THE RIFLE.
The Rifle has at length taken its place among scientifically improved
weapons. Mathematicians laboured long and earnestly to develope the
important principles involved in it, and which lay hidden like latent
heat, only waiting for the moment when they were to be extracted, as
they were at length by experiment, the result of necessity: indeed
necessity has done more for the improvement of gunnery than all the
mental toil and labour bestowed on the science itself. The philosopher
has sought in vain for that which mechanical skill unpatronised and
unheeded forced upon the world, and that, too, in spite of prejudice and
contempt; and the present generation see improvements brought out which
were predicted generations before--as the following quotation from
Robins clearly shows:--“Whatever state shall _thoroughly comprehend the
nature_ and advantages of rifle pieces, and having facilitated and
completed their construction, shall introduce into their armies their
general use, with a dexterity in the management of them, they will by
this means acquire a superiority which will almost equal anything that
has been done at any time by the particular excellence of any one kind
of arms, and will perhaps fall but little short of the wonderful effects
which histories relate to have been formerly produced by the first
inventors of fire-arms.”
That the result here predicted has now been obtained no one can doubt.
Greater extension of range is yet attainable; but accuracy of range
amounts already to almost mathematical precision. All that is now
required is, that the same principle should be applied to the heaviest
projectiles; and when these are projected under precisely the same laws,
experience will further establish this principle, that “the heavier the
body in equal velocities the less the deflection from atmospheric
resistance.” When this is demonstrated the present order of things will
be reversed; heavy ordnance will exceed the shoulder rifle in extension
and accuracy of range, whilst the shoulder rifle will again fall back to
its former state of comparative inferiority.
Barrels were first grooved or rifled at Vienna, about the year 1498. The
original object of grooving or rifling the barrels was to find space for
the reception of the foul residue produced by discharging the rifle, and
thus to diminish the friction of the bullet as it was forced down by the
ramrod. During the next twenty years a spiral turn was given to the
groove, and bullets were used with projections to fit the grooves, the
degree of twist or spiral varying as the skill of the gun-maker thought
best.
The difficulty of loading rifles has at all times been a drawback to
their universal adoption as warlike weapons, and it has been reserved
for a humble individual to achieve that which all the talent devoted to
it for three centuries had hitherto failed to accomplish.
A multitude of claimants have “put in their plea” for a share in some
part of the invention; and it may benefit not only the present but also
the future generation, if we give a succinct account of the approaches
made by different men towards the present established principle, and
show the bearing each had in bringing about the revolution that has
taken place in the science of gunnery.
The earliest notice of an elongated bullet is Robins’s “egg-shaped,”
which gives to the hemispherical end the centre of gravity, thus
establishing the first essential principle; but theory and practice were
here sadly discordant, for its wild uncertain flight, caused by the
small end acting as a rudder, rendered his theory useless, and it soon
died of a natural death.
The next innovation on the spherical principle of bullets was the
attempt made by the late Sir Home Popham to introduce elongated
sphero-cylindrical bullets into cannon, with grooves and projections on
the exterior to impart a spinning motion, which should be sustained by
the action of the atmosphere; but this, like Robins’s idea, survived
only a very short time. The next in rotation is a description given by
Captain Beaufoy, in his work on the rifle called _Scloppetaria_, and
published, we believe, in 1808. Captain Beaufoy gives a drawing of an
elongated bullet one and a quarter diameters in length, having a
hemispherical cavity accurately corresponding in shape to its
counterpart at the opposite end. “This,” he states, “he had heard was
beneficial from the fact of the rush of atmospheric air into the vacuum
created, thus inducing a forward motion by the kick _à posteriori_.”
This apparently was but a surmise, an idea never carried out, for in the
same work a degree of spiral grooving is advocated with which the action
of this bullet, had it ever been intended to be expansive in principle,
would be quite incompatible.
Next comes the celebrated Joseph Manton with his invention, intended to
give a spiral motion to the ball by the cup of wood already described
under the head of rifled cannon. This very idea has since been revived
by General Jacob; and in 1822 Captain Norton introduced to the notice of
the Government his “Rifled Shell” for the explosion of an enemy’s
tumbrils. This was of necessity an elongated hollow bullet, containing a
small charge of gunpowder, which was ignited by the explosion of a cap
on a nipple, screwed into the fore-end of the leaden shell.
Here, no doubt, was a partially expansive bullet; for the bullet would
be driven in upon itself, and thus expand from the weakness of the
hollow shell; this near approach, however, to the invention was not
intentional: the sole object in view was the action of the shell, and no
more importance was attached to its expansion, in Captain Norton’s
estimation, than to the bullet described by Captain Beaufoy in his
_Scloppetaria_. It is only within the last few years that some friend,
with more acumen than the gallant officer, discovered his near approach
to the subsequent invention, and a claim has been made on his behalf
which he himself never dreamt of, during the many years we were
battering at the doors of prejudice; closed as they were against
military innovation.
In 1826, Capt. Delvigne proposed to use an elongated bullet: “having
observed that when a bullet was forced in by the old system of the
mallet, its diameter was increased perpendicularly to the axis of the
barrel, he came to the conclusion that by giving a chamber to the breech
of the rifle, and loading with an elongated bullet having just
sufficient windage to enter freely, two or three taps from a steel
ramrod would flatten it sufficiently to make it take the form of the
grooves, into which it would certainly penetrate when fired.” This
contrivance was, however, found to be useless for military purposes; for
after a trial, extending over two or three years, by the Garde Royal in
Algeria, it was given up in 1830. This, then, is clear proof of an
attempt to construct an expansive bullet, and conclusive evidence also
of its failure.
From 1830 to 1839, no evidence can be found of any progress having been
made by these inventors. In 1836 I had the honour of producing the first
perfect expansive bullet. During the winter of 1835 and the spring of
1836, I made an extensive series of experiments in order to overcome the
effect of the very extensive windage existing in military muskets at
that time; better known in the present day by the name of “Old Brown
Bess.”
The mean diameter of the bore was ·760, the diameter of the bullet was
·701, or of the better understood gauge of 11 and 14 bore, thus leaving
more than three sizes for windage. To obviate this great discrepancy by
expanding a bullet from 14 to 11 bore, so as to destroy the windage, was
the first consideration; and, indeed, the first great step towards that
change of which we have as yet only seen the beginning. I here give a
representation of my first attempt, and the observations made upon it in
1841:--
Five years ago I perfected and laid before the Board of Ordnance a new
plan or system of constructing expansive balls, which is accomplished by
having two dissimilar portions. An oval ball with a flat end and a
perforation extending nearly through, is cast; a taper plug with a head
like a round topped button is also cast, of a composition of lead, tin,
and zinc, as below.
[Illustration: EXPANSIVE BALL BEFORE USING.]
[Illustration: EXPANSIVE BALL WITH PLUG DRIVEN HOME.]
The end of the plug being slightly inserted into the perforation, the
ball is put into the rifle or musket with either end foremost. When the
explosion takes place, the plug is driven home into the lead, expanding
the outer surface, and thus either filling the grooves of the rifle, or
destroying the windage of the musket, as the case may be. The result of
this experiment was beyond calculation; and for musketry, where the
stupid regulations of the service require 3-1/2 sizes of bore difference
for windage, it is most excellent, as remedying this considerable
drawback upon the usefulness of the arm; the facility of loading being
as great, if not greater, than by the present practice.
Inventions, however, are of no use whilst kept in obscurity, and my
first and natural course was to bring it under the notice of the parties
for whose benefit it was intended. Accordingly, in July, 1836, a
memorial was duly drawn up, and laid before the Master-General and Board
of Ordnance, soliciting a trial. After overcoming some difficulties, a
trial was ordered at the “cost of the inventor,” and in August, 1836, it
took place at Tynemouth, in Northumberland, under the command of Major
Walcot, of the Royal Horse Artillery, a party of the 60th Rifles being
the firing party. The exact form of the memorial, and the points claimed
by the inventor, are as follows:--
“To the Right Honourable the Master-General and Officers of His
Majesty’s Board of Ordnance. The humble Memorial of William Greener,
Gunmaker, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, humbly sheweth--
“That your memorialist has, after considerable trouble and expense,
discovered a method by which the facility of loading all rifles,
muskets, and other small fire-arms will be much increased, as well as
a considerable additional force or range of the projectile be
obtained, even with a less quantity of powder than at present used.
Your memorialist has frequently loaded one of his Majesty’s rifles by
this method, as quickly as any soldier could load the plain musket,
and the balls when fired have received the same or greater effect from
the action of the grooves of the rifle. Your memorialist’s plan simply
consists in the manufacture of a more ready kind of cartridge, which
will answer for all fire-arms as at present constructed, and will also
be a considerable saving to his Majesty.
“Your memorialist being aware, from former communications with your
Honourable Board, that in no case is any sum of money allowed for
travelling expenses, &c., and your memorialist being very far from
rich, is unable to attend any committee, either at Woolwich or
elsewhere, your memorialist, therefore, suggests that if it meet the
approbation of your Honourable Board to issue an order to the officer
commanding the depot of his Majesty’s 1st Brigade 60th Rifles, at
present stationed in this town, or to any other regiment or detachment
in the neighbourhood, to appoint a squad of men to fire 100 rounds of
memorialist’s and 100 rounds of the cartridges now in use, and to
compare their respective merits, the whole to be provided at your
memorialist’s expense.
“And memorialist, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
“WILLIAM GREENER.”
The success of the experiments far surpassed the expectations of the
military men present; and that they fully established all the points
claimed, will be evident from the following secret report made by Major
Walcott to the Board of Ordnance:--
“I then examined Mr. Greener’s ammunition, and found he had not made
it up into complete cartridges, but that his ball was separate from
his powder. I then examined the ball, which being less than the barrel
of the rifle, went down very easily--indeed slided down, and is thus
formed. The ball is cast with a hollow in it, to which a plug of the
same metal is inserted, but not going home. The force of the charge is
said by Mr. Greener so to act on this hollow ball as to expand it,
filling up the whole barrel, preventing all windage, and so truly
keeping its flight that the head of the plug first striking the object
fired at, is then driven home; the ball becomes a solid, and as such
is equal to the present mode, as well as having more force and with a
less quantity of powder than at present used.
“A detachment of the 60th was then ordered to load with Mr. Greener’s,
and an equal number with his Majesty’s practice ammunition. The first
certainly had the advantage in quickness of loading, but this may be
accounted for by Mr. Greener’s ball being put in separate from the
cartridge; for I am by no means certain (it being necessary that his
plug should be exactly in the centre, either next the cartridge or
from it) whether, when made into a complete form, should the plug have
shifted from its position, it would not cost the soldier more time to
place it right; neither am I certain whether the plug might not be
liable to become jammed in the soldier’s cartouch-box.
“After firing several rounds, at 200 yards, at the target, we
succeeded in obtaining some of Mr. Greener’s balls, one of which that
had struck the target and did not go through I send (marked) as the
most favourable specimen of the day’s practice, the plug being driven
hard into the ball, the others having lost their plugs. Mr. Greener,
whose wishes I complied with in every way I could, then proposed
firing a number of rounds into a sandbank, to show that the plugs did
not quit the ball. A great many rounds were fired; in many the plugs
were out, in many loosely fixed and easily removed, and in a part
firm. Not having the advantage of the target I had desired him to
bring, a number of rounds were fired at the rifle’s extreme range, 350
yards, as the best means left of ascertaining the difference of range;
the only result of which was, that it appeared invariably to me and
others on the slightest resistance from the first the plug quitted the
ball, and therefore must have lessened its force from loss of weight.
The balls from both charges, Mr. Greener’s and his Majesty’s, went
home to the target, but only one of the latter went through. I had
then fired most of Mr. Greener’s cartridges and balls, and fifty
rounds of the practice ammunition of the 60th. I beg to submit with
the greatest deference that in so great a change as this proposed,
even should it be considered worthy any other trial, that the
specimens I shall send up by the earliest opportunity may have
competent examination--for, although the balls of Mr. Greener bear the
impress of the grooves of the rifle, I am not able to state whether
such may not equally well be produced by the action of being forced
from the rifle as by the expansion Mr. Greener states to take
place--should the Master-General deem it necessary that any further
experiment be made by me and with cartridges properly made up.”
The immediate result was a very pithy epistle from the Secretary to the
Board, saying, that “in consequence of the bullet I had submitted being
‘_a compound_,’ it was totally unfit for his Majesty’s service, and no
more trials could be allowed.”
This, in 1836, was the universal mode of proceeding, as subsequent
events clearly proved; whether from inability on the part of the
constituted military science controllers, or from a fixed determination
to reject all improvements from civilians, I knew not; but time
explained it all, as the sequel will show.
The total destruction, in 1841, of the small arms department in the
Tower of London, together with all the arms it contained, opened a vista
to improvement both in the principle and mechanical construction of “Old
Brown Bess.” This opportunity was not lost. A series of letters, Nos. 1
to 6, appeared in the _Times_ in November and December, 1841, urging the
necessity of a radical change in the construction of military arms, if
the nation was still to hold its high military prestige. The sensation
created at this time was immense, and no doubt laid the foundation stone
for that change which has rendered English arms superior to any in the
world, instead of being, as they formerly were, inferior to any in
Europe.
In one of those letters, which may still be found in the _Times_ of
December 25th, 1841, the following account is given of the progress I
had made in the invention since 1836; and when the form and proportions
of my expansive bullet of 1841 are contrasted with the present and the
original form adopted by our Government from the French of Captain Minié
in 1849, it must strike the reader as being so palpable a copy as to
leave no ground for argument.
“One favourite suggestion of Hutton’s has hitherto been strenuously
rejected, even by those to whom his recommendations have, in other
respects, been laws--viz., his plan of using ‘oblong bullets.’ Some
years ago I laid before the Board of Ordnance a very simple plan of
getting rid of all windage, yet of loading easily, and adding to the
weight of the projectile (a favourite theory with the artillerists).
This was effected by employing an oblong ball of lead ‘_a diameter and a
half in length_,’ having a perforation extending through two-thirds of
it. An iron plug of a conical shape is slightly inserted into this
perforation, and the gun loaded with it. When the explosion takes place,
this plug is driven home into the lead, and, by expanding its outer
surface, the projectile comes out of the gun fitting as tight as
possible, and a line of flight is given to it of corresponding accuracy.
The advantages of this arrangement are numerous, but, in naval warfare,
of the most important nature, giving heavier metal with smaller rates,
and from the composition and shape of the projectile combined, producing
a corresponding destruction.
“But the authorities laid the plan upon the shelf, where it will rest
until produced by some more important personage than myself. The poor
inventor obtains but poor encouragement, while his more wealthy
competitor is enabled to have every opportunity of trying schemes which,
in most cases, are not worth the consideration of any, save the friends
of the party.”
In 1842, powerful influence being brought to bear, it was hoped that a
trial of my invention would result; and in order to meet the strongly
expressed public opinion, the Board of Ordnance ordered me to construct
them model arms on my own principle. This was done, and the trial
promised by the Master-General was demanded, but as obstinately refused
by the Select Committee at Woolwich, whose power was superior to that of
the Master-General; though he was fully pledged to afford me a trial.
Thus the progress of invention was delayed until 1848; sometimes
enlivened, however, by the bursting of a shell of intelligence in the
camp of military prejudice. Slashing letters appeared from time to time
on military incapacity. Meanwhile Captain Delvigne and Captain Thierry
continued their experiments, and on June 21st, 1842, a patent was
obtained in France, which is thus described:--
“For having hollowed the base of my cylindro-conical bullet, not only
for motives mentioned in the descriptive memoir given with my demand for
a patent, but besides to obtain its expansion (son èpanouissement) by
the effect of the gases produced through the ignition of the powder. By
this means the effort of the powder itself, which formerly caused
spherical bullets to deviate from the grooves, now contributes to force
the bullets of my system more firmly into them.”
In a paper published by M. Delvigne in the _Spectateur Militaire_, of
August, 1843, we also find:--
“In order to avoid too great friction I grooved the cylindrical
surface of the bullet; but, whilst I thus increased the windage of
the body of the projectile, I reserved, at the two extremities of the
cylindrical part, two circular rings of a diameter almost equal to
that of the calibre. These two rings fixed accurately in the bore,
secured the perfect position of the axis of the bullet, which the blow
of the ramrod then forced tightly. In case of foulness, they easily
gave way to the blows of the ramrod, and the axis of the bullet
remained in the required position. The hollowing of the sides of the
bullet gives besides the means of fixing on the cartridge without
increasing the diameter of the calibre. But during these
investigations, _I made an important discovery, which was, that the
gas produced by the ignition of the powder, rushing into the vacuum
formed at the base of the bullet, expanded it and forced it into the
grooves_. I here give the idea, a new one, as I think, and recommend
its application to such as occupy themselves with the effect of
fire-arms and powder. The following, however, must be avoided: if the
hollow is too deep, the expansion is too great, and the consequent
friction enormous; sometimes even the gas will traverse the bullet,
and consequently the projectile is deprived of a proportionary amount
of velocity; if too small, the expansion does not take place.”
In 1847 and 1848 Captain Minié makes his first appearance on the boards;
and he proposed a hollow iron cup to fill up the cavity in Delvigne’s
bullet, and from this circumstance we get the name of Minié rifle.
The serious defects in our arms were now, however, becoming so glaring,
and the disgrace of getting worsted in skirmishes with contemptible foes
in the Cabul and Caffre wars, as well as nearer home in the
Mediterranean, raised public indignation against the military arms
department; and this indignation reached such a pitch that an immediate
change was called for. The so-called invention of Captain Minié offered
itself, and was immediately adopted, though the very same thing had
previously, on two occasions, been rejected at my hands.
Thus the history of the rifle is brought up to the adoption by the
Government of my principle, under the name of the Minié rifle; and the
validity of the pleas on the part of the several claimants for a share
in the invention has been succinctly stated.
During the succeeding years I several times made unsuccessful attempts
to obtain from the English Government a recognition of my claim to the
invention. True it is that insult was not added to injury, for they did
not tell me I had no claim as an inventor, but they sheltered themselves
under the political plea of “Oh, my dear sir, the injustice did not
occur under our Administration, or we should be so happy to remedy it!”
Time went on, and war came at length, and brought with it proof that but
for my invention we should have been ill prepared. “The queen of weapons
saved the fight:” so said the Thunderer. “When war’s wild din was done,”
the poor inventor was listened to.
The first step taken was through Mr. Scholefield, the member for
Birmingham, who moved in the House of Commons for copies of the
correspondence between myself and the Board of Ordnance in 1836, and the
papers therewith connected. Thus an act of glaring injustice was
exposed, and there was evidence of proceedings having been enacted over
which I would rather draw a veil. The authorities were no doubt shocked
at the injustice which the poor inventor had met with at the hands of
the then Board of Ordnance.
Thus I obtained the Secret Report, which elevates so high the names of
those who could designate a plan as “useless and chimerical,”[13] which
was destined eventually to create greater changes in gunnery than it had
undergone from its earliest invention.
[13] THE SECRET REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
PRESENT:--Major-General Millar; Colonel Adye, C.B.; Colonel Tyer,
C.B.; Colonel Drummond, C.B.; Sir Alex. Dickson, K.C.B.; Major Dundas.
“_Woolwich, 29th August, 1836._
“SIR,--
“I have the honour to report that, in obedience to your minute, dated
the 22nd inst., I assembled the Select Committee for the purpose of
considering a new invented cartridge for rifles, made by Mr. William
Greener, gunmaker, of Newcastle. Patterns of these cartridges, with a
report from Major Walcott, Royal Horse Artillery, of a day’s practice
with them at Tynemouth. Several balls that have been discharged at and
collected after that practice were submitted to the Committee, who,
after an attentive consideration, is of opinion that the ends purposed
by Mr. Greener have not been accomplished; that his plan _is useless
and chimerical_. The Committee do not, therefore, recommend any
further trial in the terms solicited by Mr. Greener in his memorial of
the 6th inst.
“I have, &c.,
“WILLIAM MILLAR, _Dep.-Adjut.-Gen._”
I then disputed the fact of its being a French invention before the
juries of the French Exposition in 1855; there, however, my evidence was
inadmissible, from the fact of it not having been exhibited, and the
invention not being a recent one. In spite of all this, I still
persevered; and my next step was to submit the subject to royalty. I
first submitted it to the Emperor Napoleon, who carefully investigated
the facts of the case, and admitted the Englishman’s priority.
Eventually the British Government, after much trouble, also admitted the
fact, (though not until after it had been submitted to the successors
of the original select committee) and awarded me the sum of 1,000_l._ in
the army estimates of 1857.
It is a fact, which all will acknowledge, that the principles involved
in an invention should be best known to the inventor himself; and if he
is unable to explain the very principles of such invention, then it is
quite fair to presume that he was not the original inventor.
Now there is no evidence that either Delvigne or Minié had any profound
knowledge of the science of gunnery, and their knowledge of the
principles of the expansive rifle was so meagre as to justify the
assumption, that their only connection with its production was that of
copying from the _Times_ newspaper, or from my works published in 1842
and 1846. My observations certainly appeared before any of theirs; and I
believe that no straining of facts can in any way connect them with the
invention, which was as perfect in 1841 as when they reproduced it in
1848 and 1849.
With these remarks, I pass on to what is of more importance, viz., the
principle of the expansive rifle.
It had long been known that to give a spiral motion to a bullet in a
direction coincident to its line of flight, was the standard of
perfection in rifle projectiles; but this, until the invention of the
expansive bullet, could never be attained with safety.
Spheres receiving this motion are not likely to retain it, because the
periphery of the spherical bullet is, in all cases, subjected to much
more friction than the rest of the sphere; a change would therefore
certainly be induced, the axis of the spinning motion being changed from
one coincident to the line of flight to that of one vertical to the
same. The two grooved rifle was an illustration of this; for in all
cases the projections on the bullet induced a change, the ring of the
bullet revolving parallel to the horizontal line, as I predicted in
1841.
Enough has been said to point out the prejudicial action of any
projections on projectiles, both as regards their accuracy and length of
flight; perfect smoothness of surface being, in fact, absolutely
necessary. Lengthened study and a series of experiments with bullets of
a sphero-cylindrical shape having grooves and projections on their
exterior identical with the grooving of the interior of the barrel, led
me to consider the production of a bullet with a considerable cavity
(equal, in fact, to two-thirds of its length) at the same time adopting
as a standard one and a half diameters in the length of the bore of the
gun; thus the thickness of the metal between the apex of the bullet and
apex of the cavity was nearly one half of the diameter, as the following
diagram will show.
[Illustration]
This enabled me to insure two important principles, on which depended
the success of the whole invention. 1st. The centre of gravity was in
the head of the projectile. 2nd. “_The force was communicated directly
to the centre of gravity during the explosion._” This is a most
important principle, which all writers presuming to give their version
to the theory of the expansive system, have entirely overlooked.
If the arrow could receive the propelling force in the head, its motion
would be even, and free from “hobbling,” as Roger Ascham wishes it to
be; but if, on the contrary, it is received at the opposite extremity,
then there is a struggle between the head and the tail, as to which
shall be first, and a “wobbling” motion is induced, enduring until an
equilibrium of velocity is established.
It is essential to all future progress in the science of projectiles,
that this point should be remembered, and its importance duly estimated;
and it is possible to apply this principle to projectiles of any weight.
If this point be attended to, where is the difficulty in extending the
length of our projectiles to that of arrows? thus increasing their range
indefinitely. There is, in fact, no law to limit the length of expansive
bullets: the only limit to their length now is the tendency of lead to
squash; but alloys of lead and other metals may yet be beneficially used
for projectiles, and that to an extent of which at present we can form
no conception.
The range of vision of the human eye being inferior to the range of the
rifle will probably be the only limit to its use; and this range will
not be difficult to attain: reduction in the size of bore enables us to
elongate the bullet without diminishing its weight or the accuracy of
its range; but without the existence of a cavity to insure the force
being applied to the head of the bullet, this cannot possibly be done;
whilst all other shapes are limited in their application, and an
extension of range cannot be obtained with them.
Next to these two important points in the invention comes the question
of expansion, whereby the grooves of the rifle are filled up with lead,
and windage is as far as possible obviated. The expander I first
employed consisted of a tapering piece of iron, similar in shape to the
frustum of a cone, and this, when inserted into the cavity of the
bullet, was flush with the bottom of the cylinder. The force generated
by the ignition of the charge was exerted equally on the plug and on the
leaden cylinder; the plug, however, moving more rapidly than the lead,
is driven quicker into the bullet, the bullet expands, and thus the
filling up of the grooves is accomplished. There can be no doubt that at
the same time an upward force is exerted by the plug on the leaden
bullet; and that, too, of a more elastic character than would be exerted
by the gases themselves, if they were allowed to act directly with all
their force upon the lead; for it is a fact beyond all dispute, that any
force tending to set matter in motion gradually is more effective than
that which is instantaneous in its action.
Many writers condemn _in toto_ the Minié principle and its cup. Minié
did not understand it; and the introduction of the cup by him was, I
believe, an accident, or the best he could do by copying my mode of
using it: it was not the production of his own brain.
It has been urged as an argument against the use of this cup, that
sometimes expansion does not occur. This, however, may easily be
accounted for by the fact that the cup is not tightly fitted into the
cavity of the bullet; a space is left through which the elastic fluid
penetrates the cavity, the cup then has as much pressure exerted upon it
behind as in front, and hence it remains undisturbed.
Then the cup is sometimes driven in so violently that it becomes
flattened against the flat surface of the upper portion of the cavity,
cutting the lead so entirely as to leave the cylindrical portion of the
bullet in the breech of the gun; this is well known to have been a
frequent occurrence on the first introduction of this bullet. These
defects are instanced, as evidence to show that Minié and others have no
claim whatever to the production of the original idea--they cannot even
now grasp it, but condemn it, because it is beyond the limits of their
comprehension. True it is that, after blundering for several years, our
Government have come back to my original idea, as the following
quotation will show:--
“Colonel Hay,” says Sir Howard Douglas, “has introduced an important
improvement in the shape of the cup, and in the figure of the cavity
into which it is forced on the firing of the charge. It will be
perceived that the cavity in the Minié shot has the form of the frustum
of a cone, while that of the cup is a hemisphere: now all who have
examined the shot picked up after having struck an iron target or
penetrated into the earth, find that the hemispherical cup is very
liable to be canted or turned instead of being forced directly into the
hollow space; the lead of the shot is not driven equally into the
grooves of the rifle. For this evil Colonel Hay has proposed a remedy,
in giving both to the cup and the cavity in the shot conoidal forms; by
which means the former must, by the force of the powder, proceed
directly forward in the hollow space, and thus uniformly expand the
lower part of the shot in the bore.”
If this is not conclusive evidence of the priority of my invention, then
I cannot understand the English language.
The next object I sought to obtain in the invention was a reduction of
opposing surface, and an increased momentum. The law of atmospheric
resistance is as the area of displacement, and the velocity with which
that displacement is effected. Thus, a spherical bullet of one ounce
weight displaces a bulk of the atmosphere equal to the area of its
hemisphere; whereas an elongated bullet of the same weight would have to
displace so much less as is the difference between their diameters.
These two bullets, started at equal velocities, are acted upon very
differently by opposing forces; the velocity of the spherical is
diminished much sooner than that of the elongated bullet, on account of
its greater diameter: hence the increased range of the elongated bullet.
Let us suppose an extreme case. Take a bullet produced from a
description of hardened lead five diameters in length, and presenting to
the atmosphere one-fifth the surface of a spherical bullet of equal
weight; the reasonable assumption would be that this bullet would range
a greater distance if projected at the same velocity, and if the same
charge of gunpowder be used as with a spherical bullet.
The first series of experiments clearly established the fact that
increased range could be obtained, and also with a vast reduction in the
charge of gunpowder: with a saving, in fact, of nearly 50 per cent. Two
drachms and a half were found equal to a range of fourteen hundred
yards, whilst four drachms and a half on the old system would rarely
reach half that distance. These important points were gradually
developed, though not without many disappointments and much mental
anxiety: the last discovery, to have rendered the task easy, should have
been the first.
Extreme spiral curve in the rifle barrel is incompatible with the
correct action of the expansive bullet. The old-established turns of one
in four feet, one in three feet, and one in two feet nine inches, gave
results in the order I have placed them; and it was not until the
adoption of a spiral approximating to one turn in five and a half up to
six feet, that I found the success of my experiments uniform: and this
fact illustrates one great obstacle which my invention had to contend
with before it was generally adopted.
The ordinary sporting rifles have invariably too much spiral; the amount
of friction generated by an expansive bullet in a rifle of this
construction is enormous, absorbing in many cases one half the power of
the expellant. The result of this is most unsatisfactory: the bullet
suddenly loosed from this immense friction, and freed from the column of
air in the tube, rushes so wildly forward as entirely to destroy
equilibrium in its flight; and hence the very loud complaints of
disappointed experimenters.
The expansive principle now adopted combines such qualities that,
however long and loudly it may be condemned, it will again assert its
superiority, and hold undisputed the first place for generations to
come. It is based on that law of nature which will always tell in
mechanical productions; namely, minimum of friction, and hence maximum
of propulsion or velocity; the greatest possible range with the least
amount of expellant agency. The same law holds, even though the bullet
should be elongated and made into an arrow. That which has been
introduced to the world as an improvement on my invention, and modestly
termed the “Pritchett bullet,” I rejected in 1841 as being inferior to
the expansive bullet: any one who is curious, and wishes to be convinced
of this fact, will find the following quotation in the _Naval and
Military Gazette_ for February, 1842:--“A great improvement may be
effected by using plugs of a cylindrical shape, having the upper end
round, and the part next the powder flat or concave; for rifles, to be
of use, must be constructed for high velocity, and this can be done by a
proportionate spiral and the use of a plug similar to that given above.
In this case we may load with the greatest facility, and the bullet
expanding, forces itself into the grooves of the rifle, and thus
receives the modicum of spiral motion required.” A perusal of “Captain
Jervis on the Musket Rifle” would lead one to infer that this was a
great invention on the part of Mr. Pritchett, and that it would
supersede to a certainty the more perfect expansive bullet; but Mr.
Pritchett’s so-called invention has sunk into oblivion, from whence it
will never emerge.
From practice I found that the most material defect in this bullet was
its uncertainty of action: it was driven in upon itself, and thus its
diameter was increased. A slight difference in the hardness of the lead,
a bullet moulded when the metal was hot, and the reverse, would be such
insuperable difficulties as to render their adoption quite
impracticable; moreover, when rapid firing became necessary, the
enormous friction created by the heat and hardness of the previous
deposit from exploded powder, rendered the use of these bullets highly
dangerous; as was proved in the Crimean war. I trust they are now for
ever abandoned, for their adoption did not show great intelligence on
the part of their advocates.
The expansive principle not being adopted in the armies of France and
other Continental nations, may be justly attributed to the experimenters
of the French school having been led astray; claiming, as they did, the
entire merit of the invention. It is but fair that whilst endeavouring
to establish my own claim to the invention, I should point out the
discrepancies existing in the theory of my opponents.
That considerable imperfections exist in the expansive rifle used in
France, is evident from the results of their experiments, and the time
which has been wasted in discussing the principles necessary for
correcting the flight of the bullet by “annular rings” being applied to
its cylindrical part.
Captain Tamissier’s theory is “that an elongated bullet in passing
through the air, describing the curve of the trajectory, maintained its
axis parallel in its successive positions to the position it had at
starting, and that the angle formed by this axis with the element of the
trajectory--that is, the direction of the motion--changed every instant.
The action of atmospheric resistance would also be altered by the
surface presented by the projectile; as the point of application of this
force would not always pass through the centre of gravity, but would
establish a rotatory motion different from that with which the bullet
was originally animated: in different words, the bullet, by preserving
its original position, would after a time be pursuing its path with its
broadside foremost; that is, with the point of its axis above the line
of the trajectory and the near end below.
“To remedy this, and increase the precision of fire with these bullets,
Captain Tamissier thought it was necessary to create resistances to the
atmosphere as far as possible behind their centre of gravity, in order
to bring the point of the bullet back to its original course. For this
purpose he formed a number of circular grooves on the cylindrical part
of the bullet, in imitation of the feathers of an arrow; which, he says,
are placed at the hinder part to engender resistances.”
The folly of such a theory must be very apparent to a practical man. The
engraving below of a bullet obtained direct from Captain Minié in
December, 1855, and with which the troops were then experimenting at
Vincennes, when compared with my bullet of 1843, renders any further
argument unnecessary.
[Illustration: MINIE BULLET, 1855.]
[Illustration: GREENERIAN BULLET, 1843.]
With this I contrast my bullet of 1841, at page 354, and a very slight
inspection will be sufficient to satisfy any one of its superiority:
every practical rifle-shooter knows that the smoother all the surfaces
of the bullet, the more extensive and accurate is the range. That the
French experiments should have given unsatisfactory results I am not at
all surprised: the flat surface on the point of the bullet must offer a
large space for the resistance of the atmosphere, during 1,000 yards of
flight. Then to this must be added the effect produced by the rings
around the bullet; and when the resistance of the atmosphere and that
produced by the friction of the bullet are added together, we need not
be surprised that the results of the experiments turned out very
unsatisfactory. Surely, if the French school invented the bullet which
produced this wonderful revolution in gunnery, they would have rendered
it perfect, instead of producing it in a more rude state in 1848 than I
had produced it in 1840.
Another point affording strong evidence that the whole was copied from
my work of 1842, is this. In my original plan the bottom of the cavity
of the bullet was flat, exactly as it now appears in Captain Minié’s
annular ringed bullet. In 1843 this was changed into a hemispherical
bottom; and this exists in all English expansive bullets, as the
adjoining woodcut will show.
In 1852 I produced a new form of cup, intended to obviate the use of the
heavier substance, or conical piece of iron. In addition to a cup of a
parabolic spindle shape, it had a rim like that on a man’s hat, as the
woodcut will show.
[Illustration]
A great advantage is gained by this contrivance in effectually expanding
the bullet, and thus closing up stray appendages, which are found to
exert considerable influence on the ultimate direction of the bullet. A
slight tail of cartridge-paper, a string, or an appendage of any
description, exerts such an important influence on the bullet’s flight,
as to cause it in some instances to describe a curve, the termination of
which is very eccentric, and commences from the very base of its
starting. It is evident, then, that great accuracy is necessary in order
to produce a perfect expansive bullet. English bullets are pressed into
shape by machinery, whilst in France they are formed in the ordinary
mould; this, however, is at all times an uncertain mode of making them:
a slight cavity in the head of the bullet would make it eccentric in
its flight; and this is very difficult to avoid: a slight puncture, or
an eruption on the surface, would, during a lengthened flight, be
materially acted upon by the atmosphere, so as to influence in a great
degree the direction of its flight.
The scientific world is deeply indebted to General Jacob, of the Scinde
Horse, for the zeal and energy he has displayed in carrying out his
principle of projectiles. He experimented on a scale never before
attempted by any private individual; his explosive projectiles have
created universal interest, and the great ranges he obtained will hand
down the General’s name in the history of gunnery to all future
generations.
Whilst ascribing all credit to General Jacob for the benefit he has
bestowed on projectile science, it is not less my duty to point out how
unfortunate for science, and for the General’s scientific reputation,
were the defects which exist in the system of which he is so strenuous
an advocate.
General Jacob’s principle differs from mine as widely as the poles are
separated from each other. In mine there exists the least amount of
friction, the minimum of spiral motion, and a most extensive range, with
the smallest expenditure of expellant force.
In the General’s invention these points are exactly reversed: friction
is at the highest point, the degree of spiral in the groove is more than
double, and the charge, as a matter of course, is much greater. The
range is greater, no doubt; as it ought to be, being obtained at treble
cost. Cost, in all cases, is the key to success or failure; not cost in
a monetary sense only, but cost of wear and tear. Destruction of the
barrel, and the amount of buffeting by recoil, are points of cost; and
the principle of General Jacob is so nearly allied to that of the
“hexagonal” rifle, that many will think, and perhaps not without good
reason, that the one has given rise to the production of the other. The
great length of column, 2-1/2 diameters in height, is so extreme, as to
be evidence in itself of the very unsound principles on which this rifle
is constructed. When bullets composed entirely of lead are used, the
result is that the bullet is so driven in upon itself, as to upset the
whole structure, “swaging” it whilst in the barrel into a long
cylindrical tube of lead, as the wood-cut, exhibiting the bullet before
and after firing, will sufficiently explain; whilst the friction and
lateral pressure on the tube of the barrel, which must be necessary to
effect the change in the bullet, require no further comment.
[Illustration: POINT OF BULLET BEFORE FIRING.]
[Illustration: WHOLE BULLET AFTER FIRING.]
The experience gained by General Jacob induced him subsequently to
adopt an iron or zinc-pointed bullet, as is depicted in the wood
engraving.
[Illustration: COMPLETE BULLET.]
[Illustration: METAL POINT.]
Thus departing from the true science of the question, instead of giving
the centre of gravity to the head of the bullet, he tries to overcome
the difficulties by which his system is beset, by increasing the spiral
motion. As other writers take a similar view of the question, I insert
the following quotation from a small work by Lieutenant Simons, Bengal
Artillery, entitled “A Treatise on Fire-arms,” where we have the
following appropriate remarks, strongly bearing on the peculiarities of
this system:--
“Every point upon the surface of a projectile in motion, whether it be a
rocket, javelin, ship, bullet, arrow, or any other description of
projectile, is the end of a lever, the fulcrum of which is situated in
the projectile’s centre of gravity. The effect of the air to upset, _i.
e._, to force the light or pointed end of such projectile to the rear,
or to unsteady, or cause to waver, the same, depends upon the lengths of
the levers at the ends of which it acts, and upon the angles at which
it presses against such levers, as determined by the positions of the
points and by the shape of the projectile; it likewise depends upon the
specific intensity of the pressure, which is doubtless greatest in the
neighbourhood of those parts of the projectile which least easily allow
the air to escape past them.
“An illustration in part of the truth of the foregoing proposition will
present itself to the conceptions of those who have taken notice of the
manner of the flight of rockets, or who have witnessed shells projected
from mortars at night time. The light of the burning fuse, particularly
during the first part of the flight of the shell, is seldom obscured
from the sight of the beholders in the battery from which it is fired.
The end of the fuse protruding beyond the general surface of the shell
is the end of a lever whose fulcrum is the shell’s centre of gravity.
The pressure of the air against this lever as the shell moves forward,
drives it to the rear, in which place it would remain steady, did the
shell in its course describe a straight line; a curve, however, being
the line actually described, it follows that the direction from which
the resistance created by the shell’s own motion comes, is ever varying;
whereby the occurrence of an equilibrium is prevented, and the shell is
caused to oscillate laterally as it were. If the size of the fuze end of
it, however, be at all considerable, the shell will rarely topple over,
and, in consequence, the light of the fuze, during the ascending curve,
will generally be visible.
“The more rapidly a ball is made to reach its goal, the nearer will the
line described by it approach to a straight one, and the less will it
roll. It is possible that the old musket-ball did not roll much during
the first fifty or hundred yards of its flight, and that the accuracy of
shooting with it will have been less on this account. A ball which does
not roll, may be said to be ‘in position;’ there is inherent in it a
fixed tendency to deviate from the line in which it is projected. Now a
shell which rolls much by reason of its comparatively slow motion, is
ever tending to stray in different directions, and, therefore, a
movement in the wrong direction, at one moment, being compensated for
the next by a corresponding movement in the opposite direction, it may
be by this means a recipient of an amount of accidental compensation to
which, perhaps, the musket-ball is a stranger.
“Such being the manifest effect of projections upon the surface of a
shell, it is not difficult to imagine what must be the unseen effect of
projections on the surface of a rifle ball. One projection, placed
without regard to effect upon such surface, would make the ball jog and
oscillate much after the manner that has been described. Two or more of
proper form and construction will, on the contrary, if properly placed
upon a projectile, hold it steady, and so impart to it a fixed tendency
to digress, thereby preparing it to be usefully operated upon by spiral
motion.
“So much as has been said will, I think, suffice to disprove that not
unfrequently entertained notion to the effect that the light end of a
bullet is kept forward by the operation of the spiral motion imparted to
it. I could cite more than one person and pamphlet (General Jacob),
apparently under the influence of this belief, but which certainly does
not accord with theory, and the practical incorrectness of which was
thus manifested to me.”
The Whitworth rifle, which was introduced to the world with a clarion
flourish from the _Times_, has not made any very rapid progress toward
perfection. It still drags out an existence, it is true, but its boasted
superiority is all a myth; as time and experience will show.
Like the former, but more meritorious, invention of General Jacob, it is
based on an unsound principle, an untenable theory, good only in
seeming, which collapses when grasped by the hand of practical
experience.
The peculiarity connected with this weapon is the extraordinary
circumstances under which it first saw the light:--It was produced by
the aid of Plutus, dragging in reputed science to fashion on the instant
a weapon superior to the tardy results of three centuries; though during
that period numbers of talented individuals had devoted their lives to
the study of gunnery.
Wealth is generally believed to be able to remove all obstructions, and
even to purchase capacity, if need be; though it can scarcely enable one
individual to surpass the experience of ages, however talented that
individual may be. The attempt thus to obtain such assistance was a
slight by the Government of the day to the improvers of British
fire-arms; they were passed over as of no value, and the country’s
wealth was thrown into the lap of a talented, but at the same time, not
a practical man.
The Government of this country had on all previous occasions exacted
from inventors their brains and their money, as an offering in exchange
for patronage; on this occasion, however, they departed widely from
their usual custom, for the “mountain came to the mouse.” It would have
been a grateful compliment if the Government had said to the inventor,
“You have done something for the good of your country with your limited
means, here are thousands of pounds at your command; do something
better, for we need it.” But nothing of the kind was done: a selection
was made, justified by no antecedent qualifications. The first thing
necessary was the acquirement in a very short time of a practical
knowledge of gunnery, in order that a weapon should be produced superior
to any other; but whether success has attended these efforts or not is
still doubtful, and this is in itself a fit rebuff to the Minister, who
expected, like the citizen’s wife, that “gold would purchase capacity.”
The great defect in the hexagonal-bored rifle is the extreme amount of
friction, and the consequent useless expenditure of means.
The bullet is produced in the most accurate manner in a lathe, and is
composed of an alloy of lead, tin, and manganese, so as to render it
hard enough to resist the tendency to squash or swage; which is the case
in General Jacob’s principle. The angles on the bullet are cut with the
greatest precision, in order to fit the groove of the barrel;
constituting, in fact, a female screw of two turns in every thirty-nine
inches of length.
As fair play has always been my motto, I am actuated by no other desire
than that of enabling the reader to form a true conception of the
intricate nature of projectile science; and though the eulogium bestowed
on the inventor’s own creation is rather egotistical, I give it entire,
dissecting it afterwards in the manner I think most conducive to a
correct knowledge of the real science of gunnery.
“THE WHITWORTH AND ENFIELD RIFLES.
“For the last few days a very interesting and important series of
experiments has been in progress at the Government School of Musketry,
Hythe, in order to test the comparative merits of these two rifles.
The trial, which was of the most searching and impartial character,
was conducted by Colonel Hay, the able head of the school, and has
terminated in establishing beyond all doubt the great and decided
superiority of Mr. Whitworth’s invention. The Enfield rifle, which was
considered so much better than any other as to justify the formation
of a vast Government establishment for its special manufacture, has
been completely beaten. In accuracy of fire, in penetration, and in
range, its rival excels it to a degree which hardly leaves room for
comparison.
“The following table gives the best results that have been obtained
from 10 shots of each arm respectively, in the course of the
experiments, which have extended over a week in time, and were brought
to a close yesterday in the presence of Lord Panmure and of a number
of military and scientific spectators:--
-------------+---------+----------+---------
|Range in |Elevation.|Figure of
RIFLE. | yards. | | Merit.
-------------+---------+----------+---------
| | Deg. | Feet.
Whitworth } | { | 1·15 | 0·37
Enfield } | 500 { | 1·32 | 2·24
Whitworth }| {| 2·20 | 1·00
Enfield }| 800 {| 2·45 | 4·11
Whitworth } | { | 3·45 | 2·41
Enfield } |1,100 { | 4·12 | 8·04
Whitworth }| {| 5·00 | 4·62
Enfield }|1,400 {|6·20 to 7.| No hits
Whitworth } | { | 6·40 | 11·62
Enfield } |1,800 { | -- | --
-------------+---------+----------+---------
It would appear from these figures that at 500 yards in 10 shots the
Manchester rifle has a superior accuracy of 1·87 of a foot; at 800
yards 3·11; at 1,100 yards 5·63; and that at 1,400 yards and upwards
the Enfield weapon ceases to afford any data for a comparison. In
penetration the results obtained have been equally decisive; the
Whitworth projectile, with the regulation charge of powder, going
through 33 half-inch planks of elm, and being brought up by a solid
oak bulk beyond, while the Enfield ball could not get past the 13th
plank.
“The shooting on Tuesday was more to satisfy Lord Panmure and the
other strangers present upon the comparative merits of the two weapons
than to show the limit of what each could do under favourable
circumstances. Still, the targets of every 10 shots on either side
bore decisive evidence of the superiority of the new rifle, as a
glance at the following table will prove:--
-------------+--------+----------+---------
|Range in|Elevation.|Figure of
RIFLE. | yards.| | Merit.
-------------+--------+----------+---------
| | Deg. | Feet.
Whitworth } | {| 2·22 | 1·41
Enfield } | 800 {| 2·45 | 5·67
Whitworth }| | { | 1·27
Enfield }| 500 | -- { | 3·30
Whitworth } | | {| 1·33
Enfield } | 500 | -- {| 4·01
-------------+--------+----------+---------
“The last entry in the table records the mean radial distance from a
central point of 10 shots fired from a table-rest, by Colonel Hay and
Mr. Gunner, the manager of the Enfield factory. Both are first-rate
marksmen, yet at 500 yards the Manchester rifle in the hands of the
former gives three times as good shooting as the latter can get out of
the Government arm. All the other trials were made by firing from a
beautifully-constructed machine rest, which placed both weapons on a
footing of perfect equality as to the conditions under which they were
tested. In addition to the foregoing experiments, there was one for
showing that with cylindro-conoidal balls on the expansion principle
of those used for the Enfield rifle, very superior shooting could be
obtained from Whitworth’s hexagonal bore. This was most satisfactorily
established, the mean deviation on the target from the centre of the
group of 10 hits being only ·85 of a foot at 500 yards’ range. It will
be observed that at 500 yards’ range, at which the practice commenced,
the shooting of Whitworth’s rifle was so much better than the other
that no greater distance was attempted. A reference to the first table
of experiments will also demonstrate that the target made by the
former weapon at 1,100 yards is nearly as good as that made by the
latter at 500. These are great results to have achieved, and amply
justify the forethought of the late Lord Hardinge in securing the
services of so eminent a mechanic as Mr. Whitworth for the improvement
of the rifle. Until he took the subject in hand the proper principles
for guidance in the construction of the weapon had not been accurately
determined. The manufacture was still conducted by rule of thumb, and
in a very hap-hazard way on the most important points. The use of
grooves and an expansive projectile made it impossible to secure the
requisite amount of pitch in the rifling and the indispensable
hardness of metal in the bullet for penetration. Moreover, from the
small amount of bearing, the wear and tear both in the barrel and in
the projectile were enormous, and the length of the latter could not
be increased without causing it to capsize in its flight. By the
polygonal bore and rapid pitch to which the form of the bullet
accurately conforms, Mr. Whitworth has rendered stripping impossible,
and, his rifle when fired acting exactly like a male and female screw,
the projectile must rotate with perfect steadiness and precision on
its axis. He can increase its length so considerably as to secure
space for converting it into a shell if necessary; and, being able to
use metal of any degree of hardness, he can adapt its form and
strength exactly to the work which it has to perform. Thus with a
rifle 39 inches long and half-inch bore, having a turn in 20 inches,
or two turns in its length, he finds no difficulty in penetrating a
wrought-iron plate 6-10ths of an inch thick or cutting a core out of
a piece of solid timber half a foot thick; and some idea may be formed
of the extraordinary power of this arm when we mention that his
projectiles in their flight rotate at the rate of 15,000 revolutions
per minute. The question of driving holes in the 4-inch breast plates
of floating batteries is at once solved by the application of these
principles to artillery, the construction of which this new rifle
proves must be completely revolutionized. A weapon which in expert
hands will make good practice at 1,400 yards, and the range of which
can be very easily helped by a telescope if necessary, gives the _coup
de grace_ to our present system of field batteries. At the Alma it
would have silenced the Russian guns or driven them from their
position, rendering the rush of the Light Division, with the heavy
loss of life consequent thereon, unnecessary. Nor during the siege of
Sebastopol would the rope mantlets of the Redan and the Malakhoff
having given much protection to the men working behind the
embrasures,” &c., &c., &c.
So much for the praise bestowed by Mr. Whitworth on his own production.
A beautiful experiment it has been, and one for which the scientific
world is bound to be thankful; giving, as it does, perhaps a faint idea
only of what is yet to be effected.
However, all is not gold that glitters: it is very well to do all this
by straining every principle that can be brought to bear,--extra charge,
bullets hardened and turned with mathematical precision, steel barrels,
with a fineness of polish in the interior like that of a
looking-glass--these are all great adjuncts in the trial against an
ordinary unprepared gun, taken from a number promiscuously, and which
perhaps might be the worst specimen in the possession of the party at
Hythe. But these are trifles when compared with the two following facts.
The diameter of the bore of Mr. Whitworth’s is 500, or half-inch at the
largest diameter, and 450 at the smallest, or a mean, taking the two
extremes, of fifty bore; the Enfield is 577, or twenty-five bore, and
the bullets on leaving the guns were the same weight exactly. The length
of the Enfield bullet is 7/8 inch, that of the Whitworth is 1-3/8 inch.
But all this will be more fully seen from the woodcuts.
[Illustration: ENFIELD BARREL AND PRITCHETT BULLETS.]
[Illustration: WHITWORTH BARREL AND BULLETS.]
Thus it will be seen that the amount of resistance or displacement of
atmospheric air by one bullet is nearly double that of the other, and
this is a most important point in Mr. Whitworth’s favour; but the
quantity of gunpowder used in the one is precisely the same as that used
in the other, though Mr. Whitworth’s rifle is little more than half the
size of bore, the pressure on the square inch being consequently nearly
double; hence the circumstances are not sufficiently equal for Mr.
Whitworth to claim for his rifle any great superiority: the gun may take
the attention of the unwary, but its principles will not bear
investigation.
Let me change the circumstances of the case, by retaining the principle
of the Enfield, but changing the bore to the same as Mr. Whitworth’s,
increasing at the same time the length of projectile, and I will engage
to beat it with a much reduced charge. The extreme degree of female
screw or spiral, one turn in twenty inches, or two turns in the whole
length of the barrel, creates, as must be familiar to the most obtuse
mind, an enormous amount of friction, and in consequence of this an
equal quantity of force is absorbed: in other words, there is a useless
waste of force.
The Enfield barrel has but a proportion of turn, one in six feet six
inches, or exactly half a spiral in the three feet three, generating 300
per cent. less friction than in the Whitworth rifle; so that on this
score alone the saving would be very great, and in this trial the
Whitworth would be inferior to the Enfield; the inventor, therefore, has
unjustly laid claim to superiority, as the trial has been conducted on
very unequal terms.
Mr. Whitworth says his bullet rotates at the rate of 15,000 revolutions
in a minute; now the friction on the periphery of a bullet having this
extreme spinning on an axis, must very much lessen its range. If we
weigh force, and carefully calculate its expenditure in 2,000 yards, the
periphery has made 4,000 revolutions. Now look at the shape of the
hexagonal body depicted in the woodcut at page 377, and estimate the
friction it will undergo. The Enfield in the same distance would rotate
only 1,000 times, thus affording another gain of 300 per cent. The
question, therefore, which arises is this: If all this can be done
equally well with the Enfield, why not do it? And the answer is, because
there is nothing to be gained by it. Great doubts now exist whether the
bore 25 is not too great a reduction: in fact, you will find no military
advocates for it. The faculty will tell you that small wounds are not so
destructive as large ones: the human body is as much affected by the
shock as by the penetration of a bullet. Many other reasons might be
advanced in favour of increased size of bullet, and much more important
reasons must be given, before the whole military system has to be
re-changed, than a mere gain of 300 or 400 yards; whilst there can be
little doubt that the ranges we now possess in the Enfield are more than
equivalent to our wants. The human eye cannot define precisely at 900 or
1,000 yards, and yet greater accuracy is required to fire a ball at a
distance of 2,000 yards; again, it is a question which has frequently
arisen in my mind, in how many situations in England or on the Continent
can we get a clear view of 2,000 yards. The effort, indeed, to increase
range appears like seeking after a remedy for a disease which has never
yet been discovered.
If ranges of 2,000 yards and upwards are required, rifled cannon will
again take their proper place; for on investigating the tables of
practice published by General Jacob, I find the average distance of
shot from the centre of butt to be, at 2,000 yards, nearly 9 feet, with
13·7 degrees elevation; whilst the Whitworth is said to be 11-1/2 feet,
with about 8 degrees of elevation. I saw, some time ago, some practice
at Shoeburyness with an 18-pounder rifle cannon, which gave a range of
3,650 yards, with an elevation of 0·10-3/4 degrees, and a breeze blowing
across, a mean deflection of only 30 inches from the centre. This throws
Jacob, Whitworth, and the Enfield all into the shade together; yet there
can be no doubt that this can be excelled, when heavier guns are brought
to the same state of perfection as this 18-pounder. The case therefore
stands thus: the Jacob rifle has a greater range than the Enfield, at a
cost of 100 per cent. more friction, and an expenditure of 50 per cent.
more of projectile force; the Whitworth has also a greater range, but at
a cost of 300 per cent. more friction, and 100 per cent. additional
projectile force. With these observations I leave this subject in the
hands of the public, being convinced that projectile power obtained at
such a cost will never come into general use; though the production of
the Whitworth rifle will always be looked upon as an experiment of very
great interest.
There is but one other point relating to the use of guns on such a
principle, and that is their safety; which is always of the greatest
importance. It is a well-known fact that the first movement of
projectiles depends very much on the amount of inertia in that
projectile; and different forms of projectiles, though of the same
weight, will offer very different amounts of resistance to motion. No
one can doubt that two columns of lead, each of an ounce in weight, one
being as high again as the other, will offer different amounts of
resistance; first, from the law that the time occupied in overcoming
inertia is in proportion to the length of that body; secondly, if these
columns of metals are confined in tubes, then the friction on the one
which is half an inch long will be much less than on the other, which is
one inch in length: and this is, on the mildest terms, the relative
position of the two. There can be no doubt that a much greater pressure
is required to start the longer column of double the length; but when we
consider that there are the facets of six angles, with a spiral
inclination of one in nineteen, the difficulty of starting this bullet
becomes still more apparent. Now suppose the gun has been loaded a few
hours, and a certain amount of adhesion has been effected between the
bullet and sides of the barrel, by the unctuous deposit from previous
discharges, then the difficulty of starting the bullet instantaneously
will be still more increased: supposing the breech end of a barrel, with
the ordinary charge of the Enfield cartridge and bullet, has a force
exerted upon it of 2,000 pounds in the square inch, then in the
hexagonal not much less than double that strength will be requisite to
meet the contingencies of dirty guns: in fact I know that a serious
accident did occur very recently with a double rifle constructed on
Whitworth’s principle, notwithstanding all the care bestowed upon it by
a first-rate maker; and I believe that this gun, if it is to be used
with safety, must have a barrel double the strength of other rifles.
The doubtful nature of Mr. Whitworth’s experiments must be apparent from
the fact that they were made in a shed, from which strong currents of
air were excluded: any bullet would range accurately in vacuo, or in
atmosphere equally quiescent; deductions, therefore, drawn from such
experiments must be worthless. Battles occur not under such favourable
circumstances; protuberances on bullets tell most in high currents, and
least in a quiet atmosphere; so that had the experiments been instituted
in the open air, they would doubtless have yielded a different result.
The hexagonal bullet of large size has been proved to be very eccentric
indeed in its flight; hence a bullet of the smallest dimensions was
used, for had it been larger, its great enemy, the atmosphere, would
have rendered the chance of even partial success perfectly hopeless.
Now, observe what would be the effect of extension of length and
decrease of diameter in the Greenerean expansive bullet. Harden it by
alloys, as adopted in the Whitworth; use the same charge, and the
probability is great, that, from the absence of extreme friction, it
will excel in range, accuracy, and penetration the Whitworth, as much as
that does now the Enfield.
If the Government can see any important advantage to be gained by
extending the range we now possess; if anything is to be gained by
reduction from 25 to 50 bore; if, indeed, there is any point which is
advantageous in the Whitworth, I will pledge my reputation that this
may be obtained in the expansive principle: and that, too, with a much
less expenditure of expellant force.
The “hoodwinking” of the public by not disclosing the fact that the
pressure of the gunpowder in the Whitworth was double, the bore being
but one-half, is at best an attempt at concealment not creditable to the
parties concerned. Knowledge of the principles which regulate projectile
science is not so scanty as to allow the palm to be carried away from
the profession, and worn by a gentleman who, on his own admission, is
unpractised in the science of gunnery. The science to be effectually
improved must be carried on at the cost of the nation, as Mr.
Whitworth’s experiments were. This fact certainly bears the appearance
of a good precedent, and I hope it may be extended.
Mr. Whitworth, like General Jacob, has had to sacrifice scientific
economy in order to obtain the points he required. I have already
dilated upon the truism that all projectiles range with the greatest
economy which have the centre of gravity in the head or fore part of the
bullet. I have also pointed out the fact that the elongated projectiles
which have not the centre of gravity in the head, turn over during their
flight after leaving the muzzle of the gun; and this is also found to be
the case in rifles having a greater degree of spiral than the Enfield,
one turn in six feet 6 inches. To meet this difficulty, therefore,
General Jacob adopts one turn of spiral in every three feet: thus his
bullet in passing out has double the friction of the Enfield; and when
we look at the fact that he is further compelled to increase the length
of his bullet to 2-1/2 diameters, a little reflection will point out the
entire want of economy in his whole arrangement.
On turning to the Whitworth, we find that, in order to ensure his bullet
keeping point foremost in its flight, he has to double the very great
spiral adopted by Jacob: thus we have all its concomitant disadvantages,
friction, expenditure of matter, and danger of bursting the gun. When we
contemplate such arrangements as exist in these two guns, it must be
evident that they are both self-destructive. No system of projectiles
can be durable which is effected by straining all the acknowledged
principles of mechanics; and this has been done in each of these cases.
The scientific world knows well that a much higher rate of speed can be
attained in railway travelling than is daily practised; but they also
know that it can only be obtained in the same way as Jacob and Whitworth
obtained their range in gunnery: namely, by an excessive expenditure of
fuel, and a wear of engine amounting to comparative destruction; whilst,
at the same time, the danger is so much increased that it would be folly
and recklessness to persist in such a course. The question, therefore,
resolves itself into this; that in locomotion and in projectile science,
if we would have them perfect, we must study the mode of obtaining the
greatest results with the least expenditure of means.
Facility of loading must at all times be of great importance: the
soldier cannot have the means of cleaning his rifle when in action, and
yet if the hexagonal principle were to be adopted, it must be repeatedly
cleaned, or it would be almost impossible to load it, and when
discharged it would either burst or its fire would not be effective.
During such a war as that in India, going on day and night, a soldier
could not be expected to wash out his rifle after every half-dozen
shots.
The field in which experiments are carried on is very different from
that of a battle. Experiments, as detailed, sometimes turn out most
fallacious when put to the use for which they are intended; and in no
case is this more apparent than in breech-loading arms: thousands of
rounds may be fired in a few days with great success; but extend that
over twelve months, a certain number being fired every day, and the gun
being cleaned after each day’s practice, and long before thousands are
fired, the gun displays weak points--points which could not be
discovered in the lesser experiment. So it is in practice: a gun left
dirty for hours is undergoing rapid destruction; the unctuous deposit
from gunpowder has such an affinity for iron that minute galvanic cells
are formed on its surface in a very short time: half an hour after a gun
has been discharged in a damp atmosphere these operations may be seen to
be going on with rapidity, and an old gun on the hexagonal principle (if
one should last long enough to grow old) would not be a very desirable
weapon, in point of safety.
The comparative cost of ammunition for the hexagonal rifle and the
Enfield, is a point of no little importance. Calculation gives the
former at something equivalent to 4-1/2_d._ or 5_d._ at each discharge,
while the latter cannot exceed 1-1/4_d._, or at most 1-1/2_d._--a
serious question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That this sum may be lessened by the employment of machinery is not
unlikely; but this can only be done to a limited extent, it being
essential that mathematical nicety, as well as the right degree of
hardness, should be strictly observed, otherwise the power of
penetration will be sacrificed: and of this property a great deal has
been made. There are few who do not know that a pound hammer will soon
drive to the head a fine-pointed slender nail; whilst a short, thick,
stumpy nail requires three times the force: again, if fine steel
polished nails were constructed, a still smaller amount of force would
suffice. If such effects are carefully studied, much may be done with
very little means.
Very recently a statement appeared in the press that, owing to some
ill-made cartridges being served out to the troops in India, the men
found it almost impossible to load their Enfield rifles at all; having
to call in the aid of trees and stones against which to butt the ramrod,
in order to force the bullet home. The same account attributed this
defect to the careless construction of these cartridges by the
contractors. This, however, is unjust; all cartridges for the Enfield
rifles being alone produced in the laboratory at Woolwich; and hence the
defect is the more unpardonable. It is easy to conceive that in India,
where the heat is intense, the grease on the cartridge might have
disappeared; the unctuous deposit of gunpowder on the interior of the
barrel is also rendered more adhesive, and necessarily offers greater
obstruction to the ramming down of the bullet. The very slight
difference between the diameter of the bullet and that of the bore, or
windage, must necessarily add to the difficulty under such
circumstances; but if half a size, or a few decimals of diameter, were
taken from the sides of the bullet and added to its length, the
difficulty would be effectually removed: with increased length, and
increasing means of expansion, if necessary, such an occurrence could
never take place.
The original expanding bullet was intended to fill up the difference of
three sizes of gauge; surely, then, there can be no difficulty in
expanding a much less diameter of bullet one half, or even full one size
of gauge. Where would be the difficulty in having the bullet 26-bore, or
even smaller, and expanding it to 25. The occurrence, indeed, of such a
fact as that alluded to is to an intelligent mind quite
incomprehensible; it could only arise from gross incompetency--some
cobbling with the bullet’s cup in the pressing, or perhaps enlargement
by wear, or more likely still from the pulp-made cartridge paper. That
this difficulty has been experienced is obvious; and the inference is
strong, that the official managers of these affairs are still in the
midst of a long experiment: it is clear that they are not perfectly
masters of the practice of gunnery, and it is almost time the people of
this country had their work better done. It is more than probable that,
instead of meeting this difficulty with the proper spirit of
improvement, they will fly off at some other tangent, and adopt the
nostrum of some “arrant quack;” thus effectually adding to the
complication.
Each regiment ought to have moulds, and the means of making their
cartridges on such emergencies; a body of provident officials ought to
attend to this, that a repetition of it may be avoided.
An ordinary mind would have perceived that, in such lengthened
operations as those our soldiers have been engaged in, the cleaning of
their arms would be almost impossible; still the men are not instructed
that in such a difficulty an oiled rag passed up and down the barrel
would diminish it; neither is such a simple remedy provided: let us
trust, however, that this misfortune will lead to improvement. If this
difficulty is encountered in the Enfield, which is, comparatively
speaking, a smooth bore, what would be the difficulty in the hexagonal
bore with two turns in 39 inches! The possibility of loading the latter
would be very remote indeed, if not quite impracticable, and a total bar
to anything like its general adoption.
Pure lead is indispensable for all rifle bullets, but more especially
for the expansive, which is in reality useless without it. A lubricating
grease, of a given consistency for various climates, is also a
desideratum yet to be accomplished; how desirable it would be, is shown
by all the accounts of good shooting I have ever received or met with.
A vast number of projectiles have been produced, and strenuously
advocated; but from the total want of scientific arrangement in their
construction they have had but a very short existence. The vital
principle in all elongated projectiles is to have the centre of gravity
in the fore end; wanting that, an unnecessary spinning motion must be
resorted to, at the cost of immense friction: for the tendency to change
position can only be obviated by excessive spiral motion; whilst in a
bullet having the centre of gravity in the head, much less spiral motion
suffices: its scientific construction admits of no tendency to change;
straight forward is its natural inclination, and to this inclination it
adheres.
A late writer on projectiles has laboured hard to condemn the expansive
principle and the cup; he has even aspired to lecture on it before
Royalty, and as an improvement upon it, he recommends the following
invention of his own:--
“In my endeavours to remedy the evils which have been so often and
justly complained of, I attempted the construction of several bullets,
particularly with the view of solving the question--can a
cylindro-conoidal bullet be contrived, which will have a flat surface
for its base, and the centre of gravity in the fore part? In my attempts
from time to time I met with less or more success until I arrived at my
last improvement, the principle of which has afforded me so much
satisfaction, that I fancy I have only to describe it, to enable any
intelligent marksman to perceive at once the utility of the contrivance.
“In the end of the bullet, which is a fair cylinder for half its length,
I formed a cavity of a conical form, similar to the inside of a small
thimble, which stretches forward somewhat more than half the length of
the bullet, and which is wide enough to reduce sufficiently the weight
of the hinder end, so as to throw the centre of gravity into the fore
part, even after the explosion of the charge takes place. On the edge of
the cavity I made an indentation, or shoulder, about a twelfth of an
inch in depth, and upon this I placed an iron disc of the same
thickness, which closes up the cavity even with the end of the bullet,
making a flat surface of that part; so that it may be called a hollow
flat-ended bullet, though to all appearance solid.”
The adoption of the disc, and the closing of the orifice at the bottom
of the bullet, is merely the production of an elongated plug with weak
sides, which must necessarily be driven in upon themselves, and thus
shortened; and in so doing they expand. The disc prevents the
possibility of the explosive gases acting upon the centre of gravity or
the head, and thus the advantage of that being the primary motion is
lost; and which ensures the absence of “wobbling,” a principle inherent
in all plug bullets after leaving the muzzle: and a defect which it was
the main object of my invention to avoid. The idea is evidently that of
Captain Norton, as evinced in his rifle shell, and consequently is a
plagiarism, either deliberate or accidental.
[Illustration: SWISS BULLET.]
The Swiss bullet has obtained to some extent a reputation, admitting,
like the Lancaster elliptical bullet, of being put into higher velocity.
Its range, however, is limited, from the very great friction it
undergoes in passing up the barrel: it is driven in upon itself until it
becomes a mere plug of lead with a hemispherical head; and the centre of
gravity being behind, ensures its flight frequently terminating by
turning “topsy turvy.” Moreover, it cannot be used on a large scale,
except by the addition of a hard metal point, as in General Jacob’s
bullet.
The wisdom displayed in rifling barrels with the gathering or deepening
groove may be doubted; it admits of serious consideration, whether or
not it tends to increase the friction of the bullet passing outward. It
is evident that did the bullet expand all at once it would do so; but as
this is well known not to be the case, the question arises what is the
advantage gained? for it is asserted on high authority that it improves
the shooting. The mere deepening of the grooves at the breech end can
have but little effect; and the question is, does the shallowing of the
grooves as the bullet approaches the muzzle, produce the effect? We
think it does. In the process of rifling these barrels, the rifling
tool, by a very ingenious arrangement of screws, is caused gradually to
cut deeper as it travels from the muzzle to the breech, so that when
finished the depth of grooves at the muzzle is ·005 of an inch; half-way
down the barrel it is ·010, and at the breech end ·015: thus gradually
deepening 10/1000 of an inch, whereas the usual method of rifling is to
have one uniform depth of ·010 inches. From the contraction of the
protuberances on the bullet from 1/10 to 1/5000 of an inch in passing up
the barrel, results the apparent benefit: such a reduction would surely
allow of the bullet continuing its flight with less friction on the
atmosphere; for it cannot be too often repeated that perfect smoothness,
even to a polished surface, is essential to the easy passage of all
bullets through the air.
There are some rather curious deductions obtained by practice alone,
which to ordinary minds appear of trifling importance; but they clearly
show that correct rifle-shooting can only be obtained by the most
perfect arrangement in the rifling and scientific construction of the
barrels.
The Government have lately adopted a highly finished and costly rifle
arm, with sword bayonet attached to the usual form of bar soldered to
the end of the barrels on the right side. When these barrels were first
constructed, they were made lighter than experience subsequently showed
they ought to be; for it was found that the barrel not expanding equally
with the other portions at this necessarily rigid point, influenced the
shooting of the gun to a considerable extent; so that an increase of
metal was found necessary.
The difficulty of obtaining good shooting with double rifles, one side
of each barrel being held rigid whilst the other is yielding, explains
the difficulty, and points to the remedy: an increase of metal, or, what
would be more convenient, the adoption of the most perfect laminated
steel for all double rifles; it being self-evident that soft barrels and
correct rifle-shooting are to a certain extent incompatible.
Double rifles have nearly superseded single ones; for few who can afford
the additional price will use the latter, when in the same weight he can
have two useful weapons. The one great end generally sought in a rifle
is sufficient weight to neutralise the force of the explosion or recoil;
and the additional barrel answers this as effectually as additional
thickness of iron in the single. But there is one objection which I have
never been able to master in the construction of double rifle barrels,
and I much doubt the possibility of effectually overcoming it--another
proof that mathematical demonstrations are frequently wrong in practice,
however correct in theory. Many hold it to be essential that double
rifle barrels should be put together perfectly parallel. I followed this
rule, and was at considerable cost in perfecting tools for the purpose;
yet, strange to say, in trial I found invariably that the right barrel
threw the ball slightly to the right, and the left to the left. This I
have been at enormous trouble to ascertain, and am enabled positively
to declare it is an indisputable fact. The cause of it is evidently the
recoil not striking the stock in the centre, but on one side; which
causes the gun to swerve to that side. However small or unapparent the
recoil may be, still there is a recoil; and hence its effect. To remedy
this it is necessary to incline the barrels in, towards the muzzle, to
counteract that tendency; but in doing this another evil is created, for
you can only do this to suit a given distance, either 100, 150, or 200
yards, as may be determined. Thus it will be perceived a deficiency must
exist at all times; and it shows clearly the necessity for motion being
resisted centrically, if truth is to be maintained. This defect in the
double rifle will always be a drawback to the “_most correct_ shooting;”
yet under ordinary circumstances it may not be a matter of vital
importance, neither does there exist any means of sighting to overcome
the difficulty. The only way to obtain a double rifle perfectly
true--perfectly parallel, is to construct the barrels one above the
other, as double pistols are now constructed. The only objection to them
is the difficulty attending the arrangement of the locks, as one cock
must strike the nipple the thickness of the barrel below the other, and
is an unsightly matter at best. These facts lead to another, namely, the
necessity of all rifles being stocked as straight as possible, avoiding
in all cases any casting off in the butt; as it is evident that these
matters have considerable influence on the correctness of shooting.
One great drawback to correct shooting is produced from the stock being
thrown off at the butt end; and, in other cases, from imperfections in
the stocking of the gun--all truth depending on the barrel or barrels
being both stocked and held perfectly level in the act of using. It must
be quite clear, that in case the right barrel of a pair be depressed but
the 32nd part of an inch, the angle of the sight on the top, instead of
giving elevation, will cause the line of flight of ball to be to the
left, and “_vice versâ_.” Therefore, first of all be sure the gun is
held square; and great advantage will be found in pointing the muzzle in
all cases a few feet below the object, and raising it in a perfect line
upwards to the bull’s eye. If this can be done well, in addition to the
gun being held square, the better half of the difficulty is overcome;
further practice will make perfect.
The point next in importance, is to take off the weight of the pull in
the trigger, during the upward motion; overcoming the last atom of
weight as the muzzle sight covers the bull’s eye. It must be done so
gradually, that no jerk or pull can move the gun, be it ever so
triflingly: in fact, all good shots fire thus while the gun is in
motion. If the sight cannot be correctly obtained during the movement,
always take the rifle down from the shoulder, and raise it again; for
depend upon it, rifle shooting can never be acquired perfectly, where
the habit is practised of holding the gun at the shoulder, “poking” the
muzzle about and seeking the bull’s eye. All good shooting is produced
from the shoulder; an absence of pulsation in the body which is induced
by holding a weight. The shoulder rests are found to be the cause of
vibration; resting one part of the body and straining another begets it
instantly, and where rests are used they should be merely supports for
the muzzle, and not for the centre of the gun. If the centre is placed
upon it, the action of recoil is almost sure to jump the gun upwards.
The best shooting can be accomplished from the shoulder, if the above
instructions be carefully followed. Avoid in all cases gripping a rifle
tightly, or you will most assuredly communicate the pulsation of the
body to the rifle.
During the Crimean war many of the Enfield rifles expanded so much with
the Pritchett plug bullet as not only to loosen all the bands on the
stock, but also to produce a visible effect on the barrel; and to remedy
this the Government adopted my expanding screw bands, which admit of
being tightened by the screw when necessary.
The production of a perfect breech-loading small arm is as difficult as
the production of a perfect breech-loading cannon, and that is so
problematical as to amount, in my humble opinion, to nearly an
impossibility. All experience teaches that a perfectly sound base of
projection in the gun is indispensable, if good direction and velocity
are required; without which there can be no good shooting. If this be a
law, how can it be obtained where soundness is absent? Joints, slides,
and their attendants, are all incompatible with soundness: the two
cannot exist together; and hence no breech-loader can give the same
results as a solid constructed gun barrel, unsoundness and absorption of
power being always found to go hand in hand together.
I have had considerable experience in breech-loading guns, having
obtained one or two patents; and very careful attention to the subject
has satisfied me that the question was sufficiently ventilated soon
after the adoption of gunnery, and that it was exhausted by many
hundreds of inventors as ingenious as those of the present day; the
result being in all cases a total failure.
One of the best breech-loading carbines of the present day is
undoubtedly that of Mr. F. W. Prince, and those to whom they are
unobjectionable will certainly find in this the simplest and a most
effective weapon of the kind: Mr. Prince has certainly made the most of
the practical knowledge he has brought to bear upon the invention.
Revolving rifles are, like revolving pistols, complicated weapons,
useful only for certain purposes; requiring, as they do, very great care
and cleanliness, to insure at best their limited services. Long barrels
are useless, because all the velocity that can be given to the
projectile has to be generated in the revolving chambers; all the
superfluous force escaping at the joint of breeches and barrels. For any
useful purpose, a nine-inch would be better than a longer barrel,
allowing the bullet to leave the muzzle at a much higher velocity than
it would do after passing through a barrel of thirty inches. It is
evident, indeed, that a revolving pistol and a revolving rifle are
possessed of power in inverse ratio to their lengths.
The French Government are making great efforts to improve their military
system, in imparting to every soldier as much information relative to
his weapons and the best method of using them, as is compatible with his
limited education. Their institution of a normal-school for the
instruction of the whole army in all that relates to guns, shooting, and
natural “trigonometry,” is proof of this. A detachment from every
infantry regiment in the service arrives at “Vincennes” early in the
spring, and the men undergo a complete course of instruction during the
whole of the summer and autumn months, or until by ability they acquire
all that is to be taught. The first and a very essential part of the
duty is to teach them to judge of distance; for this purpose a soldier
takes a target, and runs straight ahead as far as he pleases. Having
planted it, each man is called upon to judge the distance, which is
recorded in a report of the day. This exercise is carried on to a great
extent, until each becomes well able to judge correctly; then commences
the instruction in shooting, each soldier using an elevation according
to the distance he calculates he is from the target; and this is
practised at all distances, from 500 to 1,000 paces. The greatest degree
of perfection attained by the instructed is rewarded, by promotion or
otherwise; and such skill in shooting is displayed by these various
detachments as would truly astonish our military officers.
The accomplishment of a school of instruction for teachers of rifle
shooting to the British army is now an established fact; the results,
most flattering to the projectors, more than verifying their
anticipations. The degree of perfection attained by some before leaving
Hythe is so extraordinary, that I will leave the reality to be imagined
or witnessed; and it will well repay the journey. The standing order
lately issued, awarding substantial benefits to the adept in shooting,
is sure to bear its fruits, and is only the first step to many others of
no less importance.
Double rifled carbines can be constructed of so light a weight that
their exclusive use for cavalry purposes is not far distant, 5-1/2
pounds being sufficient weight to ensure perfect safety. A carbine of
this description, from 18 to 20 inches in the barrel, could give a
practical range of from 600 to 700 yards, with an extreme range of 1,000
to 1,100. A cavalry soldier armed with two of these would be equal to
four of the present day, for they would be no greater encumbrance than
the late carbine used by the Guards, which approaches 10 lbs. in weight;
and a pair of double carbines could easily be carried at the saddle bow,
their length being no obstacle.
Revolvers have not yet been, and I fear they never can be, made
sufficiently durable to become a useful cavalry appendage. The fact may
be concealed, but it is true, nevertheless, that their fragile nature,
independently of their great cost, will always confine their use to an
exclusive few: indeed, revolving and breech-loading weapons are among
the doubtful class of arms, not fully developed as yet, even if they
ever can be.
The adoption of double carbines will eventually throw all other small
arms for cavalry purposes into the back ground; a range of 1,000 yards
with a toy 5-1/2 lbs. in weight is one of the greatest wonders of this
wonderful age, showing the astonishing change which has been effected in
gunnery: for a deadly power now exists in the most Lilliputian toy as
well as in the Brobdignagian monster; and that, too, at immense
distances. In proof of this, I will just quote a letter from that
gallant officer, Lieutenant William A. Kerr, Southern Mahratta Irregular
Horse.
“_Camp, Bejapore, May 29th, 1858._
“SIR,
“I have received the Enfield carbine, and am much pleased with it in
every respect. It cannot, I consider, be improved on, and is by far
the best weapon for the mounted service I have ever handled. It is but
due to you that I should mention, that your work, as put into the
carbine, is far beyond what I expected at the money. I hope to be in a
position, at no very distant date, to give you a heavy commission, and
will certainly recommend you in every way I can. I have knocked over a
deer at 400 yards with the carbine, and make very good practice up to
800 yards, by firing with two drachms of fine rifle powder. I have
given it, and Prince’s breech-loader, a fair trial; the latter cannot
be compared to the former; it has not the same range, power of
projection, or of shooting; it moreover fouls in the proportion of at
least 3 to 1 more. Had I had such carbines at Kolapore, I would have
destroyed the 27th Native Infantry in an hour.
“I am, sir, yours, &c.,
“WILLIAM A. KERR.”
The weight of this single carbine is only 5-1/4 lbs., and it is 20
inches in the barrel. The great power of shooting would justify a
reduction of length to 15 inches, thus reducing the weight to a little
over 4-1/4 lbs.; and yet this carbine would be more certain in its
effects at 600 yards, than old Brown Bess at 150. The complaint that
carbines are found to be an encumbrance in the service is no longer
valid: they may be made to form merely a portion of the saddle with the
same facility of handling as a pistol, and with a hundredfold greater
accuracy of range.
[Illustration: Mr. Greener’s Model Carbine, 22 inches long in the
barrel, .577 bore, 5-1/4 lbs. weight.]
The hybrid affair, adopted by the Government, of a pistol made to serve
as a carbine by the introduction of a loose butt, is of doubtful
utility: if valuable as a carbine, it will never be used as a pistol;
hence it had been much better to make it a carbine at once, thus
rendering it at the same time more durable and less costly: even a
double carbine might be constructed at about twice the price paid for
the socket joint alone. But there is still a want in the Government
establishment of “designers” of ability; all that has been effected by
way of improvement has been done by feeling the way: a kind of
progressional experiment, with a total absence of mind to grasp good
ideas, and to hold them fast. The arms used by the corps of Guides who
have distinguished themselves so much in India are now seven years old,
and they will bear comparison with the best arms our Government are only
just now producing: in fact, the irregular cavalry in India have always
been armed with weapons in advance of those of the Government troops;
and the explanation of this is very suggestive, they provide arms for
themselves, and are more alive than the Government officials to the
importance of having good ones.
The adoption of greased cartridges in India by some irregular corps,
took place in carbines supplied by me eight or nine years ago; and the
origin of the idea was this:--
The principal objection urged against the adoption of the rifle, is that
of loading. I know not how quickly it is possible to load a musket; but
with cartridges properly made, I think I could load and fire a rifle
four times in a minute. But then it will be said, at the conclusion of
so many shots, the rifle gets so foul, that it will be difficult to get
the ball down. Not difficult at all. Have your cartridges made with a
saturated cover, to surround the ball, and fit properly the grooves of
the rifle.
It would clean the barrel so much, as to allow forty shots to be fired
with as much ease as you now fire twenty. Or let a steel-wire brush be
attached to the rifle; and by screwing it to the end of the rod, you
can, by two or three times rubbing up and down, remove any accumulation
of dirt from the powder. If, however, the covering I have mentioned were
used with a weighty rod to the rifle, there would be no occasion for
cleaning, short of fifty shots.
Experience leaves no room for doubt that a few grooves are better than
many, in all expansive-principled rifles: the nearer the approach to a
smooth surface the better, and the three divisions of grooves and
projections adopted by the British Government is the best to meet all
requirements. They will shoot as well as poly-grooved rifles; and if
three grooves give the same result, more are unnecessary and useless.
The advantage of the atmosphere acting to keep the bullet steady by its
current down the grooving on the bullet seems to meet with no
confirmation; improved shooting accruing by the grooves being reduced,
as in the case of the gathering-grooved rifle experiments. In all cases
of wild animal shooting at short distances with small charges, the many
grooves will be an advantage: the same as those formerly adopted, and
which are shown in the cut.
[Illustration]
Expansive bullets may be effectually used; but in varying charges,
incidental to game shooting, the same form of cavity in the bullet as
is observed in the Enfield would not act, therefore a large cavity would
be preferable to enable the less charge to act in expanding the lead
into the grooving.
For other purposes than war, rifles will continue to be constructed on
the poly-groove principle, and with spherical bullets. The perfect
destruction of various animals is dependent generally on two causes: the
penetration into the body, and the shock to the system during that act
of penetration. No doubt exists that a spherical bullet would combine
these two qualities best. The 25 bore, the 32 and 50 hexagonal bore
would be, practically speaking, useless for the killing of elephants,
tigers, &c. The effectual and instant killing of seals on ice is an
illustration: failing to kill a seal dead, he will to a certainty reach
his hole in the ice, and disappear, to the shooter’s serious
disappointment. Small bore elongated bullets were very rapidly adopted,
and as rapidly abandoned. “They did not kill dead;” the spherical bullet
did this better. It would be wise to pause and consider whether a good
military rifle is a good game-shooting rifle or not: whether the hole in
the beast be wide enough. I am inclined to think the reduction to a bore
of 25 too small for this purpose. In military muskets of smooth bore,
the elongated bullet is not applicable: very little benefit is gained in
using them in a smooth bore; and, although the original invention
contemplated this, experience decided otherwise. The spherical bullet
being thus indispensable, it follows that one size should be adopted
which combines the greatest number of favourable points. Many years ago
I made numberless experiments to ascertain this fact, and had it
demonstrated beyond all doubt to be a bore of 18 and a bullet of 19; the
difference in size admitting of the paper of the cartridge with a
moderate degree of tightness. The ultimate range of such a musket with
three drachms of gunpowder, would be equal to the range of the Enfield;
but, of course, without one-tenth its accuracy. Yet for close quarters,
line-firing, or quickness of loading, the musket will hold its place for
centuries to come; and that this opinion is entertained by many
officers, is proved by the fact that our Government is at this moment
issuing contracts for 100,000 plain-bored muskets: 17 bore, 3 feet 3
inches long in the barrel. The near approximation of bore to my standard
is suggestive of the influence my writings have had after many years, as
the following extract from my book of 1842 shows:--
“Military rifles should never be shorter than three feet--say three feet
three inches, with half-turn of spiral--the length of the musket. They
should not be larger in the bore than a ball eighteen to the pound, as
at that length a force, calculated to throw an extreme distance, might
be generated. Whatever may be the arguments for heavy substances, they
do not avail here, as it is impossible to throw them either with
velocity or accuracy; for there never can be certainty, where so much
elevation is required. The size of ball we have mentioned, can be thrown
with great certainty, as far, if not farther, than any soldier in her
Majesty’s service can accurately survey a single object. For the purpose
of annoying a dense body of men, such as a square column, such a rifle
would be an invaluable gun; as the muskets now made will not throw a
ball one-half the distance. As to the actual range of a rifle of this
bore and length, I should think it would reach, effectively, the
distance of 1,500 yards.”
The experimental or competitive trials by the Royal Engineers at Chatham
to prove the superiority of the elliptical bored rifle over the Enfield,
is another of those occasional clap-traps with which the public are
amused. The ordinary reader would judge and set it down for an
established fact that the elliptical rifle was, as has generally been
represented, an invention purely Lancasterian, gun and bullet; while the
real facts are quite contrary: true, the barrel is rifled, slightly
elliptical, and having “an increasing spiral;” but the ammunition is
that of the Enfield--the “‘Greenerian’ expansive bullet with the centre
of gravity in the head.” The bullet that Lancaster adopted, as well
known, had a leaden plug. I quote from the report of the select
committee:--
“The plug bullet used by Mr. Lancaster does not appear suitable for
military service, for when the plug is driven into the bullet by the
ignition of the powder, it generally nips the paper of the cartridge
between itself and the base of the bullet, and carries a portion of it
away, as may be seen by the specimens sent to the committee; upon the
amount of paper so carried away by the ball depends the accuracy or
inaccuracy of its flight; and the plugs do not in all cases remain
firmly attached to the bullet.”
What then are these trials conducted to prove? It cannot be the
superiority of Lancaster’s bullet; for he has abandoned that, “_and uses
the Enfield_.” Is it the rifling?--if so, let us see what the same
committee say of that:--
“The chief peculiarity of this rifle consists in the inner surface of
the barrel being smooth, instead of cut into grooves, as in most
rifled barrels. As a substitute for grooves, the interior of the
barrel is cut into the form of an ellipse, whose major axis exceeds
the minor by ·005 of an inch. The ball is rifled by being forced (when
expanded by the explosion of the gunpowder) into the major axis of the
ellipse, which thus fulfils the office of grooves in conducting the
ball into the required degree of spiral motion.
“As Mr. Lancaster has adopted the American plan of a ‘gaining-twist,’
or ‘increasing spiral,’ and applied it to his smooth-bored barrels
with _elongated_ projectiles, it may be as well to consider the merits
of this system.
“The advantages are supposed to be:
“1st. Increased accuracy.
“2nd. Less recoil.
“3rd. An absence of the tendency a ball has, when starting with a
rapid spiral, to twist the rifle over sideways to the right or left,
according to the inclination of the grooves.
“4th. A diminution of the tendency a ball has to ‘strip’ when first
started.
“1st. The alleged increased accuracy has been by some attributed to
the supposition that the revolutions of the bullet round its own axis
increase in rapidity while passing through the air, in consequence of
having acquired that motion when passing through the barrel, under the
influence of the grooves; but it is difficult to imagine how a leaden
bullet can carry within itself, after leaving the muzzle, any power of
increasing its own rotatory or progressive motion.
“2nd. That there should be less recoil is natural, as the bullet meets
with less opposition when first started from a state of rest; but the
amount of recoil in all rifles now made for expanding projectiles is
quite inconsiderable, and not worth noticing.
“3rd. The tendency of a bullet to twist the rifle on one side is now
avoided by reducing the spirality of the grooves. Instead of being
one turn in three or four feet as formerly, it is now one turn in six
feet six inches, and sometimes only one turn in eight or nine feet.
“4th. The advocates of this system maintain that a bullet is less
likely to ‘strip,’ or pass out of the barrel without rifling itself,
when conducted gradually into the required degree of spirality. But
the question is, whether in a well-constructed rifle, the bullet
_does_ strip? and if not, then a gaining-twist is unnecessary and
objectionable, as it offers to the ball’s progress a continually
increasing opposition, while the ball itself is subjected to a
continually increasing urging force from the inflamed gunpowder in the
barrel, so that, as the velocity of the ball increases, so also does
the resistance to its escape. A projectile is set in motion gradually,
and is (or should be, if the quality and quantity of the powder, and
the barrel, have a right proportion to each other) at its greatest
velocity just before leaving the muzzle; consequently the tendency of
a ball would be to yield to the increasing force of the powder and
pass straight out of the barrel without following the grooves; and
this more especially in a smooth bore, which has no clearly defined
edges to hold and guide the ball to its proper degree of spirality,
but where the lead may be compressed along the smooth surface so as to
pass straight along the barrel.”
So much for the gaining twist; it requires no further argument. The oval
bore is not an invention of Mr. Lancaster: it is older than Captain
Beaufoy’s book, “Scloppetaria,” published in 1808, for in it you will
find a description how to rifle a smooth bore; and he gives drawings of
the tools to do it with.
If these statements are facts--and I defy them being gainsaid--what
connection has this gentleman with it at all? for what purpose is it
pompously announced that the Lancaster elliptical bored rifle shoots
superior to the Enfield, when there is _not such a thing_? The superior
shooting of one man over another is more than sufficient explanation.
The highly unscientific theory of putting a bullet into excessive
spiral motion at the instant it has acquired a maximum of velocity is
untenable, admitting of no lucid explanation. The Enfield rifle has
evidently many enemies, who do not hesitate in injuring her reputation,
nor hesitate about the means of doing it. All elliptical bores are but
the two-grooved rifle in disguise: an idea fast exploding.
The truth of my opinion about the two-grooved or Brunswick rifle,
introduced into the service in 1840, is now proved. Many of my readers
will recollect that in my books of 1842 and 1846 I termed this “an
abortion of science:” it has since died with that cognomen; though it
was puffed up, as my readers will remember, by many high authorities,
and amongst the rest by Dr. Ure, who said nearly as much for it as is
now advanced in favour of the hexagonal rifle. On referring to the
report of the Select Committee on Small Arms, published in 1852, I find
the following account of it:--
“At all distances above 400 yards the shooting was so wild as to be
unrecorded. The Brunswick rifle has shown itself to be much inferior
in point of range to every other arm hitherto noticed.
“The loading of this rifle is so difficult that it is wonderful how
the rifle regiments have continued to use it so long--the force
required to ram down the ball being so great as to render any man’s
hand unsteady for accurate shooting. Comment is unnecessary.”
The Prussian needle gun, too, has departed this life: another instance
of the absurdity of adopting plans containing in themselves the reverse
of scientific principles; for it may safely be accepted as an axiom that
success at the present day can only arise to mechanical constructions
which are based on those immutable foundations of mechanical science in
accordance with great Nature’s laws.
That the principles of the expansive or “Greenerian” rifles are fast
gaining the approbation of all scientific men qualified by their
pursuits to judge, is evident from the fact that Birmingham has
contributed, within the last twelve months, a considerable number of
workmen to construct Enfield rifles in all the principal States of
Europe. France, and Russia especially, are expending large amounts in
manufacturing this arm; so that it is no stretch of imagination to
suppose that in a few years the equilibrium of arms will be again
established, all nations being armed with equally good weapons, to
contrast with the contemptible ones of bygone times.
Before separating for the recess, a question was asked from the
officials by an honourable member in the House of Commons:--“When a
report would be given in as to the relative merits of the Enfield and
Whitworth rifles as military weapons?” The answer given was evidently
intended to mystify; for, from the most intimate inquiries I have made,
I find that no experiments whatever are in progress. The last took place
at Woolwich, in October, 1857, and terminated so very unsatisfactorily,
that Mr. Whitworth wished to make some alterations in his rifles, in
order to overcome the difficulties presented. Up to the present time the
authorities inform me that no other rifles have been sent in for further
trial.
The defects demonstrated in these experiments were precisely those
pointed out in this chapter. On reversing their positions, “hard bullets
_v._ soft,” the penetration of the Enfield was found to be equal to that
of the Whitworth; the same number of elm deals being perforated. This
proves what may be done by “mechanical dodges,” and how intimately
acquainted those in charge of “gunnery experiments” ought to be with all
its ramifications, or they, too, may be hoodwinked.
The difficulty of loading was here more strongly exemplified than at
Hythe. The deposit from the “Government gunpowder” became so tenacious
in the “hexagonal grooves,” that after a certain number of shots,
loading became a very difficult matter indeed; so much so, that Mr.
Whitworth considerately provided a very superior description of
gunpowder, with which the hexagonal rifle worked a little better. The
recoil, too, was of that severe kind as to leave strong recollections of
its force on the minds of the reluctant operative shooters employed to
carry out the experiment. The entire result may be summed up, in the
mildest term, as “unsatisfactory.” The concealment of this result may be
probably a considerate act on the part of the late Government; the
parts acted by some of the members of it must be strong in the
recollection of others; and letting _down quietly_ this very highly
inflated “wind-bag,” when it showed symptoms of collapse, was doubtless
a judicious act.