourse, Paris.--Good work “à la Purdey.”

Lefaucheaux, Paris, prize medalist, 1851.--Good embossed work;

breech-loaders; also very good imitation of English work.

Such is a fair sample of the whole. But the best work by far is that by

Gauvain, though not so highly estimated by the jury; but that is in many

cases no test of ability whatever--as much depends upon the influence

and standing of the individual.

Great exhibitions are calculated to effect great good if properly

carried out. In that of the English exhibitors at Paris nothing could be

more reprehensible, for the jurors left them to the tender mercies of

their foreign competitors. In the case of the gun-makers, nothing could

be worse, for the two jurymen appointed by the English Government never,

I believe, saw a gun, home-made or foreign; and the fact of my obtaining

two first-class medals speaks much for the impartiality of our

Continental brethren.

RECOIL.

Recoil varies according to the position of the gun; when fired on the

horizontal, the resistance to be overcome is the tendency of the

projectile to fall to the earth, and its friction as it moves in a line

parallel to the earth. When the muzzle is elevated this resistance is

increased, because the force generated by the explosion of the gunpowder

has to exert its action more directly in opposition to the direction of

the force of gravity; and when this force is exerted in a line directly

opposed to the centre of gravity, as it is when the gun is fired

vertically, then the recoil is doubled, and is made more painful,

because the body resting on the earth cannot yield.

A gun fired in the direction of the earth, or in the line of the centre

of gravity, would recoil much less (perhaps fifty per cent. less) than

when fired vertically; from the very obvious fact, that if the bullet

was not kept in position by its friction on the sides of the barrel, it

would fall to the ground of itself.

“The recoil of a gun is inseparable from a discharge of its contents--on

the broad principle that action begets reaction; it is, therefore, only

when the ‘kick,’ as it is called, becomes painful, that it is essential

to avoid or lessen it. Irregularity in the bore of the barrel is a very

common source of violent recoil; _contracted breeches_ also, but more

than all, the contraction of the barrel at its centre, occasion recoil,

and that of the most dangerous kind: the expanding flame, during its

ignition, presses violently to make its way through the contracted to

the wider part, thus also destroying the expelling force. ‘Now, action

and reaction being equal, it follows, that the weight of the piece being

the same, the recoil will be in proportion to the quantity of the

powder, and the weight of the ball, or shot; and that with the same

charge the recoil will be in proportion to the weight of the piece, or

the lighter the piece the greater the recoil.’”--_Essay on Shooting._

Here is a true exposition of recoil, though not of contractions in the

breech; for there the action would not be directly back, but have an

inclination towards the muzzle; for the reaction would not have time to

tell on the breech, before the charge was out of the muzzle. An

extremely spiralled rifle barrel destroys the explosive force of

gunpowder, but the effects are not felt in the recoil, being most all

expended laterally. Blaine says, “Could we entirely obviate all recoil

from a gun, we should not only remove an unpleasant shock to our

persons, but there is reason to believe we should much assist the range

and force of the shot likewise; although there is an opinion prevalent,

that the degree of the recoil is in the proportion of the projectile

force.” Of this, however, some doubts are entertained, which are

warranted by the following fact:--“Mortars with iron beds immoveably

fixed in the earth throw their shot to greater distances than guns which

are affixed to carriages can do, and which, therefore, can recoil. This

has been incontestibly proved, both in large and small artillery.

Having suspended a gun barrel, charged with a determinate quantity of

shot, from the ceiling by two cords, so as to allow of its recoil, fire

it point blank at a target, and mark the result accurately. Now, fix the

same barrel to a block, and charge it exactly with a similar charge;

then having moved the target fifteen yards further, fire the barrel; it

is probable that the last shot, though at this increased distance, will

exceed the former, both in range and force.’ These and such like

experiments are laughed at by the giddy and inconsiderate; but it is by

these illustrations that the most important facts are brought to light.

“Projectile force is, therefore, to be increased by resistance; and the

knowledge of this fact offers us a practical hint, that when we stand

immoveable to our shot, not only by holding the gun tightly to our

shoulder, but by also _leaning somewhat forward_ in our shooting

attitude, we considerably increase the resistance, and, consequently, we

not only lessen the shock of the recoil to ourselves, but we aid the

force of the shot and extend its range. That such is the case, may be

further exemplified by the following experiment:--Throw a hand-ball

against any moveable body, and it will displace that body; but the ball

will drop to the ground perpendicularly, however hard the body against

which it is thrown may be. Fix the same body securely, and then the

rebound of the ball will be nearly equal to the force with which it was

thrown.”

The weight or amount of force with which a gun recoils against the

shoulder, is due to, and regulated by, several circumstances. The first

and most important is the amount of explosive force generated before the

charge is moved and during the act of moving, and the amount of inertia

in the body of the projectile. When a quantity of gunpowder is exploded

without any resisting weight in front of it, then the column of air

gives comparatively a slight recoil; though there is, in fact,

considerable recoil, but such as is due to the resistance of the air

only, and, consequently, more like a push than a blow. The exact amount

of recoil is also due to the difference between, or proportionate

weights of, the charge of shot or bullet and the gun; action and

reaction being always equal until one or the other body moves; the

division then will be in favour of that moving fastest, and hence the

obtaining of accelerative velocity: it thus follows, as a truism, that

the smaller the quantity of exploded gases that can be employed to first

move the charge, the less the recoil.

The advantage of the granulation system is here again most clearly

shown; and (alluding again to the law of putting matter in motion

gradually) if you would gain the greatest benefit, it is clear that, in

the same length of tube, you would, at the termination of the

accelerative power, have gained a much greater amount of velocity than

could be obtained under any other circumstances with the more violently

explosive gunpowder.

Many theories have been advanced, and many conjectures made as to the

cause of the recoil of guns; and it must be evident that the causes vary

with the form of gun, with the nature of the gunpowder, and the weight;

or peculiar arrangement of the shot or bullet. For instance, an ounce of

shot, and an ounce of lead in the form of a round bullet, fired from the

same gun would give two very different amounts of recoil, when measured

by the spring cushion; the ounce bullet not giving much more than half

the recoil produced by the ounce of shot. This is owing to the simple

fact that the bullet being a compact body, offers only the resistance of

its weight, and the simple friction of sliding or rolling along the

barrel according as it is tight or loose; but the tendency of the

hundreds of shot corns is to “jam and wedge” in the most extreme manner,

offering, by their lateral pressure against the sides of the barrel, the

greatest amount of friction and reluctance to be driven out: hence the

reaction on the gun, and thence on the shoulder of the shooter; and the

smaller the size of shot the greater the jamming. Again, the same weight

of shot, fired from a 16-bore and a 12-bore will recoil much more in the

smaller than in the larger bore, even when all other points are equal;

because the charge reaches higher in the 16-bore, thus offering at first

a greater amount of inertia. Secondly, there is also more tendency to

jam; and, thirdly, the extension of the surface of lateral pressure on

the tubes of the barrel must also add to recoil. Dirty guns, it is well

known, kick violently, simply from the greater friction, or difficulty

of the matter of the charge being put in motion.

The question as to what the actual amount of recoil really is has never

been settled satisfactorily; the most erroneous opinions have been

given, and assertions equally erroneous have been made, by those who

have attended to the subject. To clearly elucidate this question, it is

absolutely necessary that the circumstances be reduced to one standard:

but the difficulty is to obtain that; for it would vary according to

muscular development, the weight and height of the sportsman. Indeed any

principle laid down would be liable to be disputed, from the very

different way in which every sportsman lifts his gun to his shoulder: if

one presses it against his shoulder with a pressure equal to 5 lbs., he

will receive a certain amount of recoil; he that presses it with a force

equal to 10 lbs. will receive less; and with a pressure of 30 lbs. it

will be found to yield the least of all. I will illustrate it in this

way. Take a spring cushion (something like the spring machine found at

all fairs for testing the force of a man pressing against it), if you

allow a gun to recoil against this when the starting pressure is only 5

lbs., it will drive it up to 70 lbs., or nearly so, from the velocity

with which you have put the 7 lbs. of matter which is contained in the

gun into a long sweeping blow. The next time you try, put the starting

point at 10 lbs., and you will find a much less result in the extreme

weight denoted; but carry on this experiment, placing the cushion with a

resisting force of 30 lbs., and you will find the extreme recoil

indicated at from 40 lbs. to 45 lbs., and even up to a higher starting

resistance. But to this extent it is not advisable to go, for the strain

becomes too great on the handle of the gun-stock, and there is too near

an apparent approach to a solid resistance, which it is well-known would

break the best stock that was ever made.

Having shown how we may approximately obtain the exact amount of force,

and how it may, even with two persons, give different results, I will

now state what I have found to be the result of many hundreds of trials

made with the view of deciding this question. Before doing so, however,

I will further premise that hundreds of attempts have been made at

various times by different Governments, and by many talented men, to

obtain a correct recoil machine which shall efficiently measure the

recoil, and in such a perfect line with the intended direction of the

projectile as to obtain accurate results: but this is found to be

perfectly unattainable, though I believe the nearest approach to it has

been made by Mr. Whitworth during his experiments with the hexagonal

rifle.

To prove that it is impossible to get all the circumstances alike, so as

accurately to ascertain the exact force of the recoil, one instance only

need be cited. Fire your gun at a fixed object, then fire at an object

in motion, and to your senses the recoil will appear double when fired

at the fixed object; but it is not really so: in the latter instance,

the body of the person firing the gun, and the gun itself being in

motion, a considerable amount of the force of the recoil is absorbed in

overcoming the motion of the gun, and then that of the shooters body, so

that the effect is not noticed. I have already alluded to the greater

force of recoil felt from the lighter pressure of the gun against the

shoulder; here the tendency of the gun and body moving in one direction

is to close them together, and the proportion will be as the velocity of

that movement. Therefore, to bring this to a conclusion, I find that

under ordinary circumstances a 12-bore gun of 7-1/2 lbs. weight, 30

inches in length, with a charge of 2-1/2 drams of No. 5 grained

gunpowder, and 1-1/4 oz. shot, the barrels draw-bored cylindrically,

with the least possible easing at the breech ends, and metal of the best

laminated steel, will recoil with a force of from 40 lbs. to 48 lbs., or

on an average 44 lbs.: this is the most satisfactory conclusion I have

been able to draw from my experiments. This of course will vary, as I

have shown; and it is also liable to deviations, according to the state

of the atmosphere, and other collateral circumstances. Great variations

will of course arise from guns of fine or rough insides; guns new or

old, well kept or neglected; and in guns bored larger at the

breech-ends, in order to give artificial resistance to the escape of the

charge. These last are now, I trust, obsolete, except in that abortion

of science the “French breech-loading crutch gun;” and as an exception,

all ill-constructed guns.

The science of the question may now be regarded as clearly established.

Gun-barrels of the utmost tenacity, with insides of a cylindrical form

as true as possible, polished as fine as a mirror, with a moderate

weight of shot calculated to suit the gun and a good charge of large

granulated gunpowder, will give the greatest killing power, with the

greatest amount of comfort, or absence of recoil, that is to be found in

the pursuit of shooting.

A point of considerable importance in obtaining regular and good

shooting--one, however, which is frequently neglected--is that of

ascertaining what sized shot is particularly suited to the size of bore

used.

The correct adaptation of No. 5 or No. 6 for your particular gun is

easily attained. Place in the muzzle an ordinary wadding, press it into

the barrel the depth of the diameter of the shot, which should be

exactly flush with the muzzle, place as many shot corns on this as you

can, without having more than one distinct layer, and observe the size

that best fills, in concentric rings, the whole circumference of the

bore, leaving no half-spaces unfilled; note whether it be No. 5 or No. 6

shot, and keep to that size for your general shooting. Again, on other

occasions you may wish to use larger shot (Nos. 4, 3, or 2); then

ascertain by the same method which fills the concentric rings most

perfectly: the same should be done with the smaller sizes, Nos. 8 or 9.

The rationale of this proceeding is that any half-spaces are filled by

shot from above pressed in upon the lower layer, disfiguring itself and

those it comes into contact with; this is multiplied up to the 13 or 14

layers of which the charge is composed, and the inevitable result is

that four or five pellets are pressed together until they adhere; either

“balling” or leaving empty spaces in the distribution of the charge, to

the injury of the gun’s shooting--a defect which may easily be obviated

by attending to the instructions given above. One other point may be

observed, viz., that if 1-1/4 give 15-1/2 layers of shot in concentric

rings, the charge should be reduced until the rings are complete, for

the half-layer will do much mischief by its unequal pressure on the

layers beneath it. And it is further necessary to observe that in

loading a gun, either with powder or with shot, the gun should be kept

as nearly in the upright position as possible: the more upright the gun

is held, the more perfectly will it be charged, and the more perfect

will be its shooting.

A vast number of useless changes have of late years been introduced into

the construction of gunnery; they have died, however, a natural death,

as they ought to have done, and have thus afforded additional evidence

that sportsmen of the present day only adopt what are really

improvements. Great professional reputation in a gunmaker is not now, as

formerly, all that is required to command a trial of individual plans of

improvement: the improvement must be self-evident; nothing being taken

on trust: a _bonâ fide_ benefit to the sportsman is essential in the

present day to obtain patronage.

There has lately been introduced a very novel improvement in the

construction of double gun barrels, in order to overcome that defect

long admitted to exist in firing the second shot. It has long been

known that in a 40 yards’ flight, shot falls several inches; and it is

an established fact that few sportsmen can kill with the second shot so

well as with the first, although it is certainly within range of the

gun. This no doubt arises in almost every case, from the shot having

fallen below the object in traversing the greater distance; or, in other

words, the second barrel, in order to kill as well as the first, ought

be fired six inches higher; but this the best shots find it difficult to

do, and it has therefore been proposed to do it for them.

Mr. F. W. Prince, of No. 138, Bond-street, has patented an improvement

to obviate this difficulty; this he does by elevating or pointing upward

the second barrel, so as to cover the calculated fall in the body of the

shot; and the result is, that the second bird is as well aimed at and as

efficiently killed as the first. The alteration is so exceedingly

simple, and the benefit resulting from it so apparent, that the only

wonder is that it should never have been done before; and it being the

improvement of a really practical sportsman of the very first class, as

Mr. Prince has long been known to be, is sufficient to stamp his

invention as worthy of every consideration.