Please see the [Transcriber’s Notes] at the end of this text.

PLATE. 1.

ANGULARLY LAMINATED STEEL BARRELED GUN

LAMINATED STEEL BARRELED GUN

GUNNERY IN 1858:
BEING A TREATISE ON
RIFLES, CANNON, AND SPORTING ARMS;
EXPLAINING THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENCE OF GUNNERY,
AND DESCRIBING THE
NEWEST IMPROVEMENTS IN FIRE-ARMS.

By WILLIAM GREENER, C.E.,
INVENTOR OF THE EXPANSIVE PRINCIPLE AS APPLIED IN THE MINIE AND
ENFIELD RIFLES, AND AUTHOR OF “THE GUN,” ETC. ETC.

WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS.

LONDON:
SMITH, ELDER AND CO., 56, CORNHILL.
1858.

(The Right of Translation is reserved.)

PREFACE.

The urgent need for practical information on the important subject of Gunnery is evinced by the numerous patents taken out during the last few years, most of which have fallen still-born, through deficient practical science on the part of the inventors. My aim in producing this book has been to point out the errors into which many ingenious inventors have fallen, and to show how similar failures may be avoided in future, by indicating the only right road to improvement in Gunnery,—the strict observance of scientific principles in every old process and in all new inventions: for it is to the ignorance or neglect of the principles of the science that failures in Gunnery are due.

The necessity for progress in the science of Gunnery is now rendered more than ever imperative on our Government by the prodigious energy and activity of foreign Governments in providing armaments for land and sea service, the efficiency of which is ensured by adopting all the newest improvements in fire-arms. But the obstinate reluctance which all our previous Governments have shown to enter upon the, to them unwelcome, duty of investigating and experimenting on warlike inventions, necessitates strong “pressure from without;” for it may be truly said that all great improvements in Gunnery in England have been forced upon the authorities by absolute necessity, and it is still a question whether we shall profit by our recent experiences, or, as before, allow war to find us unprepared. We have, doubtless, armaments of gigantic proportions, and mammoth vessels of war, capable of discharging an ordinary ship’s cargo of shot and shell at a broadside; yet while millions have been thus expended, the improvement of the Gun, without which they would be mere masses of wood, and targets for more skilful opponents, has been neglected.

The GUN and its PROJECTILE will decide the victory in future fights. Indeed, we are even now waging war with our neighbours,—not on the battle-field or the ocean wave, but in the foundry; engineers being our generals, and founders our admirals. The present able ruler of France is actively at work, while we are but looking on: he is casting cannon the like of which have never been seen, while we are spending thousands in experimenting on cast-iron and foundries; and by the time our officials have discovered the best cast-iron for heavy guns, the French batteries on sea and land will be bristling with Rifled Steel Cannon of tremendous range and endless endurance.

Woe betide this country if at the commencement of a war we should find ourselves just where we are.

The Emperor Napoleon, as is well known, is well versed, theoretically and practically, in everything relating to Gunnery. Keenly alive to the minutest points of progress he receives, investigates, and immediately adopts all inventions of value; having the ability to perceive, the sagacity to appreciate, and the liberality to reward merit wherever it is shown.

Compare his system with ours, where men are placed in official positions, and entrusted with power, not because of their ability to fulfil the duties of their office, but for very inferior and often unworthy reasons; where talent and fitness are not considered, and consequently a long routine of forms is made to serve as “a buffer” to resist the troublesome pertinacity of inventors, who are apt to disturb the serenity of reluctant or indifferent officials. And when at last a trial is granted, the invention is either rejected or approved by incompetent or prejudiced judges. While this practice prevails, England must ever be behindhand in Gunnery; for improvements in cannon and projectiles cannot be carried out by private enterprise.

In thus strongly expressing my opinion of the way in which progress is balked, I am not merely echoing a cry, but speaking from my own knowledge and experience. I am actuated by no feeling of disappointment, for my invention of “the expansive bullet” has been at last adopted here, after it had been copied in France. My object is to induce public investigation and inquiry, and to ventilate this important subject; and I trust that my antecedents, and the fulfilment of my predictions in matters of Gunnery, will give weight to this deliberate and disinterested expression of opinion.

The great favour shown by lovers of shooting to my former efforts to disseminate a better understanding of the principles of Gunnery, has been an additional stimulus to the production of the present work; and I have taken especial care that my observations should tend to the improvement of sporting arms, and the increased safety of the sportsman.

Nor has the ingenious mechanic been overlooked, for perfection of gun-manufacture must ever go hand in hand with scientific principle; and the desire to promote their combination has prompted my endeavours to elucidate the subject.

Leaving to the reader to determine how far I have succeeded in my efforts, I merely wish to add that I make no pretension to literary style, but have aimed to produce a practical work for practical men. I have drawn upon my previous works for such portions of information as were needful to give completeness to this view of the science of Gunnery, its present state, and probable future.

William Greener.

Aston New Town,
September 3rd, 1858.

ILLUSTRATIONS.

LIST OF PLATES.

WOODCUTS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

RIFLES, CANNON,
AND
SPORTING ARMS.

CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT ARMS.

From the earliest ages of the world, the jealousies and bickerings of mankind have been fruitful causes of war. Sometimes, perhaps, justified by political reasons; at others, it may be, arising solely from a desire, on the part of ambitious chiefs, to extend their territories by multiplying their conquests; while, in too many cases, the struggle for religious ascendancy has led to the most sanguinary and cruel battles.

War has been considered as a science from the most remote ages, and the ingenuity of the talented has successively been taxed to render it as perfect as possible. It is true—

“Man’s earliest arms were fingers, teeth, and nails,
And stones and fragments from the branching woods;”

but these soon gave place to others, more calculated to decide unequal, and often protracted, conflicts.

Arms, in a general sense, include all kinds of weapons, both offensive and defensive; and amongst the earliest may be classed the bow and arrow, as it gave facilities to man to capture the wild animals for food, probably before their use was required for the purposes of war. The bow and the sling were the first means invented, and next only to the human arm for projecting bodies with an offensive aim: the great principle which, to the present day, reigns unrivalled, developing the ruling passion of man to injure, while remaining himself in comparative safety,—“self-preservation” being “the first law of nature.”

To the bow and sling were soon added spears, swords, axes, and javelins, all of which appear to have been used by the Jews. David destroyed Goliath with a stone from the brook. The invention of the sling is attributed, by ancient writers, to the Phœnicians, or the inhabitants of the Balearic Islands. The great fame that these islanders obtained arose from their assiduity in its use; their children were not allowed to eat until they struck their food from the top of a pole with a stone from a sling. From the accounts left us (probably fabulous), it appears that the immense force with which a stone could be projected, can only be exceeded by modern gunnery. Even at that early age, leaden balls were in use as projectiles; though we cannot put much faith in Seneca’s account of the velocity being so great as frequently to melt the lead. The use of the sling continued over a long period of time, even as late as the Huguenot war in 1572.

The bow is of equal, if not greater, antiquity. The first account we find of it is in Genesis, 21st chapter and 20th verse, where the Lawgiver, speaking of Ishmael, says, “And God was with the lad, and he grew and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.” The arms of the ancient Greeks and Persians were such as we have described, with the addition of chariots armed with scythes, in which the chiefs sometimes fought; though their main dependence was upon their heavy-armed infantry. Elephants were afterwards used as adjuncts in their military operations, but their use does not appear to have been very great or very permanent.

The Romans were armed much in the same manner as the Greeks, with a slight difference in the form of their weapons; and the arms of the early Saxons were similar; those of the Normans were only altered in their construction, except that to them appears to be awarded the invention of the cross-bow, an instrument which afterwards became of great repute in England and elsewhere. It has also been asserted, that the Normans were the first to introduce a species of field artillery, from which stones and darts were thrown, and arrows, headed with combustible matter, for firing towns and shipping.

The artillery-proper of the ancients, as the engines for projecting masses of stone and such like materials may be termed, reached to wonderful perfection; and the velocity with which missiles of every description could be thrown from them, attest the skill and ingenuity exercised in their construction: indeed it is quite evident they are only excelled by the more portable, and simply constructed, artillery of our own day.

The great artillerist of the Sicilians, Archimedes, seems to have made some of the most powerful engines; but he, considering any attention to mechanics as beneath the philosopher, has not left us an account of any one of them.

It is said of the cross-bow that a quarrel could be projected from them 200 yards, so that we may imagine the force with which one of these lumps of iron would strike even the strongest armour,—as the velocity, to range that distance, would not be far short of 900 or 1,000 feet per second; nearly equal to the effect of a ball from one of our old imperfectly constructed muskets.

We are told incredible stories of the abilities of some of our bygone archers. Should it be true, as stated, that an arrow could be shot nearly 700 yards, we can easily conceive the immense velocity with which it must have left the bow; this range being quite equal, if not superior, to that of the late unimproved rifles. Though we must bear in mind, that the peculiar shape of the arrow fits it to cut the atmosphere with less resistance then the half sphere of a bullet; and hence one reason of its obtaining an extensive range. There is a story told of the famous Robin Hood, and Little John, “who could shoot an arrow a measured mile.” We suppose the mile was the reverse of an Irish one, or they had the advantage of a precious stiff gale of wind. Historians sometimes “draw the long-bow” as well as archers. Many statements have descended to us of the power of the battering rams of old; but we have a much more ready method of blowing open gates by a single bag of gunpowder; and a 68 lb. shot has all the force that could be given even to that famous ram of Vespasian, “the length whereof was only fifty cubits, which came not up to the size of many of the Grecian rams, had a head as thick as ten men, and twenty-five horns, each of which was as thick as one man, and placed a cubit distance from the rest; the weight, as was customary, rested on the hinder part, and was no less than 1,500 talents; when it was removed, without being taken to pieces, 150 yoke of oxen, or 300 pairs of horses and mules, laboured in drawing it, and 1,500 men employed their utmost strength in forcing it against the walls.”

With these remarks we shall proceed to introduce the invention of Gunnery.

Barbour, in his life of Bruce, informs us that guns were first employed by the English at the battle of Werewater, which was fought in 1327, about forty years after the death of Friar Bacon; and there is no doubt that four guns were used at the battle of Cressy, fought in 1346, when they were supposed to have been quite unknown to the French, and tended to obtain for British arms the victory. Froissart gives an excellent representation of a cannon and cannoneers, in 1390, a [cut of which] we give in the following page.

The use of guns in warfare is, therefore, comparatively of modern date, and the early specimens which are still extant, of which we have drawings and descriptions, must have been of very little service compared with those of the present day. The English musqueteer was formerly a most encumbered soldier. “He had, besides the unwieldy weapon itself, his coarse powder for loading in a flask, his fine powder for priming in a touch-box, his bullets in a leathern bag, with strings to draw to get at them, whilst in his hand were his musket-rest and his burning match; and when he had discharged his piece, he had to draw his sword in order to defend himself. Hence it became a question, and was so for a long time, whether the bow did not deserve a preference over the musket.”[1]

[1] Grose’s “Military Antiquities.”

The mention of the long-bow is frequent in English history, and its use contributed, in no mean degree, to many important victories. Perhaps it might be that our forefathers were more skilful in the use of their weapons than their adversaries.

In our wars in France, in the reign of Edward III., thousands suffered by the English archery; and the brilliant success which attended them was, at that time, attributed to their “superior skill, combined with the valour of the Black Prince.” So highly was this practice esteemed, that many statutes were enacted in successive reigns to encourage or enforce it.

Archery furnished matter for oratorical display, both in the senate and the pulpit; the palace and the cottage alike bore testimony to the great importance which was attached to the art; and it was at once the study and pastime of the whole nation. Thus, long after the introduction of fire-arms, the long-bow was held in great esteem; and it is no wonder that this favourite instrument should have been reluctantly relinquished, after obtaining such universal popularity, and becoming so intimately connected with many national and important events. It is now superseded by the gun, a more potent and destructive engine. The bow, so much valued, has vanished from our ranks by slow gradations, to make way for the musket; and the quivers of cloth-yard shafts have been supplanted by bristling bayonets. These things are now practically unknown as military weapons, though they contended for superiority with fire-arms during two centuries.

At this period, and for a long time previously, more attention was paid to the fabrication of defensive armour, than to the invention of weapons of an offensive character; hence the perfection that was attained in the manufacture of mail, of every variety, during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The splendid manner in which some of the chivalrous knights of that age chose to have their armour constructed and ornamented sometimes proved fatal to themselves. Froissart relates that Raymond, nephew to Pope Clement, was taken prisoner, and put to death by his captors, in order that they might become possessed of his magnificent armour. Those gorgeous and costly fabrications were likewise doomed to give place to the advancing knowledge and skill of succeeding generations; being now only known as matters of history, and regarded as valuable curiosities. So late, however, as the latter part of the sixteenth century, armour formed part of the military equipment; and the French cavalry, called carabins, are described as having the cuirass sloped off the right shoulder, that they might the more readily couch their cheeks to take aim, while their bridle arms were protected by an elbow gauntlet.

The invention of portable fire-arms is awarded to the Italians by Sir Samuel Meyrick, and, in a memoir in the Archæologia of the Society of Antiquarians, he has named the year 1430 as the precise period of their introduction.

We have already stated that cannon, or heavy ordnance, was in use in the English army in 1327, more than a century before that time. It is not improbable, however, that the Italians were the originators of small fire-arms, for they had for many years been celebrated as skilful in the art of making armour—Milanese armour being considered the most valuable, and it is natural that their attention should be directed to the construction of offensive weapons of a different description.

The invention of the portable fire-arm, in its primitive state, was one of extreme simplicity; the gun consisting merely of a tube fixed to a straight stock of wood, about three feet in length, furnished with trunnions, cascable, and touch-hole: the latter was, in the first instance, at the top, like a large cannon, but was afterwards altered to the side where a small pan was placed to hold the priming, and lessen the liability of its being blown away by the wind. This contrivance was the first step to the gun-lock.

Before the adoption of the match-lock by the English, cannon, as I have before shown, had been in use, though they were of a clumsy description.

To the indefatigable exertions of Mr. Dean, we are indebted for the recovery of several brass and iron guns, belonging to the “Mary Rose,”—a vessel of war, wrecked in the reign of Henry VIII. of England, and Francis I. of France, in 1545: “while standing along the coast, during a distant firing from the French fleet, under Admiral Annebout, she was overpowered by the weight of her ordnance, and sunk, together with her commander and crew of 600 men.” One of these iron guns is in an excellent state of preservation, considering it to have been immersed above 300 years. The [cut] on next page will convey, together with the following description, a faint idea of its unwieldy and inefficient construction. It is composed of a tube of iron, whose joint or overlap is as its length; upon this is a succession of iron hoops, composed of iron three inches square, being in fact immense rings; these appear to have been driven on while red hot, and thus, by their contraction, forming a much stronger gun, when combined with the interior tube, than the generality of accounts given of ancient guns would lead us to expect. It will be perceived, that to describe it as “composed of iron bars hooped together,” is not correct. We may also mention, that if parties describing guns of this primitive manufacture will observe accurately, they will find that this is the general method by which they have been fabricated. They all appear to have been loaded by removing a breech part, or chamber, inserting the charge, replacing the chamber, and securing it by wedging it behind; as will be seen on a close inspection. No means of raising or depressing the muzzle appear available; the barrel or gun being sunk in a large block of timber, and secured there by bolts, as a musket barrel is secured in its stock; while a large piece of iron, or wood, was inserted perpendicularly into the deck to prevent the recoil. The advantage of “chambers” was perfectly understood even at this early period; they were apparently slightly conical, with a spherical bottom. It is no mean evidence of ancient skill, and knowledge of gunnery and mechanics combined, to state, that only a few years ago, a gunmaker of some celebrity, constructed a number of rifles and pistols to load at the breech, on the very same principle adopted in this gun 312 years ago. Strange, evidence from “the vasty deep” to show “there is nothing new under the sun.”

During the sixteenth century, fire-arms of every description then in use underwent a variety of alterations and improvements; each change bringing with it a change of name, which would neither be profitable or interesting to enumerate here; our object being to trace out the advances which have been made in the manufacture of fire-arms since their general adoption as weapons of war, or auxiliaries to the sports of the field.

When first introduced into England, the hand-gun, as it was termed, had already received a slight improvement, in having a covering for the pan which contained the priming, and a sight on the breech, to assist in giving greater certainty to the aim; it remained thus until the trigger of the cross-bow suggested a contrivance to convey, with equal certainty and greater rapidity, the burning match to the pan.

The difficulty of using an instrument thus objectionably constructed, was in some degree obviated by the Germans; who, together with the Italians, were no doubt at this early period the principal manufacturers; they effected this, to a certain degree, by giving the stocks a crooked form, so that the breech could, with more ease, be brought to the level of the eye; this was, however, only an alteration of form, without involving any principle or leading feature of mechanical invention. Succeeding the match-lock, in the progress of improvement, came the “pyrites wheel-lock,” an invention then looked upon as exceedingly curious and ingenious; this also is ascribed to the Italians, and one of the first occasions of its being used, is said to have been when Pope Leo X. and the Emperor Charles V. confederated against France. Whether the Italians are fairly entitled to the merit of this invention is, however, a matter of doubt, as it is well known that wheel-locks were for a long period manufactured in Germany.

The “snaphaunce” or fire-lock, is distinctly stated by Grose to be of Dutch origin,—hence the name. It was introduced into England in the reign of Charles II., though its general adoption is stated not to have taken place until the reign of William III., about 1692. Since that period, until the present, their use has been general in all the armies of Europe. How strange it seems that the Chinese and other Asiatics should have only the match-lock to the present day, while there can be no question that they used gunpowder some centuries before its introduction into our portion of the habitable globe!

The Syrians were formerly celebrated for their skill in the working of iron. Damascus gun-barrels were not to be obtained, at certain periods, at a price less than their weight in silver. The elaborate mixtures in their barrels, swords, and other weapons, entitle them justly to the honour of being the best of iron workers, as we shall hereafter have occasion to show; and the splendour displayed in their inlaying attests their taste and ability: but as mechanicians, formers of complex machinery, they never reached mediocrity. Turkey and Greece, as well as other countries which were renowned as having been, in days of yore, nurseries of the arts, but which have, in later times, degenerated into a condition little better than semi-barbarous, were remarkable for the great labour and pains which they bestowed upon the exterior ornaments of their firearms; but they never succeeded in improving the machinery of the lock in the slightest degree.

Although it was not until the latter part of the seventeenth, or the beginning of the eighteenth century, that gun manufactories were established in this kingdom, yet we have attained to a degree of perfection and excellence unequalled by any other nation in the world. Birmingham is the emporium of the world for guns, from the most inferior—the “park paling,” so called, of the slave-trade, with which ships might yet be freighted at the cost of eight shillings and sixpence each—up to the elaborately-finished gun of the peer. Most of the alterations which have been made in gun-locks in England, have been with a view to simplify the machinery, and obtain the greatest quickness in firing: much complication has been discarded; a thorough conviction having seated itself in the minds of Englishmen, that to attain perfection, simplicity must be combined.

Many splendid emanations of genius are left to us, consisting of complex mechanism for gunnery. The most perfect we have ever seen, is a pistol made in Spain about the end of the seventeenth century. By moving a lever towards the butt-end, while the muzzle is depressed, the lock is primed, half-cocked, and the hammer shut down; return the lever, the powder is in the breech, and the ball before it. We have seen it fire twenty-six shots without a failure, and with one supply of ammunition. The magazine was in two tubes in the stock. The chance of blowing up was thought remote; but it eventually blew up. In short, it would be strictly advantageous to inventors in gunnery, to be sure that there has been no previous invention combining their principle as well as their arrangements.

The mine of complex inventions was exhausted during the last century; and the greatest benefactor to the science of gunnery will be he, who, blowing away the cobwebs of mystery, renders its principles as clear as the silvered glass. Nothing now remains of the beautiful machinery of the flint lock; the fancy cock and hammers have given place to a “simple” hammer, striking on a copper thimble, covering a steel pivot. What would the old lock-filers say to this, if they could return and see their handiwork consigned to the scrap-box as old iron?

To those curious in the progress of invention as it relates to gunnery, it would be highly interesting to visit the “Musée d’Artillerie” of Paris, and there to study the classified selections in the possession of the French Government. Among other specimens equally interesting, he will find revolving pistols, revolving rifles, and swords and revolving pistols combined in one; and these produced in the early part of the seventeenth century. The revolving pistol did not therefore originate with the present generation; and however universally we may use the “Colt,” “Adams,” or “Tranter,” neither can lay the slightest claim to originality. In that museum will be found four, five, and six charge chambers; and though in all there is certainly an absence of movement in the chamber, produced by the cocking of the lock, yet several present the appearance of having formerly had some mechanical adjunct for revolving the chamber: this, though well adapted to the present percussion system, must certainly have been troublesome to manage in the old flint lock; for when the first barrel was discharged, the priming of the other barrels would be lost during the revolution of the chamber.

A great improvement was, however, soon introduced; a hammer and pan were attached to each division of the chamber, and each being already primed, presented itself in rotation in the face of the flint. The gun or pistol was by these protuberances rendered clumsy and cumbersome, and thus fell, no doubt, into disuse; but every real mechanic must see on investigating the subject, that the principle was as perfect as that which is now in use. Mr. Colt had considerable difficulty in securing a patent for his revolver. The right of patent hinged on this simple question: did he, or did he not, first introduce a crank or lever for revolving the chambers during the cocking of the lock? After an expensive trial it was decided that he did introduce it; though doubts are still entertained whether there is not now extant a pistol having the same crank movement as that found in the “Colt” and other revolvers. At all events the invention of revolving pistols originated with our progenitors, more than 200 years ago, though their re-introduction is unquestionably due to Mr. Colt; and the “old broth warmed up” has no doubt proved more nutritious than the original concoction. In the Paris museum, a number of breech-loading guns are to be seen; I think more than sixty varieties. Many of them are highly ingenious, displaying great mechanical knowledge and working skill, and the whole, kept in splendid order, cannot fail to command attention.

Well had it been if the many hundred inventors in England and elsewhere had studied, and made themselves intimately acquainted with the productions there to be seen in such abundance. Monuments they are of mis-spent skill and labour; samples of the almost hopeless task of fabricating complicated machinery which shall resist the action of explosive gases at high pressure. An experiment extending over two hundred years, but unattended with success, notwithstanding all the skill and ingenuity brought to bear upon it, is, we think, sufficient to prove that breech-loading guns cannot be made sufficiently durable to yield any reasonable return for the extra expense and trouble attending their fabrication. Nevertheless, our “would-be mechanics hope against hope;” and to such we would, in conclusion, tender a word of advice. Before spending your money, make acquaintance (and an intimate one is necessary) with all that has been done before, and if in your own production you find principles which have been untouched by any previous invention, and untainted by any of the previous causes of failure, then patent your invention, and make a fortune—if you can.

Great mechanical skill, and even scientific principles, are to be found in some of the earliest productions after the invention of fire-arms; and thus is established the important fact, that want of experience was the chief drawback under which they laboured: one elaborate machine being unequal to their requirements was succeeded by another; and yet, with all these examples patent to us, we still fruitlessly fall back on exhausted principles.

A more intimate knowledge of what our predecessors have accomplished would be a great boon to our race. Foreign nations, but especially France, have provided for this by their museums; and we want here a museum of progression, an epitome of the mind of the present age, and which, continued to future generations, would leave to no man the fruitless toil of hauling in an endless rope.

CHAPTER II.
ON GUNPOWDER.

Gunpowder being the base on which the superstructure of this treatise is to be raised, the history, the use, and the nature of this explosive compound, are here placed in the foreground; as it is essential to the correct conception of the various matters hereafter to be explained, that the reader be first acquainted with the one grand principle in fire-arms, the propellant power of explosion.

Gunpowder, whether considered relatively to engines of war, or to those arms used with so much success in the sporting field, has, since its first introduction, been a source of much and frequent discussion. In regard to its origin, we shall not much enlarge, nor repeat the many suppositions and conjectures promulgated by the searchers after antiquarian evidence.

The inhabitants of India were unquestionably acquainted with its composition at an early date. Alexander is supposed to have avoided attacking the Oxydracea, a people dwelling between the Hyphasis and Ganges, from a report of their being possessed of supernatural means of defence: “For,” it is said, “they come not out to fight those who attack them, but those holy men, beloved by the gods, overthrow their enemies with tempests and thunderbolts shot from their walls;” and, when the Egyptian Hercules and Bacchus overran India, they attacked these people, “but were repulsed with storms of thunderbolts and lightning hurled from above.” This is, no doubt, evidence of the use of gunpowder; but as it is unprofitable to investigate this subject further, we shall merely confine ourselves to the European authorities.

Many ascribe the discovery of gunpowder to Roger Bacon, the monk, who was born at Ilchester, in Somersetshire, in the year 1214, and is said to have died in 1285. No doubt he was by far the most illustrious, the best informed, and the most philosophical of all the alchemists. In the 6th chapter of his Epistles of the Secrets of Arts, the following passage occurs—“For sounds like thunder, and flashes like lightning, may be made in the air, and they may be rendered even more horrible than those of nature herself. A small quantity of matter, properly manufactured, and not larger than the human thumb, may be made to produce a horrible noise; and this may be done many ways, by which a city or an army may be destroyed, as was the case when Gideon and his men broke their pitchers and exhibited their lamps, fire issuing out of them with great force and noise, destroying an infinite number of the army of the Midianites.” And in the 11th chapter of the same epistle occurs the following passage:—“Mix together saltpetre with luru mone cap ubre, and sulphur, and you will make thunder and lightning, if you know the method of mixing them.” Here all the ingredients of gunpowder are mentioned, except charcoal; which is, doubtless, concealed under the barbarous terms used; indeed, the anagram is easily converted into carbonum pulvere, with a little attention.

This discovery has also been attributed to Schwartz, a German monk, and the date of 1320 annexed to it; a date posterior to that which may be justly claimed for Friar Bacon; and as accident is stated to have been the means by which he discovered it, we have taken that incident as the subject of an [illustration].

Mr. Hallam, referring to the authority of an Arabic author, infers that there is no question that the knowledge of gunpowder was introduced into Europe through the means of the Saracens, before the middle of the 13th century; and no doubt its use then was more for fireworks, than as an artillerist projectile force. There is good evidence, too, that the use of gunpowder was introduced into Spain by the Moors, at least as early as the year 1343. Now, as Roger Bacon is known to have been an Arabic scholar, it is not at all unlikely that he might have become acquainted with the mode of making the composition, and also with its most remarkable properties, by perusing some Arabian writer with whom we are at present unacquainted.

This invention, by which the personal barbarity of war has certainly been diminished, is, when considered as a means of human destruction, by far the most powerful that skill has ever devised, or accident presented; acquiring, as experience shows us, a more sanguinary dominion in every succeeding age, and subserving all the progressive resources of science and civilization for the extermination of mankind: which, says Mr. Hallam, “appals us at the future prospects of the species, and makes us feel, perhaps, more than in any other instance, a difficulty in reconciling the mysterious dispensation with the benevolent order of Providence.”

The composition of gunpowder, as regards the proportions of the ingredients, has not undergone any material alteration; the chemical proportions of the ancients being nearly those of the present day.

Gunpowder is an explosive propellant compound, consisting of saltpetre or nitre, charcoal, and sulphur. The terms, explosive and propellant, are not here used as synonymous—they are not convertible; for a chemical mixture may possess the explosive power in a much higher degree than the propellant: fulminating gold, silver, and mercury, are dreadfully explosive; but they have not the same projectile force, nor can they be used as a substitute for it. Several experiments have been made with compounds of this nature, but the result is the reverse of what might be expected. Nothing can resist the exceeding intensity of the action of fulminating powder; a shot, when fired in this way, is not projected as by gunpowder, but is split into fragments by the velocity of its explosion, as we shall hereafter have occasion to show.

Nitre, or saltpetre, is strictly the essence of gunpowder. It is a triple compound of oxygen, nitrogen, and potassium. The chemical action of those elements on each other, and the play of affinities between them at a high temperature, occasion the immense effect produced by gunpowder on the application of fire or heat. By universal consent, sulphur is included in the mixture, but it is not absolutely necessary for the “propellant power;” for nitre and charcoal only will generate effects similar to the compound with sulphur. Gunpowder made without sulphur has, however, several bad qualities; it is not, on the whole, so powerful, nor so regular in its action; it is also porous and friable, possessing neither firmness nor solidity. It cannot bear the friction of carriage, and in transport crumbles into dust. The use of sulphur, therefore, appears to be not only to complete the mechanical combination of the other ingredients, but being a perfectly combustible substance, it increases the general effect, augments the propellant power, and is thought to render the powder less susceptible of injury from atmospheric influence.

“There is one good reason,” says the Edinburgh Encyclopædia, “for the use of sulphur, although it does not contribute to the production of any elastic fluid. The carbonic acid which is generated would doubtless combine with the potash, if it were not for the presence of the sulphur, and thus so much elastic fluid would be lost. That this is the case we know to be true, from the fact that carbonate of potash is always formed when nitre is decomposed by charcoal alone, which I shall almost immediately show.” This certainly would be the case, to a certain extent, with gunpowder without sulphur—some carbonate of potash would be formed.

The sulphur, we have no doubt, from experiments we have made on this subject, is, in part, engaged during the explosion of gunpowder in expelling the sixth proportion of oxygen from the potash, so as to combine with the potassium, to form a true sulphuret of that metal. This fact is easily ascertained, from the circumstance that no sulphuretted hydrogen can be detected, by the most delicate tests, coming from the residuum left after firing gunpowder, until moisture has gained access to it. The bad smell which arises sometime after the burning of gunpowder, is occasioned by the decomposition of the moisture which the sulphuret of potassium attracts from the atmosphere; giving rise, by this decomposition and liberation, to the fœtid foul gas, called sulphuretted hydrogen, and the production of potassa, or the oxide of potassium.

A commission of French chemists and artillerists was appointed by the Government, in the year 1794, to experiment upon the best proportions and constituents of gunpowder for the use of the French service. The following were the proportions of five different kinds prepared at the Essonne works:—

The first and third, after 200 discharges with the proof mortar, were declared the strongest, and the third proportions were adopted at the recommendation of the commissioners. Some few years elapsed, and the first, owing to its better keeping quality, was substituted, as it contained less charcoal, and a little more sulphur. The French Government having always been extremely impressed with the value of durability in gunpowder, they have since returned to their ancient proportions: 75 nitre, 12¹⁄₂ charcoal, 12¹⁄₂ sulphur. The charcoal, the absorbent of moisture, being further reduced, and the sulphur, the preserving ingredient, being increased in the same ratio.

“Mr. Napier tried a small quantity made of nitre and charcoal only, and was much surprised to find it project a shot as far as the best powder made in the usual manner. It is found that, in small charges, sulphur is advantageous; but, in charges of several ounces, the projecting force is as great without as with it. Therefore, under certain circumstances, sulphur may be dispensed with; but to make a good gunpowder, nitre and charcoal are indispensable.”

Amongst the brilliant discoveries of modern chemistry may be classed the development of the fact, that a chemical combination, to constitute the same compound, always takes place in definite and unalterable ratios. To select one example out of a multitude: one atom of carbon combining with two atoms of oxygen produces the gas; because more would answer no useful end. So, with reference to the sulphur, if it enter into combination only with the potassium—the base of the nitre—the sulphur should be in that proportion to form the sulphuret of that metal; and in this case there would be no superfluity, for that would only add to the weight of the charge of powder, and diminish its absolute and effective energy. The view of the case which we have taken supposes only two combinations, viz. carbon with oxygen, and sulphur with potassium. Should there be a more diversified play of affinities, and the several elements of the powder enter into more complicated action, accurate analysis would conduct us through all difficulties, and point out what the proportions of the ingredients ought to be in order to sustain that action, and to produce a perfect ultimate result.

We thus perceive how analysis bears upon the case. We can see by such reasoning on the subject, that, theoretically, there can be but one set of proportions calculated to produce the best and strongest gunpowder, and that those proportions must depend upon the established and unerring laws of nature. The proportions, then, for gunpowder, by these considerations, will be those in which the carbon will just consume the oxygen of the nitre, and combine with the sulphur as much as will exactly saturate the potassium. This will be effected by an atom each of nitre and sulphur, and three atoms of carbon; or nitre 75·5, charcoal 18·8, and of sulphur 11·8.

In the present improved state of chemical science, when the nature of the bodies comprising gunpowder is so well known, as well as the compounds resulting from their action on each other, the proportions we have named may be taken as the best for practice.

The charcoal should, in particular, not be less than the nitre, as the smallest portion less than the whole atom would be the same as to leave out the whole atom, in which case there would be no carbonic oxide formed. If, for example, instead of the proportions of nitre 75·5, charcoal 16·2, sulphur 15, the carbon were 16, then there would be 4·2 of carbon left in the residuum, and no carbonic oxide would be formed, since bodies cannot unite but in definite proportions.

From these considerations we can perceive the reason why a small proportion of carbonic oxide is always formed during the decomposition of nitre by charcoal; for it will be evident, that as the nitric acid contains five atoms of oxygen, four of these must combine with two atoms of carbon to form two atoms of carbonic acid, while the odd atom of oxygen is compelled to take another atom to form carbonic oxide. But this is not the case in the combustion of gunpowder, as carbonic acid and nitrogen are the principal gases generated.

These proportions differ from any other formula yet prescribed; and, though different in a great degree from the proportions laid down by various writers on the subject, the reasons which are here given, as has been seen, are such as carry with them a conviction of their truth: for there cannot possibly be any benefit arising from a greater quantity of any of these materials than is absolutely necessary to form the composition in question; and if the smallest quantity be above what is requisite to consume the whole, that, however small it may be, is highly detrimental to the effective energy of the mass. What we may here call clean gunpowder, such as may be used with confidence for repeated discharges of fire-arms of any description, is of the greatest importance; therefore, it does not appear to us, that any given proportions are so likely to accomplish that object as those before specified.

TABLE OF COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT GUNPOWDERS.

Gunpowder consists of a very intricate mixture of sulphur, carbon (charcoal), and nitrate of potash (nitre).

The proportions in which they exist are one equivalent of nitre, one of sulphur, and three of carbon. The great explosive power of gunpowder is due to the sudden development from its solid constituents of a large quantity of gases; these gases are nitrogen and carbonic acid.

At the ordinary temperature of the atmosphere these gases would occupy a space three hundred times greater than the bulk of the gunpowder used; but owing to the intense heat developed at the moment of explosion, the gases occupy at least 1,500 times the bulk of the original gunpowder. The mixture, consisting of one equivalent of nitre, one of sulphur, and three of carbon, would yield three equivalents of carbonic acid, one of nitrogen, and one of sulphuret of potassium. The change may be represented thus,—

S + C₃ + KONO₅ = 3 CO₂ + N + KS.

The only solid residue, therefore, is the sulphuret of potassium, and this is the compound which produces the sulphurous odour on washing out a gun barrel; water is decomposed, sulphuretted hydrogen and potash being the result of the decomposition.

Now supposing the elements of gunpowder to exist in these proportions, it is essential, in order to secure their perfect combination, and thus to produce the largest possible volume of gas, that the elements should be in the most minute state of subdivision. Chemical action is a force exerted at insensible distances only, and chemical substances having the greatest affinity for each other will not combine, unless their elements are brought into immediate contact: thus oxygen and hydrogen may be mixed together in the exact proportions to form water; but no chemical combination will occur, simply because the ultimate particles of the two gases are not sufficiently near to each other for their chemical affinities to be brought into play; if, however, these gases are subjected to very strong pressure, so as to bring their particles into immediate contact, combination occurs, and the production of water is the result.

In order to insure the perfect combination of the elements of gunpowder the same conditions are necessary; that is to say, the ultimate particles of the nitre, charcoal, and sulphur, must be brought into the most direct contact, or the explosive power of the gunpowder will be comparatively trifling. If, for instance, the nitre, charcoal, and sulphur be pounded in a mortar, no explosion but a slow combustion will occur when the mixture is ignited; so that unless this intimate mixture of the elements is carefully attended to in the manufacture of gunpowder, it is easy to see that the article produced will be of comparatively little value.

It is evident then that if tons of the elements of gunpowder were stored in a warehouse which accidentally caught fire, no explosion would occur from the formation of gunpowder; though its ingredients would greatly increase the rapidity of combustion.

This remark is elicited by the recollection of a fearful explosion which took place at Gateshead in 1854.

It may be remembered that a warehouse caught fire from an adjoining mill, and the explosion was supposed to have been produced by the ignition of the elements of gunpowder stored in the warehouse in a crude state. The upper story of the building contained a large quantity of crude sulphur, and the basement story about the same quantity of nitre, whilst chemicals of various kinds were stored in other parts of the building; but according to the accounts published there was no large quantity of carbon in the warehouse; nevertheless, a terrific explosion took place, and after a lengthened investigation, the conclusion arrived at was this: the sulphur melting, mixed with the nitre, gunpowder was thus formed, and igniting, exploded, producing the terrible effects.

But gunpowder may be made without sulphur, whereas gunpowder without carbon is an impossibility; and though the elements of gunpowder had all been present, no explosion could have occurred, unless they had become mixed in the intimate manner already described.

It is true some of the chemical substances in the warehouse might have produced a fearful explosion: but a more plausible explanation is to be found in the fact, that gunpowder was at that time much more valuable abroad than at home; and it is quite possible that some kegs of gunpowder might have been stored away in this warehouse, until a convenient opportunity presented itself for their removal.

The foregoing remarks will serve to explain how it is that powder varies so much in strength and quickness of fire. If the elements are imperfectly incorporated, the powder can never be equal to that which is properly made; and the manufacturer, having ascertained the best proportions in which to mix the elements, had better improve his machinery for incorporating them, rather than his knowledge of the chemistry of gunpowder. These observations will also serve to explain the apparent anomaly, that the French, and some of our other continental brethren, are held to produce a much inferior sporting gunpowder to that which is manufactured in old England.

Gunpowder is now made by all the sporting gunpowder manufacturers from No. 1 to No. 5 grain; and it appears certain that a further increase in the size of the grain would be advantageous; for many years of patient and laborious experiment clearly show, that the old notion of gunpowder being blown out of an ordinary sized gun in an unburnt state, is one of the “purest of vulgar errors:” such a thing indeed cannot possibly happen unless the powder be bad, or the gun imperfectly made, or injudiciously charged.

I am satisfied that I am under rather than over estimate, when I assert that six drams of ordinary sporting gunpowder may be beneficially and completely exploded in a barrel of 14 bore, 2 feet 6 inches long, with a resisting projectile one ounce in weight above it. This, however, being more than a double charge for such a gun, cannot be pleasantly practised; and it is only asserted by way of argument.

Assuming, then, for argument’s sake, that six drams of gunpowder are exactly consumed in passing from the breech to the muzzle of a gun 2 feet 6 inches long, and that the shot, therefore, acquires its greatest velocity as it leaves the muzzle, it follows that the ordinary charge of 2¹⁄₂ drams will be wholly consumed before it has traversed half the length of the barrel, and consequently the charge of shot must here acquire its greatest velocity. It is certain, then, that the shot must travel the latter half of the barrel at a diminished velocity, and its velocity must continue to diminish as it passes up the barrel; for two obvious reasons—1st, The column of air in front of the charge is more condensed, and thus offers a greater resistance to the exit of the charge; 2nd, The velocity is continually diminished by the increased friction of the charge against the barrel.

The perfection of projectile science is to make the projectile acquire its greatest velocity at the instant of leaving the muzzle; and if, by increasing the size of the grain of gunpowder, we can diminish the rapidity of its explosion—thus causing it to burn and generate fresh gas up to the muzzle of the gun—the projectile will then acquire its greatest velocity, and leave the gun to the best advantage: this is the important point which has hitherto been overlooked, not only in fowling-pieces, but in the expansive principle of rifles.

For artillery practice of every kind, whatever the weight of the projectile, gunpowder of a granulation suited to the weight of that projectile is essential, if we would produce the greatest possible effect by the least expenditure of means.

In artillery, at this most important time in war’s history, no attention whatever is paid to this essential principle. A long 10-inch gun, a 68-pounder, and a short 6-pounder are all charged with powder of the same granulation; whilst by a more judicious use of gunpowder of suitable granulation, the range might be extended, just as it is in sporting arms, to nearly 20 per cent.

Artillerists seek to effect great range by doubling the weight of the gun, and projectile monsters meet us at all points, to become in every case “monster failures.”

I fear that the most important points have been entirely lost sight of. Instead of ascertaining whether we have suited the projectile power to the 8-inch or 56-pounder, so as to get work from it which is now done by the 10-inch, we have, in our anxiety to get range, looked only to the form or material of the gun; vital principles being totally excluded. The construction of the gun being perfect, the question is, can the expellant force be brought to an equal state of perfection?

In order to obtain the best results from a gun, the gun itself must be perfect in construction, and the expellant force must be brought to bear in the best possible manner upon the projectile; and this is to be done by attending to the granulation of the powder, which must be suited to the length of the gun, to its bore, and to the weight of the projectile.

Common-sense, engineering skill, will demonstrate, that according to the weight of matter to be projected must be the nature of the expellant; accumulative—until it has overcome the inertia of that matter, accelerative—until it has communicated to it the highest state of velocity its power is capable of effecting. If, on the other hand, it is inferior to this, science has not extracted from it the full horse-power it contains; and we are uselessly expending force and destroying our engines by undue pressure being exerted on one part, and inferior pressure on another; whilst by a proper distribution of that force, durability of the cannon is insured, and from twenty-five to thirty per cent. more work may be obtained from an equal quantity of powder, provided its granulation be judiciously selected according to the area of the gun.

There is abundant proof that on this engineering question we have hitherto worked by the “rule of thumb;” prejudice having been a stumbling-block, which nothing but stern necessity will remove. The authorities have but just discovered this, although their attention was directed to it several years ago. In the year 1852, I produced before the Small Arms Committee, at Enfield, a portion of gunpowder suited to the expansive rifle; it was tried to a limited extent, and dismissed with the remark, “We don’t think there is much in it.” Experience, however, has demonstrated the truth of my observations, for, in all extreme range shooting with the expansive or “Greenerian”-principled rifles, not only is considerably greater accuracy obtained with it, but an increase of range equivalent to fifteen or twenty per cent.

Another advantage of using gunpowder of a suitable granulation is the absence of sharp recoil; and thus greater accuracy of range is obtained—accuracy of range and steadiness of weapon being inseparable.

Large-grain gunpowder is not only a more effectual expellant than the fine grain, but is much more safe to use, for by using it the risk of bursting the barrel is much lessened; as a very simple illustration will show. If we estimate the force generated by the usual charge of 2¹⁄₂ drachms (I confine the question to the 14-bore gun, for uniformity) to be 5,000 lbs., whether the powder be fine or coarse grain, it follows that the fine powder, igniting so rapidly, will exert all its force on the breech end of the gun; whereas the coarse powder, igniting less rapidly, distributes this force over the whole length of the barrel: hence the greater risk of a gun bursting with fine powder than with coarse. If we suppose the fine powder to be entirely ignited when it reaches half way up the barrel, then the force of 5,000 lbs. is exerted on the lower half of the barrel; but if the coarser grain is not entirely ignited until it reaches the muzzle, then the force of 5,000 lbs. will be distributed over the whole length of the gun.

But this is not all. The fine powder, igniting almost instantaneously, exerts its force in all directions at once, and the barrel may burst at the side before the charge has time to move; whereas the coarse powder, igniting as it does more slowly, first lifts the charge, and then the volume of gas behind it increasing as the powder becomes more thoroughly ignited, sweeps the charge out of the barrel with a velocity increasing towards the muzzle.

If time is not given for the charge to receive the full advantage of the expansive force of the generated air, the force is exerted, not upon the charge, but upon the barrel of the gun itself; and that time is necessary for the full development of this force, is proved by the fact that miners mix their gunpowder with sawdust, in order to diminish the rapidity of its explosion and thus get the advantage of its force in the distance: from the miners, then, let us learn how to obtain the greatest benefit from this force, and waste it not.

There can be no doubt of the importance of this principle; little progress has, however, been effected from want of scientific illustration; let it be defined like that of steam power, and its adoption will follow as a natural consequence.

For several years I have had gunpowder manufactured of various sizes, at the sight of which most sportsmen would express their astonishment.

One objection held by sportsmen to the large grained gunpowder is that it does not come up the nipple of the gun; now although I do not consider this at all important, still if the specific gravity of the gunpowder were increased by compressing 1¹⁄₂, 2, or 3 grains of gunpowder into the space of 1 grain, by means of hydraulic pressure, this objection would at once be obviated; whilst at the same time, the powder would be less liable to absorb moisture, or to become friable with age: either of which conditions is incompatible with good shooting.

The granulating of gunpowder, to be of the greatest benefit, should be on a uniform principle; the manipulation should be alike in all particulars, but especially in that part of the process which determines the specific gravity. The hydraulic pressure on the cake should be alike in all cases: in fact, the various sizes of grain might be produced from the same cake, and the desired object be thus obtained. But so long as the practice is followed of producing large grain from less condensed cake, the article produced will give unsatisfactory results; and the advantages which might be attained, as my experience denotes, and which would be of the greatest service, alike in sporting, rifle, and artillery powder, will be nullified.

Great improvements are yet to be made, especially in the powder used for artillery; whilst range, accuracy, and lessened recoils are points which may be determined with almost mathematical precision.

Great fame is in prospect for any one who can grasp and handle well this granulation principle; especially if he can define the sizes to be used for different varieties of guns. Artillerists who contend that a medium size grain, to suit all sizes of gun, is advantageous, might as well contend that cannon of a medium size would be preferable to so many different sizes, because, though we lose in range, accuracy, and recoil, it would be more convenient to have but one sized gun.

In making large grained gunpowder, the manufacturers defeat one of the main objects to be gained by granulation, from not subjecting it to the same amount of pressure which is necessary for the granulation of the very fine grain. In granulating very fine powder, it is necessary to subject the cake to such an amount of hydraulic pressure as shall give the mass a marble-like structure, or during the process of granulation, the whole of it crumbles into dust; but the coarser gunpowder may be granulated without subjecting it to this high degree of pressure, hence each grain is more porous and of lesser specific gravity: a difference which it is most important to avoid. It is clear, therefore, that according to the present mode of manufacturing gunpowder, the large and the fine grain are of very different kinds; the main difference being in their specific gravities. Gunpowder of less density burns with greater rapidity, because it is more open and porous; and if uniform density was observed, the diversity in the size of the grain need not be so great; whilst, at the same time, this anomaly might be avoided—that the same measure of fine and large-grained gunpowder contains a difference of the expansive element amounting to fifteen or twenty per cent. As gunpowder is now manufactured, it is highly necessary in all comparative trials to weigh, and not to measure the charge, or the results will be deceptive and worthless. The granulation question struggles with undeserved difficulty. Gunmakers, either not understanding the question, or constructing the chambers of their guns improperly, and not using suitable nipples, decry the adoption of large-grained gunpowder; but they forget the increased range obtained in the killing from their guns, and the éclât a long shot produces. In trials of guns at thirty or forty yards, the difference in the shooting with fine and large-grained gunpowder is not so apparent, and the maker exclaims, “Oh! the fine powder shoots stronger, and as close as the coarse.” I admit this to be the case, at short distances; but the great advantage of using the large grain is sufficiently evident when shooting at forty-five, fifty, and sixty yards, for then the fine grain entirely fails: simply from the oft-repeated fact, that the fine powder is more of a propulsive, while the large grain is an expellant force; so that according to the law of resistance in aëriform fluids, the one is sooner reduced to medium velocity than the other, which exerts its action more evenly. Powder of larger grain is thus more suitable for the larger sizes of shot, and would give an increased range in usual shooting, for the shot is kept better together, and is projected to greater distances. A common way of testing the quality of gunpowder is, to rub it between the hands, and observe the darkness of the stain; the darker the stain the more inferior the gunpowder is held to be. This test is, however, decidedly fallacious, because the gunpowder may be of low specific gravity, or it may have become friable from age and other causes.

Whales are shot with gunpowder proportioned to the weight of the harpoon required to kill them. Duck guns of the largest calibre are comparatively useless unless the gunpowder used is granulated according to the weight of the projectile; and the same law holds in regard to the most “mammoth” engine yet to be devised by the mind of man.

Gun-cotton has been before the world for some years, but, except as a curiosity, it has attracted little public attention; neither has it gained any reputation as a projectile force. It may be prepared by steeping cotton wool for a few minutes in a mixture of nitric and sulphuric acids, thoroughly washing, and then drying at a very gentle heat. It consists chemically of the essential elements of gunpowder: viz. carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen; but, in addition, it contains another highly elastic gas, hydrogen. The carbon in the fibres of the wool presents to the action of flame a most extended surface in a small space, and the result is an explosion approaching as nearly as possible to the instantaneous: in consequence of its rapid ignition it produces a violent kick; sufficient time is not given to put heavy bodies in motion, hence it cannot be usefully employed as a projectile agent. No one who values his limbs should trifle with it, for fearful accidents have resulted from its exposure to the heat of the sun, and other very simple causes.

There is an instrument used by some sportsmen, and strongly recommended by many gunmakers, for testing the strength of different kinds of gunpowder. It consists of a chamber closed by a spring, and fired like an ordinary pistol. When the powder explodes the spring is forced forward, and moves an index round a graduated circle; the more quickly the powder explodes the farther does it lift the spring; hence this is a measure of quickness of fire, but not of expellant force; and from the observations which have been made on gunpowder, it must be evident to any one who has paid the least attention to the subject, that this instrument is utterly useless.

An instrument to test the comparative strength of different kinds of gunpowder is yet a desideratum in projectile science; and we cannot doubt that such an instrument will be produced, when the importance of the granulation of gunpowder is more generally known and appreciated.

The charcoal formerly used was made in the common way, by pits, which must have been seen by almost every one. The method is now to distil the wood in cast-iron cylinders, extracting the pyroligneous acid, &c., by heating them red hot, and allowing all other volatile matter to evaporate, the charcoal only being retained in the cylinder or retorts; hence arises the name cylinder gunpowder. The best charcoal for sporting powders is the black dog wood; Government use willow and alder. Any charcoal does for common powders. Charcoal is ground in the same way as the nitre. Sulphur is purified simply by fusing, and when in that state, skimming off the impurities: it is cooled and pulverised in the same way as the other two ingredients. The three ingredients, after being carefully weighed in their due proportions, are sifted into a large trough, and well mixed together by the hands. They are then conveyed to the powder mill. This is a large circular trough, having a smooth iron bed, in which two millstones, secured to a horizontal axis, revolve, traversing each other, and making nine or ten revolutions in a minute. The powder is mixed with a small quantity of water put on the bed of the mill, and there kept subject to the pressure of the stones; and if we calculate the weight of the two millstones at six tons, it follows that in four or five hours’ incorporation on this bed, it subjects the ingredients to the action of full 10,000 tons. It is this long-continued grinding, compounding, and blending together of the mixture, that alone renders it useful and good. After this intimate mixing, it is conveyed away in the shape of mill-cake, and firmly pressed between plates of copper. Bramah’s press has been introduced of late years—we should say with a good deal of improvement to the powder, as will be shown hereafter—and by its means the mass is more compressed and in thinner cakes. It is then broken into small pieces with wooden mallets, and taken to the corning-house, where it is granulated, “by putting it into sieves, the bottoms of which are made of bullocks’ hides, prepared like parchment, and perforated with holes about two-tenths of an inch in diameter; from twenty to thirty of these sieves are secured to a large frame, moving on an eccentric axis, or crank, of six inches throw; two pieces of lignum vitæ, six inches in diameter, and two inches or more in thickness, are placed on the broken press-cakes in each sieve. The machinery being then put in rapid motion, the discs of lignum vitæ (called balls) pressing upon the powder, and striking against the sides of the sieves, force it through the apertures, in grains of various sizes, on to the floor, from whence it is removed, and again sifted through finer sieves of wire, to separate the dust and classify the grain. One man works two sieves at a time, by turning a handle and eccentric crank; the sieves being fixed to a frame, which is suspended over a bin by four ropes from the ceiling.”

The grains afterwards undergo a process of glazing, by friction against each other, in barrels containing nearly 200 lbs., making forty revolutions in a minute, and lasting several hours, according to the fancy of the purchaser. This part of the business we entirely disagree with, as injurious to the quick and certain ignition. Gunpowder is finally dried by an artificial temperature of 140° Fahrenheit, which is suffered gradually to decline. The last process is sifting it clear of dust, and then packing it in canisters or otherwise.

The utility of the process of granulation results from the impossibility of firing mealed powder sufficiently simultaneously to effect an explosion; and also from the fact that gunpowder, in a mass, does not explode. Fire a solid piece of mill-cake, and it does not flash off like unto granulated powder, but burns gradually, though with an extreme fury, until the whole is consumed. This arises from its density, the compression in the press; it also teaches us one fact, that to be of the greatest service, the time each grain should occupy in burning should be proportioned to the size of the gun for which it is required; since it is clear that the explosion of a heap of gunpowder is but the rapid combustion of all its parts. This action, as is well known, is so rapid, even in a large quantity of powder, that it appears to be a sudden and simultaneous burst of flame; though philosophically and actually it is not so.

Fine grain, when unconfined, explodes quicker than large, or is sooner burnt out, and consequently generates more force in the same period of time; but when it comes to large quantities, its very quickness is detrimental to its force, by condensing the air around the exterior of the mass of fluid which thus constrains its bound. In small quantities, the proportion of condensation is not so apparent, and hence the reason why greater velocities can be obtained with small arms than with cannon.

There exists a diversity of opinion in regard to the strength or projectile force of gunpowder. Dr. Ure remarks—“If we inquire how the maximum gaseous volume is to be produced from the chemical reaction of the elements of nitre on charcoal and sulphur, we shall find it to be by the generation of carbonic oxide and sulphurous acid, with the disengagement of nitrogen. This will lead us to the following proportions of these constituents:

“The nitre contains five primes of oxygen, of which three combining with the three of charcoal, will furnish three of carbonic oxide gas, while the remaining two will convert the one prime of sulphur into sulphurous acid gas. The single prime of nitrogen is therefore, in this view, disengaged alone.

“The gaseous volume, in this supposition, evolved from 136 grains of gunpowder, equivalent in bulk to 75¹⁄₂ grains of water, or to three-tenths of a cubic inch, will be, at the atmospheric temperature, as follows:—

being an expansion of one volume into 787·3. But as the temperature of the gases, at the instant of their combustive formation, must be incandescent, this volume may be safely estimated at three times the above amount, or considerably upwards of 2,000 times the bulk of the explosive solid.

“It is obvious that the more sulphur, the more sulphurous acid will be generated, and the less forcibly explosive will be the gunpowder. This was confirmed by the experiments at Essonne, where the gunpowder that contained twelve of sulphur, twelve of charcoal, in 100 parts, did not throw the proof shell so far as that which contained only nine of sulphur and fifteen of charcoal. The conservative property is, however, of so much importance for humid climates and our remote colonies, that it justifies a slight sacrifice of strength.

“When in a state of explosion, the volume,” Dr. Hutton calculates, “is at least increased eight times, and hence its immense power. The pressure exerted, if in a state of confinement, will depend on the dimensions of the vessel containing it; so that it would be no difficult undertaking to obtain any pressure above that of the atmosphere, up, we may fearlessly say, to the enormous amount of 4,000 lbs. per square inch.”

The same quantity of gunpowder subjected to a variety of experimental tests, differs materially in its results; at the same time it is only by such a method that we can arrive at the relative strength or power which it possesses. Dr. Hutton, whose authority in all mathematical calculations is very high, and whose opinions and judgment in matters of this nature ought not to be unthinkingly controverted, states 2,000 feet per second (with cannon) as the highest velocity which any projectile had attained, at the time of his writing, which had gunpowder for its propellant power. A much greater velocity is now given in all guns fired at high elevations. “Monks’” gun attained a velocity of 2,400 feet in the first second of its flight, and this is now exceeded by rifled cannon.

This advantage does not arise, in our opinion, so much from the superior quality of the gunpowder, as from the improvements which have taken place in the manner of applying it. For instance, where experiments are conducted, as was the case with Dr. Hutton, with moving eprouvettes, a certain loss is sustained, in the same degree as the instrument is made to recoil from its original position; therefore, by restraining the recoil, an increase of momentum is given to the projectile, to the same extent as had been exerted upon the eprouvette, or cannon, in driving it several feet backward; and instead of dividing the force thus acquired between the shot and the gun, by having the latter firmly fixed and the recoil destroyed, the whole power is exerted upon the former, and its velocity accelerated in the same proportion.

Gunpowder, though astonishing in its effect, and tremendous in power, may nevertheless be controlled within a limited sphere, and bounds put upon its destructive energy. The following curious experiment, first tried at Woolwich on a small scale, has since been carried out to a great extent. Screw into each end of the breech part of a gun-barrel a well-fitted plug; drill a communication, and put in a nipple; having filled the barrel with powder, screw in the breech, and fire a cap on it, and the explosive fluid will escape by the small orifice like steam from a pipe. If the barrel be good, it may safely be held in the hand, merely using a towel to protect the hand from the heat the barrel absorbs. We have done it repeatedly with no inconvenience, and even carried this experiment much further; firing two ounces of the best powder in a barrel of good quality (though not in the hand) yet the barrel did not receive any violent motion by which it could be inferred that it might not be done with safety.

We have before observed, that, with very short guns, fine gunpowder produces the greatest result, inasmuch as there is no greater column of air in the barrel than the explosive fluid is equal to displace; or, in other words, the charge leaving the muzzle of the gun at the very moment when the explosive force is strongest, all the power is thus obtained of which it is capable; but if used in a longer barrel, and the fluid has obtained its greatest power when the charge has twelve inches of the barrel still to travel, the column of compressed air yet remaining in the muzzle of the barrel, exerts a resisting influence, in proportion to its density, upon the charge, and creates a dangerous and unpleasant recoil.

If a cartridge be placed in the centre of an open barrel eight feet in length, having a bullet abutting at each end large enough to fill the barrel, and a touch-hole is drilled as near the centre of the cartridge as possible, when it is fired, the balls will certainly be discharged from the barrel, but with a very small degree of force: in fact, merely driven out. With the same instrument, vary the experiment: place in it a cartridge charged with one ball, three feet from the muzzle, leaving a column of air five feet in length to act against the explosive force of the gunpowder, and the ball will be driven one hundred yards with considerable force. Again, let a third cartridge be introduced similar to the last, two feet from the muzzle, increasing the column of air to six feet; and the result, in distance and velocity, will nearly double what has been obtained by the last experiment; tending to prove that air thus forced back upon itself obtains a density, and consequent resisting influence, nearly equal to a well-screwed breech. In order to test this principle further, I put into the same tube a double charge of gunpowder, merely backed by a wadding, two feet from the muzzle, and then rammed down four balls as tight as possible into the short portion; in discharging it, the tube was burst immediately in rear of the charge.

In another experiment, I took a common musket barrel, having a plug of iron firmly fixed into the muzzle; the breech being unscrewed, and a ball introduced one-tenth of an inch less in diameter than the bore of the barrel, together with one drachm of gunpowder, I then fired the gunpowder, and the explosive matter escaped by the touch-hole. On examination, it was found that the ball was flattened to the extent of one-third of its sphere. The charge for the next experiment was increased to two drachms; when the ball in the discharge struck the muzzle very slightly, altering its shape in the least conceivable degree. The charge was next increased to three drachms, and the ball was extracted without any perceptible defect. In the fourth trial, another drachm was added, with which the effect was greater than the tube was able to resist; it was in consequence burst, about three inches from the muzzle.

From this I infer that, in the first trial, the velocity of the ball was not so great, but that the air escaped past it, by what is technically called the windage, allowing it to strike the plug at the end of the barrel with sufficient force to alter the shape of the lead in the manner described. The second trial gave an increased velocity; the opposing forces being so nearly balanced that the ball scarcely reached the end of the barrel, and was very little injured. In the third trial the velocity became so great, and the air was condensed to such an extent, that the ball struck upon a cushion-like surface so highly elastic that it was extracted without the least injury to its shape. The last charge was too powerful, inasmuch as the lateral pressure of compressed air rent the tube asunder.

The one great cause of this and other barrels bursting, arises from the velocity becoming too great, and thus driving back the air upon itself, until the mutual repulsion of the particles forms an almost impenetrable barrier, exerting a lateral pressure on the barrel, and resisting the passage of the elastic fluid. To make the explanation plain; supposing that the charge had condensed the air for the distance of three or four inches immediately preceding it, and then come to rest, the waves of vibration, travelling at the rate of 1,300 feet per second, would communicate to the remainder of the column the same pressure, and an equilibrium would take place. But this not being the case, and the air becoming still more highly compressed by the velocity not decreasing but increasing, the lateral pressure becomes greater than the fibres of the iron are able to withstand, and consequently the barrel is burst. Many accidents arise from this cause solely, and without any blame being attached to either the maker or user of the gun. While on this subject, we may remark that this is the more likely, inasmuch as the powder with which barrels are proved is not the strongest, and is also of a large grain; so that it is quite within the range of probability that a barrel may, and it does often, stand proof, and yet burst when it comes to be used with extremely fine-grained strong powder; as it is quite clear that a high velocity must create danger.

To pursue the subject still further: in order to procure conclusive evidence in support of this argument, I had a tube of iron manufactured, sufficiently good in quality to bear an enormous pressure; it was three feet in length, with a bore large enough to admit an ounce ball, and the sides of the arch were full a quarter of an inch in thickness. A piece of steel, one inch in length, was then turned of a size to fit the bore well, but not so tight as to prevent its free action: this I called a piston. From the centre of the tube to the muzzle, were drilled, on all sides, a number of small holes, a quarter of an inch distant from each other, in all amounting to sixty-eight; these were fitted with small pieces of steel needles, hardened, projecting into the interior of the tube a quarter of an inch, so that the piston, in its upward movement, should strike these pins, and thus enable me to judge how far it was driven by each experiment. Each end of the tube was then fitted with a breech, firmly screwed in; the upper one having a flat internal surface, the lower one, where ignition was to be communicated, being a conical or patent breech. This machine I termed an explosion metre; and it answered its purpose. With two drachms of the best canister gunpowder, the piston was propelled nineteen inches along the tube; breaking eight pins. The same quantity of the fine diamond grain reached only eighteen inches, or four pins. No. 3 grain, of both Laurence’s and Pigou and Wilks’ manufacture, reached twenty-four inches, or twenty-eight pins. A very superior powder, containing in one grain five of diamond, four of canister, and two of the above makers’ No. 2, reached twenty-seven inches, and broke forty pins. In each of these experiments the greatest accuracy was observed, in preparing the metre as well as in weighing the charge.

These facts go far to prove that, in all uses of gunpowder, the grain should be of a size proportioned to the length and bore of the gun; for if we have not an accelerating force to overcome the increasing resistance of the compressed column of air in the barrel, there is great danger that the gun may be burst, and probably be productive of great mischief; whilst a judicious application of the extraordinary power thus placed at our disposal, may be alike conducive to our safety and our pleasure. A musket ball can be driven through an half-inch boiler plate; but this can only be accomplished by using as much powder as will generate a gradually, though rapidly, increasing power, until the ball has passed the limits of the tube.

Nitre is not the only salt which has been employed in the manufacture of gunpowder. Its quantity or proportion in the mixture has been lessened, and the deficiency supplied by another elementary combination; namely, by the chlorate of potassa.

The French succeeded in making powder of which potassa forms one of the component parts, and they say it ranges the projectile double the distance; but this is doubtful. The proportions of the mixture are nitrate of potash twenty-five parts, chlorate of potassa forty-five, sulphur fifteen, charcoal seven and a half, and lycopodium seven and a half parts. In the year 1809, a similar kind of powder was proposed to the English Government, by a person of the name of Parr; but its introduction was very properly opposed by Sir William Congreve, on account of the danger attending its use, and also from the fact that there was no piece of ordnance in the service able to withstand its effects. The proportions were, chlorate of potassa six parts, fine charcoal one part, sulphur one part. These ingredients to be carefully mixed together and granulated. The above mixture was laid aside, not only from the want of power to restrain its effects, but because it was useless, from the very extreme rapidity of its explosion: it forms the atmospheric air into a wall of adamant, by the condensation confining it to a comparatively small space; it becomes lightning—an electric fluid, which, from its very intensity, cannot displace any great mass of air.

Neither can any advantage arise from any greater velocity in projectile force, except we can obtain that by a graduated scale; for masses cannot, from a state of rest, be put in extreme motion instantaneously: philosophy teaches us, and experience makes it evident, that a portion of time must be occupied, however short that may be. All motion is gradual, and cannot be obtained otherwise; and hence the fact, that lightning conveyed into a tube filled with projectiles would not drive them out: it would not project them, but the blow would break them in pieces. So is it with this mixture; it is useless from its very rapidity of ignition. We have shown that even fine grain gunpowder is too quick, and that its quickness destroys its power; how much more so is the other: and what would it avail us, with these disadvantages.

A writer mentions what he conceives to be a curious fact: he says, “If a train of gunpowder be crossed at right angles by a train of fulminating mercury, laid on a sheet of paper on a table, and the gunpowder lighted by a red hot wire, the flame will run on until it meets the cross train of fulminating mercury, when the inflammation of the latter will be so instantaneous as to cut off the connection with the continuous train of gunpowder, leaving one half of the train unignited:” and again, “If the fulminating powder be lighted first, it will go straight on, and pass through the train of gunpowder so rapidly as not to inflame it at all.” True; and the cause is quite apparent: the rapidity of combustion condenses the air so quickly, as to remove the grains of gunpowder liable to come in contact with the flame, and to form the condensed air into a line of demarcation: for heat cannot be taken up by the air quicker than the atmosphere will convey sound; and before the heat can evaporate the explosion is over, and is consequently noiseless.

In all mining operations: in the quarrying of stone, the destruction of sunken rocks, or in any other operations where it is desirable to detach large masses, the use of gunpowder is indispensable; not only because it decreases manual exertion but also because it can be used under circumstances and in situations unapproachable by other means. It becomes, therefore, a consideration for the miner what kind is best suited for the purpose; the finest grained powder is useless as is well known: it is also more expensive; but its principal defect arises from its quickness of combustion. Masses cannot be detached without first putting the whole in motion; and as this cannot be done in a very short time, it is necessary to prolong the explosion, so that the wave of vibration may have time to travel throughout the whole of the mass acted upon; and a repetition of these waves is necessary before any mass can move. Now, to obtain this, it is necessary that matter be so incorporated with the powder as to prolong that explosion; bituminous substances might be applied with effect, for their slow burning would keep the heat necessary to hold the permanent gases at their utmost stretch of expansion.

It is obvious, from the extremely high character English sporting gunpowder has obtained all over the world, that considerable improvement must have been effected by the private manufacturers, either in the purification or manipulation of ingredients; indeed the unwearied care bestowed on this point by several of our best makers is beyond all praise. To explain the various methods, or otherwise enlarge upon this point, would be injurious to individual skill and enterprise, and be the means of imparting knowledge to those who have not ability to invent, but who gather from the brains of others. The French set great value on the “Poudre de Chasse” of England. It is rather singular that we should excel those who pride themselves so much on their chemical knowledge; but, as before remarked, it is certain that the intimate incorporation of the ingredients is of more importance than the chemical proportions.

All military and naval gunpowder is not manufactured of the greatest strength that can be acquired “at the Government mills;” a sample is furnished to each contractor with each contract, and to this strength he is limited.

The fame of our English gunpowder makers is patent to all the world, and, where skill is equal, to name one rather than another would be invidious; though we must not lose sight of the facts herein established. “Granulation,” properly understood, is an equivalent point to either chemical or mechanical knowledge and manipulation in gunpowder manufacture. Great anxiety to meet the wishes of the sporting world on this point, and to advance with the age, has been aroused; and specimens have been kindly furnished to me, not by one, but by all the following celebrated makers: Messrs. Pigou and Wilks, Curtis and Harvey, Lawrence and Son, John Hall and Son; and I have received also a very excellent specimen from the Scotch mills.

Gunpowder of five sizes of granulation, on the basis before alluded to: namely, No. 2, containing two quantities of No. 1, and No. 3, three, and so on in progression; but it is imperative that all the various sizes be produced from the same mill cake, or be otherwise of the same condensation or specific gravity, and in all experiments of comparison, equal weights are a “sine quâ non,” otherwise the comparison will be futile; as measure is, for these very obvious reasons, inapplicable in comparative tests. When these points are carefully attained, increased power of killing, “decreased recoil,” and much greater safety, will be the important benefits which the gunpowder manufacturers will confer on every one using a gun.

CHAPTER III.
ARTILLERY.

Arcualia, from “arcus, a bow,” appears to have been the original name, and included all sorts of “missiles,” as well as the engines by which they were propelled. The sling, still in common use by the Arabs on the banks of the upper Euphrates, being most probably the first kind of artillery, and the bow and arrow a succeeding stage of improvement.

Artillery, now in the general acceptance of the term, includes all and every description of gun, of greater power and dimensions than muskets and other shoulder guns.

Modern civilization, with its giant strides of improvement, has rejected the cumbrous and unsightly complication of springs, levers and wheels; and given to us, in their stead, the light and handsome six-pounder cannon; which is so easy of transit that it can accomplish the most complex and difficult movements, while the horses are at their fullest gallop. A single minute now suffices to stop when at the greatest speed, unlimber, load, fire a couple of rounds, and remount; the gun is speedily at a distance—while the eye can scarcely follow, or the mind imagine, the destruction that must follow when the “deep-tongued gun” is fired in attack.

I shall now proceed to notice the comparative effects of guns of various calibre and power, and attempt to convey to the reader a distinct idea of their respective defects and advantages. The artillery of England comprises an immense variety of weapons of war, suited for various purposes and situations, as experience has dictated, or necessity required. The present state of our artillery requires an advance to the front, to be in a line with the march of science, as regards the knowledge of gunpowder and projectiles; I may, therefore, be permitted to animadvert on what appears to me to need improvement.

The profession may think it presumptuous in me to offer a suggestion or give an opinion; for it too frequently happens that individuals, who have employed their whole time and study on one especial subject, think they alone can understand it, and consider any opposition to their opinions, or any doubt of the soundness of their conclusions, little short of a positive offence.

Having given considerable attention to the subject, I would now beg to offer some remarks on the Government arrangements of gunnery, which are not yet so perfect as they might be.

The authorities of the Ordnance Department are, I am sorry to state, too remiss in considering, and too unwilling to avail themselves of valuable improvements and discoveries; clinging too much to prejudice in favour of whatever has been heretofore in use. To such an extent is this habit carried, that many improvements become familiar to half the kingdom, aye, and are adopted by other countries, before our guides take advantage of them: for truly talent and ingenuity are but scantily patronized by them. My wish is to aid in sweeping away the cobwebs which still hang on the science of great gunnery; and to push the spur of conviction deep, that instead of Britain following, she may, in a time of peace, lead the way in improvements; so that whenever war returns, she may not be unprepared to wage it on equal terms.

I have in this chapter endeavoured to divest the subject of all extraneous matter, and impart as much information as will enable the reader to form an opinion for himself, and understand something of a science hitherto considered abstract, and which is, no doubt, abstruse. This I have sought to effect in plain language, avoiding, wherever it was possible, all technicalities.

The guns of the British nation may be divided into four classes—Park, or Field artillery, Siege guns, or battering train, garrison guns, and marine artillery. The numbers of different descriptions of rates, or weight of guns, vary in all the different classes of the service. There are light, medium, and heavy six-pounders; long and short twenty-four pounders; and two or more weights in all the varieties, even up to the ten-inch gun and thirteen-inch mortar. We have iron ordnance and brass, for long and short ranges, for small or great velocity. The rate, weight, length, charges, point blank, extreme range, &c., of iron guns, will be found in the annexed table, by which will be seen, at a glance, the various matters referred to.

Iron Ordnance.

Brass guns are invariably lighter, and considered less likely to burst. Gun metal, technically so called, is a compound of copper and tin, in the proportion of five, eight, and ten pounds of the latter to 100 pounds of the former. The peculiar property of the tin is to give hardness and solidity to the mass. The greater proportions are used principally for mortars, as they require a greater degree of hardness than other guns. A peculiar property attaches to the using of brass guns. If a considerable number of rounds be fired in rapid succession, the bore of the gun becomes to a certain extent elliptical. This peculiarity arises entirely from the extreme windage allowed by the present established rules of British gunnery; and is produced by the tendency of the shot, when propelled by the explosive force, to strike upwards from the breech, and then rebound downwards, and so on till it reaches the muzzle. Iron guns are not liable to this (although the same cause exists) from the unductile nature of the cast iron.

Brass guns are, after certain use, recast: this is done solid, with the cascable of the gun downwards, to give a greater density to the metal at the breech. The boring and turning are performed simultaneously by a very simple arrangement. At the siege of Badajos, the firing continued for 104 hours, and the number of rounds that each gun fired averaged 1,249; and at the siege of Sebastian, the quantity fired by each gun was about 350 rounds, in 15¹⁄₂ hours. These guns being of iron, none of them were rendered unserviceable; though three times the number of brass guns would not have been equal to such long and rapid firing. All brass guns are bouched with a bolt of copper at the vent, on the same principle as flint guns for sporting were formerly with gold or platina; copper withstanding the rapid escape of the flame better than the gun-metal. The charges, ranges, &c., are as follows:—

Extreme and Point Blank Range of Brass Ordnance, Charge, &c.

The twelve, ten, and eight-inch guns, almost form a class of themselves, known as the “Paixhan Gun.” They are intended for throwing both hollow and solid shot. The larger are the description of ordnance with which we at present arm our steam frigates.

These are unquestionably part of the many doubtful descriptions of artillery which have been adopted of late years, with a view to fracture more than to secure a range of projectile. They are enormous machines, as will be seen on reference to their weights, as given in the following table; and their splintering powers are certainly very extensive indeed. But their range is contemptibly small, if we take into consideration their great weight. The effect of the explosion of the charge of one of these guns must be sensibly felt even by the strongest built steamer in the world. They are used with traversing beds. The gun carriage, when recoiling, in a backward direction, being driven up an inclined railway, with from 3° to 4° of elevation, from the cascable of the gun. This greatly tends to lessen the distance which the gun would be driven back, and facilitates the running out of the piece to the point of discharge. The woodcut gives a representation of the traversing beds; and the following table displays the ranges, &c., of this class of heavy artillery.

Range and Elevation, &c., of 12, 10, and 8-inch Guns, at Point Blank and Extreme, and 10 and 8-inch Howitzers.

[2] Length of time occupied in flight, 14 seconds, and 15¹⁄₄ seconds.

Mortars are intended for three purposes; firstly, to bombard a town, or injure the defenders’ artillery; secondly, to fire or overthrow the works, and to spread havoc and slaughter among the troops; thirdly, to break through the vaulted roofs of barracks and magazines which are not bomb-proof, or, in other terms, are not strong enough to resist the fire.

They consist, as will be seen, of five descriptions, but the 10-inch is considered, on the score of economy, as equal to all useful purposes. The French have, at various times, constructed mortars of enormously large dimensions, but certainly with no useful result. The monster mortar, used at the siege of Antwerp, fired only ten or twelve shots, and with comparatively little effect. It burst some time after, while under a course of experiment, with a considerably less charge than it had formerly withstood; thus affording one very conclusive and illustrative fact in the theory of vibrations in metals: for there can be no question but that the shell, from the smallness of the charge, was too long detained in the mortar; the waves of vibration caused by the explosive force moving so rapidly through the mass that the metal at last lost its cohesive nature from their very rapid succession.

It will be perceived, on reference to the adjoining tables, that ranges are obtained by the modifications of charges.

English Mortar Practice.[3]

[3] Artillerist’s Manual.

[4] Shells filled with sand, which will account for the weight.

[5] Shells filled with sand, which will account for the weight.

[4] Shells filled with sand, which will account for the weight.

[5] Shells filled with sand, which will account for the weight.

Weight of Land and Sea Service Mortar.

Carronades are a short description of ordnance without trunnions, but fastened by a loop under the reinforce. Their construction is materially different from that of guns. They have a chamber like a mortar, a part scooped out inside the muzzle, forming a cup, and they have also a patch on the reinforce. The name arises from the Carron Foundry in Scotland, the first of them having been cast there in 1779. The construction is considerably lighter than that of guns of similar calibre. Their principal use is on board ship; but they are sometimes used in casemates, or retired flanks of fortresses.

The proportions of all guns to shot, will be found below; and in looking at this table, it will scarce be conceivable how such light guns can project such heavy shot.

Comparative Weights of Guns and Shot.

The recoil, which in all the before-mentioned guns is very great, arises from the blow communicated to the iron in immediate contact with the explosive fluid. The granulatory system of the metal transmits to those grains, or crystals, immediately behind them, the blow or concussion they are subjected to, and these again to others, and so on, until the vibration has passed through the metal, from the interior of the breech to the exterior of the gun.

I am satisfied that in all small guns, from their slight substance, recoil is communicated a great deal quicker than in larger ones; hence arises the well-known fact that in shooting you receive a knock nearly simultaneous with the explosion. The greater and heavier the gun (even carry it up to General Miller’s gun of 84 cwt.) if the proportion which the shot bears to it be not too great, the less will be the velocity of recoil. But in carronades, as will be seen, the proportions are as high as 1 to 55, while in long guns, it is 1 to 429; a very considerable degree of difference.

Our ancestors had but a limited knowledge of the laws of projecting bodies by gunpowder. Their explosive power was not good; for there is clear proof, even since the time of Robins, that the purification of the ingredients has nearly doubled the explosive force. The mechanical construction and outer mould of their guns, were calculated to resist and limit the effects of recoil to a great extent.

Accumulation of metal in the rear of the breech-end of a gun is true science, and of so easy an attainment, that wonder arises in the mind why it has not been effected. The extent to which this principle is worked upon in our gunnery is very trifling; though recoil can by this simple arrangement be nearly destroyed, or so lessened as to add considerable percentage of range to the projectile. Add no considerable weight to the gun, but add it judiciously, behind the end of the chamber and vent, and immediately surrounding the breech. I have tried this to a great extent, on a small scale, “with fowling-piece barrels,” and find that the greatest advantage arises from an additional inch of metal to the extreme end of the barrel, as the recoil is thereby lessened; while, on the contrary, by reducing the exterior end of the breech, until it becomes of less thickness than the sides of the barrel, the recoil is doubled. Guns will some day be constructed as mortars are, with the axles, or trunnions, in rear of the tube and of the vent; for by this arrangement recoil would act less on the mass of metal forming the gun, and more on the base from which it is fired. We are quite aware that an arrangement of this nature could only be applied to certain descriptions of ordnance, and in certain situations; but on forts, or batteries commanding rivers and bays, and even in the bows of steam vessels, they may be placed with great advantage. But this objection may be started: “You could not use guns fitted in this manner horizontally, or nearly so.” Why not? The muzzle could be as easily raised or depressed as the breech, by mechanical means. I should much like to see the principle tried, and I hope to do so.

The following results of experiments prove, that if a true basis is not laid down, all the fabric raised upon it is but one of sand, which will crumble away from under us. Hutton says,—“Varying the weight of the gun, produced no change in the velocity of the ball. The guns were suspended in the same manner as the pendulous blocks, and additional weights were attached to the pieces, so as to restrain the recoil; but although the arcs of the recoil were thus shortened, yet the velocity of the ball was not altered by it. The recoil was then entirely prevented, but the initial velocity of the ball remained the same.” No doubt this was the result of his experiments by the pendulous suspension of the gun: but here he erred; for had he suspended a thousand tons to it, without incorporating it in the gun, the result would still have been the same. All the improvements effected, or yet to be accomplished, will be obtained by a concentration of metal.

An excess of weight in the fore part of a gun is very injurious, by inducing and lengthening the tremulous vibration created by the explosion. The only necessity for strength forward in a cannon, arises from the necessity of resisting the lateral pressure from the condensation of the column of air in the tube. The pressure of the explosive gases is, by the velocity obtained before reaching the fore part, of very little amount, from the short period it is exerted on the interior. Therefore weight, in the fore part of a gun, be it ever so great, will not prevent recoil if there is not a proportionate quantity behind. It will retard or lessen the distance to which the recoil will drive the gun and carriage, but the evil is then over.

If the slightest movement occurs in the gun, the shot is projected from an unsound base or foundation. It is precisely similar to a man who, in the act of throwing a stone, slips his foot backwards: the effect is at once apparent on the stone. If the trunnion of a gun breaks in the discharge, or a quoin flies out, the shot is materially affected; never ranging, under such circumstances, the accustomed distance, nor with its usual accuracy. Practice with mortars proves beyond dispute the necessity of a firm base for the gun, for with a much less charge they project a greater mass farther. A mortar discharged on land, exceeds in range the same description of gun on board of ship, or on the best-constructed platform. In truth, this is but another illustration of a law of nature: if you have not a solid fulcrum, it matters little what the power of your lever may be. Gunpowder is a powerful lever if exploded on a solid base; if not, its effects become limited in proportion. Unquestionably, much may yet be gained by an economical arrangement of our projectile force. Great and rapid as have been the acquisitions of knowledge in everything relating to gunnery in modern times, there still remains, I have no doubt, an unexplored mine of valuable treasure to be added to the science.

It would effect a great improvement in the mortars used by the navy, destroying the tremendous vibration and shake given to the ship, increasing their efficiency and aiding the projecting power, to place them on beds of the softest lead, not less than twelve inches in thickness. Though this suggestion is only theoretical, experience would soon determine the least degree of substance available. Advantage would arise, in the first place, from the non-conducting tendency of the lead; in the second, from its density, and, of course, incompressibility. The one protecting the ship, the other being the most solid bed for the mortar that can by possibility be obtained.

The weight of a hollow 13-inch shell is 190 lbs.; the bursting powder 6 lbs. 8 oz.; the weight, if cast solid, would be 290 lbs.: thus the action of so large a body on the atmosphere must be immense of itself. There seems to be much difficulty in projecting masses of great diameter, from this cause; and this should lead us to seek, as indeed it points to, another material for fabricating projectiles. As weight is less in substance, and, of course, less in space, much less resistance, in proportion, will exist in a bore of six inches than in one of twelve; and a greater projectile force will be generated with fewer countervailing disadvantages.

The first step in the vast improvements about to be effected in gunnery, has been successfully taken by Mr. Monk, of Woolwich arsenal, who has induced the authorities to allow a gun to be made from drawings and calculations of his own. The dimensions of the gun are as follows: length from cascable to muzzle, 11 feet; weight, 97 cwt. 3 qrs.; bore, 7⁷⁄₁₀ inches; weight of solid shot, 55 lbs.; shell, 42 lbs.; windage, 0·175; charge, 16 lbs. of powder; giving a range, at 32° of elevation, of 5,327 yards. A compound shot, (a shell filled with lead), was projected 5,720 yards, or three miles and a quarter, at a velocity, during the first second of time, of 2,400 feet per second, and occupying during the whole flight only 29¹⁄₂ seconds. The comparative weight of gun and shot is 1 to 220.

A course of experiments, extending over seventeen years, has firmly established this gun as the best ever yet constructed. Many attempts have been made to excel it, but all have failed. Guns have been made on drawings varying not more than three-tenths of an inch in their dimensions from those of his gun, and, with extreme modesty, the individuals have claimed a right to compete with Mr. Monk; and have even obtained competing trials, without any claim whatever to the discovery of the principle of it; coming into competition by no just claim or merit, but solely from the tendency to supersede any improvement emanating from a civilian. Eighteen, twenty-four, and thirty-two pounders are now, however, constructed on this model;—indeed the improvement is so great and so apparent, as to overcome every obstacle as yet thrown in its way.

With no wish to detract from the merit of Mr. Monk’s invention (upon which I congratulate him and the country) but, in justice to myself, I may remind some of my readers, that in “The Gun,” published early in 1835, I clearly laid down the principle in projectile force, on which this gun is constructed; and as he has since so successfully accomplished this great improvement, he must permit me to say, that the principle is the same which I have striven for, for many years.

Wilkinson says, “Guns cast on this principle, although several hundredweight lighter altogether, recoil less than those on the old plan, with equal charges of powder and ball, in consequence of the weight being properly distributed.” He adds, “One remarkable fact attended these experiments, namely, that by increasing the windage a little, the range was increased also, contrary to the received opinion; but this may be explained by the circumstance, that with very great velocities, and long guns, the column of air to be displaced before the ball quits the gun is considerable, and is condensed so rapidly, that it offers immense resistance to the passage of the bullet, if it fit the bore closely; but, by reducing the size of the ball, and thus increasing the windage, the air has more space to rush round it, and the ball escapes with greater facility.”

If the condensed air prevented the velocity being greater, it argues most clearly, that there was an insufficiency of explosive matter to keep up the velocity until the ball of less windage left the muzzle; and the result with the ball of greater windage establishes this assumption. For if the condensed air was allowed to pass the ball by the windage into the tube, it proves beyond doubt that there was a deficiency of matter there, or that the pressure without was greater than that within. How otherwise could such a result occur? It is a clearly established fact, that with the generality of ordnance, a full waste of one-fourth of explosive force, if not more, occurs by the elastic fluid escaping past the ball by the windage, instead of the reverse. Neither could the condensed air rush into the gun by the windage if there are any permanent gases generated; which Mr. Wilkinson himself says there are, to the extent of “250 times the bulk of the powder in grain.” These would offer a sufficient resistance to prevent the condensed air rushing in. I have found, by an experiment before described, that a ball driven against a column of air which has no escape, if the velocity be trifling, say 800 feet per second, the air will escape by the windage; but double this even, and it is so condensed as to form a cushion for the ball to strike against. Then how much less will the chance be of its escaping, if the velocity become two thousand four hundred feet per second. No, the cause is remote from that of Mr. Wilkinson’s supposition. There is a want of force—an accelerative propellant force—which should continue to the end of the tube, be that length ever so great; and on this point, for one, turns the whole future improvement of gunnery.

The result wished for can be obtained by a systematical arrangement of the granulation of powder. That a much greater velocity than is obtained in this gun—at present the greatest in any piece of ordnance in use, and possessing a longer range than has been obtained by any power in Europe—may and will be attained, I fearlessly assert. I have obtained a velocity with an ounce ball nearly doubling this; and though, as it will be argued, this may be too limited an experiment, yet let us not forget that great results most frequently spring from little causes. Large rivers owe their origin to small springs, and if the same principle by which we can penetrate a plate of iron half an inch thick with an ounce of lead, be fearlessly and judiciously carried through, we may (and no doubt we shall) live to see projectiles thrown 5¹⁄₄ miles. That this will be difficult to accomplish I deny: no difficulty attends it, provided the principles before explained are duly carried out.

The great principle in a propellant force is so to arrange it that you do not obtain too great a velocity at the first move of the projectile; as no mass can be forced from a state of rest to a rapid state of motion, without communicating to the gun a corresponding motion, which will create a recoil: and the greater the motion, the greater the recoil. If the explosive matter merely expands for a brief period, and is burnt out before the shot has reached midway the length of the gun, the velocity there acquired will be reduced, by the condensed column of air in the other half of the barrel, to the velocity it possessed when only one fourth the length of the whole from the breech; consequently it would be advantageous to cut the gun in two at the middle, as a greater force would be then generated advantageously, than by the whole. But if you so arrange the granulation of your powder that it shall proceed into motion more gradually, a rapidly increasing force of elastic fluid will continue to be generated, until it reaches its greatest maximum of velocity (which it should do just as the ball leaves the muzzle) then you obtain with your means the greatest result possible.

We believe that the generality of gunpowder used by our Government is vastly inferior in strength to some made by private makers; yet it is not advisable to jump from one extreme to another. What is wanted is the proper blending of the qualities; an addition of a quantity of Harvey’s quick powder to a charge, when it has driven the ball up three-fourths of the tube of a gun, and probably had acquired a velocity of 2,000 feet per second, might so aid it, that it would leave the muzzle with a velocity of 3,000.

You cannot put a locomotive train in motion at once: if it were attempted, you would break all the carriages; but if you gradually add your force, you gain in time the greatest possible velocity. I have drawn a parallel case: it is the same with gunpowder; only the velocities are widely different. Therefore, I may be pardoned, if I say gunnery is like steam, but in its infancy. Let us but clearly see and understand aright the principle—knowing that the greater momentum the less the action of the atmosphere—and if 3¹⁄₄ miles can be obtained with a ball 60 lbs. weight, 5¹⁄₄ may be easily accomplished by a ball of 120 lbs. Powder is made, and can be had, that will do this.

The use of compound-shot has of late years become quite common in experiments: why lead, with its alloys, has not been more extensively used as a projectile for large guns, has always appeared to me extraordinary. Its weight and density peculiarly fit it for this purpose, and its non-conducting principle is its greatest recommendation. How is it? In no instance, except as compound-shot, do we find any record of the use of leaden bullets on a large scale, save in Sir Howard Douglas’s “Naval Gunnery,” where, in a note, he says, “A very distinguished naval commander mentioned to me, that he knew a person who had served in an American privateer, which, being out of shot, and unable to procure a supply of iron balls, used leaden shot as substitutes. This person always mentioned with great surprise the superior effect of leaden balls.” Well he might; for the reader need not be told that its greater specific gravity would add to its momentum, and a longer medium velocity be retained during its flight. But it possesses another recommendation, superior to all these, in warfare: that of communicating all its force, all its velocity, be they ever so great, to the body struck. Iron does not possess this quality; except to a certain extent, and that at low velocities. Hence the cause of its being found in naval warfare, that balls at low velocities damage and destroy ships’ sides more than at higher velocities, even when passing quite through. Lead, in the act of striking hard substances, iron or stone for instance, is partially flattened, until the flat surface is nearly equal to the diameter of the sphere of the ball; thus parting with all the force it struck the object with, and in most instances falling motionless at the base of the object struck; while in the stone, the surrounding crystals or grains are, by their abrasion on each other, pounded into dust, in proportion to the size and force of the body of lead striking them: in many instances to many times the shot’s bulk, and only flattening the lead, less or more, in proportion to the capability of the stone to resist. Iron striking stone retains its shape: the grains are driven back upon each other, and each offering its proportion of elasticity, the ball is enabled to rebound back; which it does in many instances to a considerable percentage of the whole distance it had been projected. The greater the velocity with which an iron ball is projected the greater the rebound back from a hard substance such as stone. Reversely, the greater the velocity of lead, the greater its effect on the object struck. Walls or fortifications struck by leaden balls at the same velocities (waiving the advantage to lead by its greater specific gravity) would be pounded into sand by less than two-thirds the same number of lead as of iron shot. Any unprejudiced person may soon satisfy himself of this, by trying it with a musket or fowling piece. A leaden ball will pound itself a hole many times its own bulk, while an iron ball will not make a hole half its size.

I have tried many experiments to ascertain the penetrating powers of iron and lead relatively, by striking various objects, from a boiler plate of half an inch thickness down to fir deals. The same size of lead will, under certain circumstances, punch a perfect hole in a plate of half-inch thickness, as I shall have occasion to show; while, under precisely the same arrangement, the iron ball would rebound back with very little diminution of force; and if the plate of iron be at a perfect right angle, the iron ball would nearly return into the muzzle, of the gun. In truth, I had a narrow escape seventeen years ago, from a bullet actually cutting the rim of my hat: so that it will be well, when experimenting in this way, to be sure that the person is well esconced, for fear of unpleasant results.

Lead, therefore, for destroying ships, as well as stone walls, is unquestionably highly advantageous; even if projected with the same velocities as at present adopted for iron. The additional weight would not decrease the destructive effects; it would augment them. I perfectly agree with the American privateer, that the wonderfully destructive power of leaden cannon balls will create surprise, whenever they shall come generally into use. Imagine the effect from a gun of the dimensions of a 10-inch bore. It is dreadful to contemplate.

The effect of lead will be easily understood when explained in the following way. If a 36 lb. shot have a velocity of 2,000 feet per second, the force is equal to the velocity multiplied by the weight, or 72,000 lbs. The whole of this force would strike a wall, and be left there, if communicated by soft lead; if by iron, at the same velocity, it would be minus the amount of force required to make it rebound to the great distance to which iron invariably returns. Though created by the elasticity of the iron itself, this must be deducted from the effect produced, and hence arises the great advantage the lead possesses. We are aware that iron driven with a slight velocity rebounds less; true, and less is its real effect; for under the very same circumstances would the great advantages of the lead predominate. It may be objected, that lead is too easily misshaped; “pure it is, but with alloys not so.” At low velocities it might, but the greater velocities diminish that chance, as it is a well known fact that all dense incompressible bodies are least affected by an extremely sharp motion. All our arrangements in warlike preparations, at present, involve great weight of projectile for fracturing, not perforating. During the siege of Ciudad Rodrigo, 2,159 rounds, of twenty-four and eighteen pounders, were requisite to form the small breach of thirty feet wide, and 6,478 rounds for the larger of 100 feet. At Badajos there was expended, to form three breaches of 40, 90, and 150 feet respectively, the enormous amount of 31,861 rounds of the same sized iron shot. We may be pardoned if we presume to say, one-half the number of lead shot would have done more, and done it better.

If we bear in mind, that the whole round of experiments from which Hutton drew his deductions, were conducted with iron projectiles, the inconsistency of taking his data as the standard will be apparent. The dissimilitude of specific gravities being great, namely, 7,425 and 11,327—or one-third difference—it clearly shows, without any effort of the imagination, that the range must be in the same proportion, with the addition of greater momentum. For it will scarcely be denied, that a ball of gold or platina, from the same cause, will maintain a velocity longer, and consequently range further, than even lead. Hutton’s theory only establishes the principle, that the lighter the body projected, the sooner it is acted upon by atmospheric resistance, and a medium velocity induced. We cannot attribute his preferring iron to arise from an opinion of its penetrating to greater depths; for a man of his extensive knowledge and research could scarcely be guilty of such an error. But even in our enlightened times we are told that elephants cannot be killed with any projectile but steel: leaden balls cannot do it. I should like to try, and receive the tusks in return.

The shrapnell shell (invented by General Shrapnell), or spherical case shot, introduced into the British service of late years, is probably the most destructive of any missile in use. It was intended to supersede—which it has done—canister and grape shot; effecting the same results at treble the range. The construction and principle are very simple, being merely a shell of an unusually light description; in fact, little more than a light cast-iron hollow ball, with a fuse hole. A certain quantity of leaden, or iron bullets is put into it, and the interstices around the ball shaken full of powder; a fuse of the length required is inserted, and explodes the shell during its flight: the peculiarity being, that the body of small balls retain their medium velocity and travel on, merely diverging, latterly, like an immense charge of bird shot. They are usually fired from howitzers, carronades, and other wide bored-guns, at or near horizontal ranges. A considerable delay occurred before they were successfully perfected. It was found that when the small balls did not pack perfectly tight, or were packed overtight, the case frequently exploded in the gun: occasioned, no doubt, by the friction creating a spark at the moment of the howitzer being fired, and thus exploding the shell before its time; but we believe such an occurrence rarely happens now, from other improvements since adopted.

The preceding pages appeared in my last work published in 1846. They are still so much in keeping with the state of gunnery at the present day, and so prophetic of what has, and is about to occur, that they will be regarded, I trust, as bearing the stamp of authority.

Progress, in its rapid advance, has made many English guns objects for the furnace or the museum; and many guns, which formerly ranked high as useful and important weapons, have become things of the past.

Monsters are now all the rage, with a range of three miles, and artillerists contemplate extending the range to double that distance; whilst the projectiles used are not “pounders,” but approximating to tons. So much for improvement. In political economy we are told that improvement to be good must be gradual; but only effect some slight improvement in gunnery, make but one step in advance, and the desire for further improvement then ranges at will, and impossibilities are craved for and sought to be attained.

Twelve years ago the success of Mr. Monck (certainly the first modern improver of ordnance,) led to the unlimited production of undigested plans for changes in gunnery; but, unfortunately for the science, no progress was made on the one great improvement of Mr. Monck.

War found us ill prepared in the field, and out-weighted “afloat,” so that almost as many men were killed by the bursting of mortars, and other ill-constructed guns, as by the fire of the enemy: so critical was our situation, indeed, that but for the general adoption in England’s army of my great invention, the rifle on the expansive or “Greenerian” principle, and its skilful use by our brave soldiers, the war had gone against us. Our rifles were equal in range to our artillery, and this saved us; whilst the enemy, astonished at the effects produced by our bullets, and conscious of their inferiority both in the construction and use of small arms, abandoned the contest: but no doubt with a firm determination to profit by their dear-bought experience.

It is generally admitted that our artillery was never so effective as that of the enemy, and that more is due to the patient and enduring bravery of the British soldier than to our field-pieces and heavy ordnance. That England’s artillery was at this time most disgracefully inefficient, it would be folly to deny. The larger guns were destroyed in an inconceivably short space of time. After five, ten, or fifteen rounds were fired the guns burst, killing the gunners in great numbers.

The readers of my works are already familiar with my opinions on this subject, and their value will now be enhanced by the fact that they have been proved to be the opinions of a “practical man.” Success in the improvement of small arms is a sure encouragement to those anxious for the advancement of projectile science, and it is a coat of mail in which to fight against the prejudices and incompetency of official management.

Who, on reading my work of 1841, believed the prediction I therein made, that small arms would be produced which would render field guns useless? The fact is, however, firmly established, that the best rifles on my principle will out-range by several hundred yards the best “six-pounder” in her Majesty’s service; and that, too, with a repetition of fire wonderfully quick and effective: as the Russians in the Crimea can testify, on more than one occasion.

To endeavour to point out that an improvement may be effected in artillery equal to that which has been effected in small arms, is the object of the following pages.

The author asks a dispassionate perusal and careful study of his work, in justice to himself and to the importance of the subject. Judging of future probabilities by what has already been accomplished, the reader will be prepared for what follows. That great and important changes must take place in artillery cannot be doubted, and should England refuse to avail herself of the improvements to be effected, other nations, and amongst them our late opponent, will be the first to seize and adopt them. In former works I have asked the indulgence of my military readers on account of my scanty military knowledge; but professional men appear to be equally in the dark with the uninitiated: indeed, the lamentable shortcomings of the English artillerists have placed them in the rank of mere “waiters upon providence” for the next step towards improvement. The present time is decidedly propitious; let improvements now be made, and we may surely hope that they will be appreciated by the public, if not by the Government authorities.

What is the best metal for cannon? is a question which has often been asked, and the answers have been very conflicting. Some have advocated mixtures of copper and tin; others have advocated cast iron, and more recently wrought iron; still more recently steel, and, lastly, cast steel, have had their advocates. Arguments as plentiful as summer flowers have been advanced in favour of each, and the argument has been carried on with a vast amount of prejudice and warmth, according to the degree of acquaintance with or attachment to the favourite metal of each individual. It is rare to meet with a mind free from bias, equally well acquainted with the merits of the several metals, and their application to the purposes intended. Still more rare is it to meet with a mind possessing all this metallurgic knowledge, and combining with it an intimate acquaintance with the principles of projectiles, as well as a scientific knowledge of the construction of the engine (the perfection of which consists in its having no points which are weak or unnecessarily strong); and yet it is by such a combination of knowledge and the application of these principles that we must be guided, if we would be successful in the accumulation of projectile power. In the present age we are really alive to the advantage of “playing at long bowls;” and the question now to be determined is, what is the greatest weight of shot and shell we can throw, and how many miles can we project it. The Americans were undoubtedly the first to discover the great advantage of this question with their lesser frigates; the late war has developed it still more; and it now remains to be ascertained how much further can we go. For on this important point the superior efficacy of artillery depends.

At St. Sebastian, in 1813, cast-iron guns threw tons of shot at a range of 1,500 yards; some particular guns firing as many as 3,000 rounds, and yet it is more than probable that had the same guns been used in the Crimea, they would have burst with one-fourth the number of rounds. Experience proves that it is not the great number of rounds fired which strains and destroys the gun, but the high elevation at which these guns are placed, in order to get range; this it is which shakes and disintegrates the crystalline structure of the metal, and thus extreme range is obtained at extreme cost. A gun which at 6° of elevation could stand without a strain 200 rounds, would be likely at an elevation of 30° to burst before 50 rounds were fired. The explanation of this is sufficiently simple. A gun fired at 6° recoils as the projectile is projected forward, in proportion to its relative weight and friction; but when brought up to an elevation above 30° the gun is entirely out of the horizontal, and cannot recoil as it does at an elevation of 6°: the force is now exerted downward, and the gun impinges on its support—i. e., either upon its bed on the deck of the ship, or on the solid earth of the battery, which is comparatively immovable; thus the force which displaced the gun in the first instance is now exerted on the sides of the gun, and the projectile receiving additional force is projected further. But this increased range is obtained at the expense of the gun, which is rapidly destroyed: 50 rounds being sufficient to render it unfit for service. To obviate this rapid destruction of cannon, the metal has been changed from the molecular to the fibrous; that is from cast iron to wrought iron. One object of this chapter is to point out the difficulties which arise in determining what the best metal for cannon really is, and to show the advantages to be gained by attending to the proper construction of projectile engines, without attaching undue importance to the material of which they are made.

Before rejecting cast iron as useless for the construction of large guns, it would be well to assure ourselves that no better quality of metal can be produced than that which is at present manufactured. We must also satisfy ourselves that we have clearly understood the proper shape and form of cannon to resist concussions. These concussions, be it remembered, were more violent in the late than in any previous war; and it is an undoubted fact that we had many more fractures then than on any previous occasion: first, on account of the strain produced by the great elevation required to get increased range; and, secondly, on account of the imperfect shape of the gun. The average number of rounds fired from the 13-inch mortars which burst at the bombardment of Sweaborg was 120, and the fracture in all was peculiarly alike; being at right angles to the supports. Now, that this is due to the form of the gun cannot be doubted; and it will be shown more fully in a subsequent page.

But there is another cause to which I wish now to direct attention, viz., the jamming of the Lancaster shell, which takes place in the increasing spiral of the oval gun at the very point where the projectile acquires a proportional increase of velocity. The effect of this may be illustrated by running a locomotive at its maximum of speed over an increasing curve in the railroad, with the certainty of landing it in an adjoining ditch. The principle which determines the result is quite immutable: viz., that matter in rapid motion cannot be materially affected by any force inferior to the primary force: the tendency of the body being to go straight forward; whereas a slow train goes round a curve with the greatest ease. Two motions can easily be given to matter in a lower velocity; but not so easily when the velocity is much increased. Hence I fear that the inventor of the Lancaster gun must have had a misconception of the true laws of motion; for by increasing the degree of spiral at the muzzle, instead of at the breech of the gun, he has rendered nearly useless what would otherwise have proved a most formidable engine of war.

From these observations it may, I think, fairly be doubted whether the bursting of cannon is owing entirely to the inferior quality of the cast iron used in their formation; though there can, I think, be no doubt that English cast iron is not only much inferior to what it formerly was, but that it is also inferior to that which is now manufactured in Russia. Why it is so will be subsequently explained.

These defects in cast iron have naturally led to many attempts to substitute for it a more durable metal; and in most cases the metal selected has been wrought iron. Wrought iron has been used, not only in solid cannon, but in the original “hoop and stave:” “staves outside,” and “staves inside,” as in Mr. Mallet’s monster mortar. Forms of gun as numerous as can be conceived have been constructed, only to prove themselves in every case most complete failures. Our friends at the Mersey Works, Liverpool, will, no doubt, demur to this assertion; as “all creations of the mind appear most perfect to the father of the thought.”

Great credit is, however, due to the enterprise and energy displayed by the inventors, forgers, and finishers of this great gun; which has been the wonder of many minds in this age of wonders: and it is a highly important invention, as showing what we, as a people, are capable of producing by our mechanical and engineering skill. But here, in my estimation, the wonder ceases; for so sure as there is any truth in the Scotch proverb, “A silk purse cannot be made out of a sow’s lug,” so surely is it true that no man, however great his genius and working powers, can make a good cannon of wrought iron. When the hardness and ductility of silver can be imparted to and held by lead, then will it be possible to make wrought iron accomplish all the purposes required of a good cannon.

In vain may Mr. Horsfall urge that his gun has never been burst. Why? Simply because it has not yet been subjected to the same amount of pressure on the square inch; neither has it been tested at the same elevation as some other 10-inch guns, which, in proportion to their size have stood a more severe test. It is a fact, which may be clearly demonstrated, that if a 10-inch gun of 95 cwt. be fired at an elevation of 40° with 17 lbs. of gunpowder, then a gun of more than six times that weight would not be overloaded if its due proportion of powder were about 100 lbs. Has this gun been fired with one half of this? Until it has been satisfactorily proved to this extent, we feel sure that the authorities are justified in not considering Mr. Horsfall’s a successful achievement.

Whatever may be Mr. Horsfall’s impression with regard to the advantages of wrought iron for making cannon, I am satisfied, after a long and careful study of the results of all its varieties, from the most ordinary to the most perfect combination that has been manufactured—either for tenacity, tenuity, or resistance of lateral pressures—that it cannot answer in large guns.

This I think any one will admit, after considering the two following facts; which apply equally to all varieties and mixtures of wrought iron.

1. The strength of iron is at its maximum in the smallest mechanical structures.

2. The quality of the metal is improved as it is subjected to greater pressure and condensation.

The extent to which this improvement may be carried has never yet been ascertained; every fresh manipulation improves its quality. The tenacity of wrought iron is best displayed in a wire, drawn out until it is not thicker than a human hair. Large masses of wrought iron are weak and spongy in geometrical progression with the mass, and the crystalline or molecular form increases with the mass. If large forgings are carefully examined, crystals will be found whose facets would produce inches of surface; as was clearly demonstrated by the bursting of a 10-inch gun at Woolwich: made, if we mistake not, by Mr. Nasmyth.

Another very important cause which renders large masses of wrought iron unsound (and which was fatal in Mr. Nasmyth’s gun) is the impossibility of condensing tons of wrought iron equally all through the mass. No one has yet been able to overcome this difficulty.

When the force of a blow, however great, is exerted on the surface of a mass of metal, its effect is neutralized within a few inches of the surface; condensation takes place in inverse ratio from the point of impact, and thus the effect is limited. The force which produces this condensation tends also to elongate the fibres of the metal. This elongation is greatest in the immediate vicinity of the force; the fibres in the interior of the mass are less elongated therefore than on the exterior; and the fibres in the interior of the mass being less ductile (from the cause already explained) than those on the exterior, the interior of the mass elongates, by disintegration of its fibres or crystals, and a porous open mass is thus produced, surrounded by a fibrous case. Instances of this are to be seen in broken engine-shafts and anchors; and, indeed, in all large masses of wrought iron, whether fractured by design or accident.

Another cause of this defect in large masses of wrought iron, is the long continued heat to which it is necessary to expose such large forgings. The iron expands as it is heated, but it does not expand equally all through the mass; and the result of this is that the interior becomes porous and spongy: an appearance which must have been observed by every one who has operated upon large masses.

The shaft of the Leviathan weighs 26 tons; but, instead of resisting twenty-six times the pressure of a shaft one ton in weight, it will, from the causes already mentioned, be found unequal to half that amount.

We have watched with much interest the forging of these immense shafts; and the difficulties attending the forging of this structure prove the accuracy of our reasoning on the strength of large masses of wrought iron. The weight of the shaft when finished is 26 tons, and the waste during the process of welding amounts to 74 or 75 tons.

The present shaft is the third which has been manufactured; the two first having proved notorious failures: thus 200 tons of iron have been wasted; which we think is sufficient proof either of the unfitness of the material, or of imperfection in the method of construction. Moreover, I fear that when the vessel encounters a rolling sea, the sudden check and strain produced by the total immersion of one paddle-wheel and the freedom of the other, will subject the present shaft to a strain which will affect its duration; and a vessel costing nearly a million of money may thus be left to reach her port with crippled powers of propulsion.

Where, it may be asked, is the skill in devising engines more powerful than the ingenuity of man can beneficially work out? This has indeed been done in the case of the Leviathan; a monster vessel has been built, but all the engineering skill expended upon it has as yet been insufficient to bring it to perfection.

The skill hitherto displayed in welding large forgings of wrought iron into shafts, or other large masses, has been of a very low order; much more may be done than has yet been accomplished, if men will only set about it in a scientific manner. The present mode of proceeding is to build a structure of iron much as a builder would raise a structure of bricks; large and small pieces being mixed together until the requisite mass is obtained.

Now, a much simpler method, and one which we have tried on several occasions, is first to construct several segments of iron of the requisite length, and of dimensions equivalent to the intended object; each segment being fitted to fill its place amongst a given number of other segments (whether twenty, forty, or fifty segments be required,) so as to form a complete cylinder; as the [wood-cut] will fully explain:—