CHAPTER VII.

THE SCIENCE OF GUNNERY.

“Science begins at the point where mind dominates matter, where the attempt is made to subject the mass of experience to the scrutiny of reason. Science is mind brought into connection with nature.”--COSMOS.

A new era in the science of gunnery may be dated from the commencement of the latter half of the nineteenth century; and long before its close other improvements may be effected which shall eclipse even those of our day. A new elementary principle has been infused into the science. Rifles are now really weapons of the highest order; in truth we may be said to have only recently become acquainted with the principles on which they should be constructed. Little of science had hitherto been applied to them; as military arms they were neglected for centuries, to be ushered into notice at last by the unassisted efforts of private individuals; Government, to whom arms were of the greatest importance, having systematically neglected all improvement, by invariably refusing pecuniary aid, the only grease at all calculated to overcome the friction retarding the wheels of progress. It is an old proverb, that “one extreme begets another,” and when changes are once started, the difficulty is to stop them; the tendency is to rush on from one alteration to another, before we are really well acquainted with what we have so hastily thrown aside. Improvement does not always follow a change; the human race, and the English more especially, have an inordinate desire for “the marvellous;” and multitudes of “wonderful discoveries” and inventions of the utmost value are heralded daily by the ever eager press, often to be as hastily forgotten, or discovered, even by their promulgators, to be myths.

Improvement, to be at all beneficial, must bring with it all the elements of improvement; and to render it easy of attainment, none of its essential points should be costly. In gunnery more especially, it is essential to avoid all unnecessary friction, excess of recoil, and waste of gunpowder; whilst, at the same time, transport of the gun must not be cumbersome, and durability in all its points is essential.

How few study the subject in all its bearings! How rapidly conclusions are jumped at! Even in getting range, if it is to be purchased at the cost of other essential principles, it is not economy to sacrifice several even moderately valuable principles for the sake of range alone. The experience of the present age has shown that all our important discoveries have their limits: the locomotive cannot be used with advantage beyond a certain limited speed; steam vessels attempted to be propelled at an unusual velocity have but a very brief endurance, and rapidly decay. All matter has power only to effect a certain amount of work, and this is endured best at a medium application; showing most clearly that “the race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong.”

Experience is required in the greatest of modern inventions. Electricity, at a moderate immersion, subjected to a moderate superincumbent weight, is an effectual messenger, swift as thought; but when overweighted by immersion to depths where the superincumbent pressure amounts to thousands of pounds upon the square inch, then the messenger becomes paralysed, and refuses to obey man’s will; showing very clearly that until that pressure be artificially removed by insulating the conducting wire in tubes equal to restrain or keep from it that enormous load, the lasting success of an Atlantic telegraph is very doubtful. Many similar instances might be cited to show the necessity of considering well the established laws of nature, and their bearing on the object pursued. In no science is this of more importance than in gunnery; and the hundreds of useless inventions in gunnery are to be ascribed to the non-observance of these rules. The two-grooved rifle, the “steam gun,” “the sciva,” “Warner’s long-range myth,” and many other inventions equally absurd, engage the attention for a time, but soon vanish: in fact, all experience shows that improvement can only be effected in accordance with certain established principles of nature and practical science.

Iron, in quantities sufficient for all reasonable requirements, is a dutiful servant; but, when required of colossal proportions, it refuses to obey: giving us a hint from nature, that we should be content with moderation.

All the principles appertaining to science are based on certain established laws; the unsoundness of one renders the superstructure unsound also; and any deductions drawn from unsound principles are comparatively worthless. Gunnery, as a science, must be in uniformity with truth in all its parts, or no science exists in its arrangements. This will be best illustrated by dividing the subject into several heads: 1st, the explosive power and its velocity; 2nd, the retarding agents, air and friction; 3rd, the construction of the projectile tubes; and 4th, the form of projectile best calculated to attain a perfect result.

1st. The explosive power. Gunpowder has been stated by different authorities to liberate its gases with very different degrees of rapidity. Hutton has given to it a much greater rapidity than Robins has evidently even surmised; though, no doubt, as we have already shown, high velocity in gunpowder depends on several circumstances--the degree of purification of its ingredients, their intimate mechanical mixture (that the elements may exert their affinities with the utmost facility), and, lastly, the degree of granulation observed: and in addition, the suitability of the tubes or vessels for carrying on correctly such important experiments. Robins and Hutton unquestionably may be regarded as the English, if not the European, authorities, and any work on the science of gunnery would be very incomplete without their valuable elucidations.

Previously to the researches of Robins, the theory of atmospheric resistance was but imperfectly surmised, and when he made his statements of the immense resistance which the fluidity of the air offered to projectiles in a high state of velocity, they were treated as the idle chimeras of a speculative brain; and yet he only was enabled to estimate the real effect of the explosive nature and force of gunpowder to a very limited extent: indeed, so limited, that Hutton, only twenty years subsequently, speaking of Robins’ theory, says, “Mr. Robins and other authors, it may be said, have only guessed at, rather than determined. That ingenious philosopher, in a simple experiment, truly showed that, by the firing of a parcel of gunpowder, a quantity of elastic air was disengaged; which, when confined in the space only occupied by the powder before it was fired, was found to be nearly 250 times stronger than the weight or elasticity of the common air. He then heated the same parcel of air to the degree of red hot iron, and found it in that temperature to be about four times as strong as before; whence he inferred, that the first strength of the inflamed fluid must be nearly 1,000 times the pressure of the atmosphere. But this was merely guessing at the degree of heat in the inflamed fluid, and, consequently, of its first strength; both which in fact are found to be much greater. It is true that this assumed degree of strength accorded pretty well with that author’s experiments; but this seeming agreement, it might easily be shown, could only be owing to the inaccuracy of his own further experiments; and, in fact, with far better opportunities than fell to the lot of Mr. Robins, we have shown that inflamed gunpowder is about double the strength that he has assigned to it, and that it expands itself with the velocity of about 5,000 feet per second.” On the same subject he further says:--“On this principle it was that Mr. Robins made all his experiments and performed all his calculations in gunnery. But it is manifest that this method of guessing at the degree of heat of the flame must be very uncertain and unsatisfactory, being much below the truth; since all our notions and experience of the heat of inflamed powder convince us that it is higher than that of red hot iron, and, indeed, it has clearly appeared from our experiments, that its heat is at least double that of red hot iron, and that it increases the elasticity of the elastic fluid more than eight times.”

Here is evidence, though not conclusive, of the immense force of gunpowder, and also of the progress of knowledge on the subject; yet it clearly shows the evil of coming to hasty conclusions, however well supported by apparent facts, as it has had in this case a tendency to check inquiry and retard the advancement of knowledge. For the extensive experiments of Hutton were but limited in discovery, because they were not carried to a sufficient extent, and thus, they are quite unsuited to the present day. He was satisfied because he had gone further than any of his predecessors; and though he established and clearly proved the soundness of his own theory, yet he could not either view the subject to its utmost bounds, nor yet go sufficiently far, but that others, taking up the question where he left it, may pursue the subject to a much more remote limit. The subject, indeed, was limited to him. He far excelled Robins, no doubt, as he has shown; but that involves no detraction from the merit due to Robins for his experiments and discoveries, no more than any individual proving the subject to be a more extensive one than Hutton did, would excel Hutton; for the value of improvement is more to be attributed to him who lays the foundation, than to him who raises the building. So is it in this case; Robins laid the foundation for an extensive knowledge of the nature and power of the explosive fluids, and Hutton built upon that foundation a certain extent of superstructure, and there he left it, without roofing the building: he considered the question as settled. Common consent has, as yet, received his conclusion as unshaken and uncontroverted; and it is not my intention to make the attempt to controvert it, but merely to show that his deductions fall short of what the principles of gunpowder-making admit--carried out in the more extensive way it has been within the last few years--owing to the limited nature of his experiments. This is rather an extensive position for me to occupy, or endeavour to hold: but I do not mean the size of the _tools_ of _experiment_ so much as the diversity of them; for exploding ten thousand tons of powder in the same machine and in the same way, would but give the same or similar results; it is the variety and the singularity of experiments that expand and increase the fund of knowledge, and enable the mind to conceive and comprehend the immensity of the power and velocity of this wonderful combination. We have been principally indebted to the exertions of the chemist for means of purifying and extracting from the ingredients which form this astonishing compound force, the impurities and foreign substances which exist, to a certain extent, in all the three, and thus tending to form a more perfect combustion by increasing the affinities.

Hutton shows that gunpowder is but so much condensed air; for he says “We may hence, also, deduce the amazing degree of condensation of the elastic air in the nitre and gunpowder, and the astonishing force experienced by its explosion. It has been found by Mr. Robins, and other philosophers, that 3-10ths of the mass of the powder consists of the pure condensed air, or that the weight of the condensed air is equal to 3-10ths of the whole composition. But the whole composition of the powder consists of eight parts by weight, of which six parts are nitre, one part sulphur, one charcoal; of which the nitre or 3-4ths of the composition furnishes the whole of the condensed air, while the sulphur and charcoal only give the fire that produces the explosion. But 3-10ths of the whole mass of eight parts is equal to 4-10ths of the six parts of nitre, that is 4-10ths or 2-5ths of the nitre consists of condensed air, or the weight of the gross matter in the nitre as four to six, or as two to three; and these two parts, it is probable, are of equal density or specific gravity. Yet the specific gravity of nitre is 1,900, that of water being 1,000, and of air 1·2, which is contained in 1,900, as much as 1,583 times; that is, the air in the nitre must be condensed the amazing quantity of 1,583 times, if its specific gravity be equal to the compound nitre itself.” Also, “The air is condensed in the nitre about 1,600 times, nearly double the density of water, which may well be considered as probably the greatest degree of compression that air is capable of. Hence it may be perceived that a prodigious force must be exerted by nature in generating nitre; and as this great force actually exists in nature, it is very probable that the air in the nitre is thus compressed into the most dense state possible, and in this consists the similitude among the different particles of nitre.”

This extract from Hutton enables us to divest the question of any technicalities, and puts it in so plain a garb that the simplest mind may comprehend it. Now, the great improvement of chemistry has been to extract from the nitre the gross material which is contained in the proportions--2-5ths impurities, and 2-5ths condensed air; thus, half the quantity being useless, the extraction of these alloys gives a greater quantity of condensed gases in the same quantity of matter; for if we take away 2-5ths of the proportions of useless matter, and supply its place with 2-5ths more condensed air, we thus get 4-5th explosive matter in the same bulk of material, and thus simply obtain an immense increase of power without an increase in bulk. We have here evidence of the progress that has been made in the science of explosive force.

Considering the difference between gunpowder in 1783 and gunpowder in 1858, I cannot say, with Hutton, that the force is doubled now to what it was when he wrote; but I believe that this would not be far from the truth; for it must be quite clear--if he is correct (which I believe he is) in saying the force of gunpowder consists in the quantity of explosive matter let loose and expanded by heat--that the greater the quantity of condensed matter we may have in any given weight, the greater the force, and the more rapid the explosion: purified saltpetre thus forming nearly pure gaseous matter; as the diamond is pure carbon. It seems singular, and is rather presumptuous to say, that Hutton was not much of a chemist; but had he been more so, he must have perceived that in the extraction of the foreign matter from the nitre, existed the means of obtaining an increased quantity of explosive power, and a proportionate increase of speed or velocity in that explosive material.

To ascertain the velocity best suited to all projectiles, constitutes the germ of the science; and that we are approaching a new era in even that more intimate portion of the science, is daily apparent. Science shows clearly that if a given force, a quantity to be correctly ascertained, can produce a certain result, the use of more is waste, and unworthy of the seeker after perfection; and thus we have to determine upon, or define, what is the degree or size of gun for certain effects: a mere calculation nearly allied to that portion of engineering which would define what power of engine would work a thousand cotton spindles, or raise a million gallons of water; and all this will eventually be done. Science requires that there should be no excess, no waste, no unnecessary recoil, and all that combined with the utmost range of projectile; this will have to be defined accurately before we can clearly or truly say we are masters of the science of gunpowder. True it is that the granulation of gunpowder gives a clear road to its attainment; but it will be a wearisome journey to reach the summit: yet it must and will be effected, and the nation that first attempts and carries out the attainment, will evince a real love for and mastery of science.

The following practical experiments illustrate the degree of velocity and the effects of projectiles so clearly, that they alone will convey some idea of the high velocity of the evolutions of the gases in gunpowder.

My experiments are, like Robins’, on a small scale; nor would I, like Hutton, try a brass gun of sixty calibres in length, carrying a one-pound ball; for one is strictly more limited than the other, and thus rendered the results laid down by him imperfect: for, as he says, “If you fill the tube with powder you get no greater velocity, as there is not a duration in the confinement to enable the powder to explode.” If he had assimilated the grain of his powder to the gun, he would have obtained a different result; and a knowledge of this fact, I apprehend, makes all the difference. The greatest velocity he obtained was with powder 1-1/2 times the weight of the ball in a gun of sixty calibres in length, and the velocity he then obtained was only 3,181 feet per second. The inferences that probably induced him to recommend others not to endeavour to obtain a greater velocity than 2,000 feet per second, were, like these experiments, drawn from imperfect data. With a ball of an ounce weight in a barrel of sixty calibres, and with 3-4ths the weight of ball in powder, or 12 drachms, a velocity can be given to the ball to equal it in force to 46,875 pounds. The velocity of this ball I leave to the calculations of the mathematical world. But, however, I will give the results of a round of experiments tried to ascertain this; and if the data laid down be correct, that the velocity of a ball must be multiplied by its weight to find the force, the result will be the establishment of a system of velocity never yet dreamt of. I cannot but imagine that there exists some error; though where it is I know not: every deduction I have drawn is consequent upon the results hereafter described.

“The power required to force a punch 0·50 inch diameter through an iron plate 0·08 inch thick is 6,025 pounds, through copper 3,938 pounds. A simple rule for determining the force required for punching may thus be deduced:--

“Taking one inch diameter and one inch in thickness as the units of calculation it is shown that 150,000 is the constant number for wrought-iron plates, and 96,000 for copper plates.

“Multiply the constant number by the given diameter in inches, the product is the pressure in pounds which will be required to punch a hole of a given diameter through a plate of a given thickness.”

Now an idea struck me, that this would form a very good test of the comparative force of gunpowder, and I consequently commenced an extensive round of experiments.

In the first attempt I found the results to vary with the weight of the pendulum of iron plate, and that it was necessary to obtain uniformity of size and surface; as it must be comprehended that the only resisting medium to the pendulous plate was atmospheric resistance, and a dissimilarity of size of surface would invariably give different results. Having a number of plates of the different thicknesses hereafter described, I continued increasing the charge from a definite quantity, until the projectile was driven with sufficient velocity to perforate the plate suspended. The gun selected for this purpose was of heavy material, weighing nearly seventeen pounds, it was three feet long, the metal of the barrel as thick at the muzzle as at the breech, and carried a spherical ball of sixteen to the pound, or one ounce, and which fitted tight with the thinnest patch procurable. The bore was perfectly cylindrical, and plain inside, being polished longitudinally to a high state of fineness. With a charge of twelve drachms of Curtis and Harvey’s diamond grain powder, the ball went through the half-inch plate, but went only a few yards further; denoting that the effort necessary had nearly exhausted its velocity and momentum.

The recoil of the gun was of the most severe description, and the shoulder had to be protected for many explosions previous to this high charge. The larger sized grain was insufficient, ten drachms effecting the greatest extent of power it seemed capable of, and it became quite apparent that the tube would not explode more powder, as indications convinced me: when any more was added, a portion came out unburnt.

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

The next plate was 7-16ths thick, and a charge of ten drachms punched the piece out clean; nine and a half drachms were equal to it, when the centre of the pendulum could be hit fairly, because there was then an equal resistance from the atmosphere, which cannot exist in cases where the edge of the disc receives the blow.

I got with ease a perforation in a 6-16ths plate, with a charge of either fine or coarse powder, not exceeding eight drachms; a charge of seven drachms of fine grain was unequal to the task; but seven drachms of the coarse showed evidently greater effects produced, though the perforation was not perfect. Six and a half drachms of No. 2 grain penetrated a plate of 5-16ths thick easily, while it took full six and three-quarters drachms of fine grain; five drachms of the larger perforated a quarter-inch plate, but it took full five and a half drachms of fine grain to effect the same; while a 3-16ths plate took three and three-quarters drachms of fine, or three and a quarter of No. 2 grain; and 1-8th plate was easily punched by a charge of two and a half drachms coarse or three drachms fine. I will place the relative results in a table, with the force effected by each:--

Oz. Drachms. Punched a boiler plate Equal in force to 1 ball 12 of powder Half-inch thick 46,875 lbs. 1 „ 10 „ 7-16ths „ 41,015 „ 1 „ 8 „ 6-16ths „ 35,155 „ 1 „ 6-1/2 „ 5-16ths „ 29,295 „ 1 „ 5 „ 4-16ths „ 23,437 „ 1 „ 3-1/4 „ 3-16ths „ 17,578 „ 1 „ 2 „ 2-16ths „ 11,718 „

Were I to adopt the established method of calculation, multiplying the weight of ball by the velocity, I should get an answer that would point to the utter impossibility of any such velocity being possible. And yet the result is, according to the rule of figures, correct; but in truth there are exceptions to many rules, for they are only correct when applied to known products.

That the velocity of these balls was much, very much, greater than 7,000 feet per second of time, there cannot be any doubt; it was nearly three times that. Yet I must not conceal the fact, that this punching is the more perfect, the higher the velocity; and it shows how the fibres of iron are separated from a want of vibration to equilibrise the cohesion. Mr. Colthurst found that duration of pressure lessened the ultimate force necessary to punch through metal, and thus it may be that extremely quick pressure may produce the same. Therefore I suspect it is not the most correct theory that calculates force to be accomplished at all times by extreme velocity; there will be found discrepancies in the rule, and one of them arises from no calculation ever having been made with extreme velocities: medium velocities may generally give such conclusions, but the very extreme in this case can never have been taken into consideration at all; as I have very little doubt--in fact, I am certain--that no person ever obtained such high velocity before. It must, and is a vast deal greater, incomprehensibly greater, than any velocity obtained by Hutton; and much more extensive than ever could be obtained, or, in fact, ever will, by any ordnance whatever. I wish much I could have experimented with a gun of greater length and bore, for with one in every way fitted for the purpose, I have no doubt of being able to perforate an inch thickness of plate.

Should any person possessing the opportunity and means, wish to try the experiment, I would advise them to get a barrel of 4-1/2 feet long, 8 bore, to carry a 2 oz. ball, and of a weight to allow of extending the explosion up to 30 drs. of powder; they would then obtain the extent of force I have suggested. There is a certain point to be strictly observed: see that the plate you use is perfectly sound; for if laminated, or composed of various plates not firmly welded and attached, the experiment would be imperfect, as there would be an uneven vibration created, and acting as the hammer does when held against the point of the nail while driving it in, clinches the point, so does the substance in the portions of plate prevent a perforation. An ounce ball, suspended against the back of the pendulum, by the jar or blow it receives and communicates, completely prevents the effect, and the ball is flattened, instead of perforating the object struck: so is it if you place a 1/4-inch plate against any support; it thus has the power of perfectly resisting the force of the ball, though fired with considerably more power than is requisite under other circumstances. The effect appears to be chiefly mechanical; the outer fibres are driven in upon those behind them with such quickness that they lose cohesion, or are condensed quicker than the waves of vibration travel, thus giving them no means of communicating the vibration. But when punched, the rapidity of their motion produces in the metal a sound of the most intense vivacity, which plays upon the ear for a considerable period, with rather a pleasant effect. Lead alone is capable of being used in this experiment; except, of course, the precious metals, which it would not be _convenient_ to use. Even an adulteration of the slightest quantity of solder is sufficient to prevent the result which lead, pure, will invariably give. Lead projected against lead, if sufficiently thick, cannot perforate, but the lesser portion becomes flattened; a cast-iron ball fired against lead, with a certain velocity, is broken into pieces, affecting the lead comparatively little: showing beautifully the peculiarity of dense incompressible bodies to resist most effectually the greater the velocity with which they are struck. Water will, if struck very sharply with the flat of a sword, act against the blow in a way to splinter the blade into pieces. The greater the velocity with which a ball is fired into water, the less the depth of penetration; thus showing clearly the many excellent properties of dense incompressible bodies as projectiles, and proving the objection that lead is too soft for artillery to be without a foundation, and only entertained from a want of knowledge of its nature.

A point of great importance was exemplified during these experiments; and as the question has lately given rise to considerable discussion, it will be well that the facts should be stated.

At very short distances from the muzzle of the gun the penetration was found to be less than at distances more extended. At five yards the iron plate could not be perforated; at ten yards the effect was much greater, but fifteen yards was the least distance at which it could be said to be effectually perforated; at twenty yards the result was still more satisfactory, clearly demonstrating that bullets gain both in velocity and penetration for a considerable distance after leaving the muzzle of the gun. The following experiments verify this remark:--

In the report of the experiments which were carried on at Cork in 1852, it is stated that the power of penetration of an elongated rifle bullet gradually increases as the range is increased, up to 190 yards.

In order to prove this, experiments were carried on at Enfield for three days with a variety of fire-arms, and different sorts of projectiles. On the fourth day the experiments were repeated with the common musket and Wilkinson’s rifle. The former, at forty yards, gave a penetration of 2·25 inches; and the latter averaged 2·75, in a target of green elm. Again: at ninety yards, the musket penetrated 2·25 inches, and the rifle 3·5 inches. At 120 yards, the musket gave 2·5 inches, and the rifle 3·25. Both being subsequently fired at every successive ten yards up to 220, the result was that the penetration of the musket ball gradually decreased in power as the distance increased, while the elongated bullet gained power of penetration up to 190 yards; after which it slightly decreased.

2nd. Consequent on the velocity of the explosive fluids is the resistance of that aëriform fluid filling all space. It has been calculated that in a vacuum, matter in motion would be a long time in coming to rest; and very providentially it is that nature in her grand arrangements has made one element to control another. In no other portion of nature’s work has anything more wonderful than atmospheric air been produced; its action on the velocity of projectiles is of so extensive a nature, that without clearly understanding that action, the science of gunnery never can be thoroughly acquired. The resistance of the atmosphere is in proportion to the velocity of the attempt to displace it; the higher that velocity becomes, the greater is the resistance. This is shown by the actions of all the fulminates. A quantity of the fulminate of silver exploded on a copper plate will perforate that plate, or, if fired upon a piece of wood, will bury itself in that substance, splintering it in proportion to the quantity. Now, ordinary gunpowder has no such effect as this, because, though it may produce the same amount of expansive gas, it produces it at one-fourth the velocity of the fulminates: the air is driven back upon itself so gradually as to offer no very important resistance; but the action of the fulminates is so rapid and so violent that the high elasticity of the air has not time to yield, and the force is driven into the apparently more solid material, the copper or the wood.

The mode in which atmospheric resistance mostly interferes with projectile force is owing to the columnar form it assumes in the tubes of all descriptions of gunnery. If the velocity of gunpowder be as great as we suppose it to be, the displacement of a column of air must be effected by driving the whole column in a gun-barrel of many inches, into a column probably less than half an inch in height; or, if the length of the tube from the starting of the charge to the muzzle be 38 inches, then will the displacement require a force capable of condensing thirty-eight atmospheres into one, or something like 570 lbs.; without estimating the lateral pressure of that column on the sides of the gun-barrel, which may be safely estimated at one-half more. It may be supposed that the column would be partially in motion for a greater distance than half an inch in front of the projectile; but this is disproved by the fact that time is essential to put aëriform matter in motion, and naturally it never does so at a greater velocity than it is familiarly known to do in the shape of winds: but the fact is better illustrated by the frequent bursting of barrels near the muzzle, caused by a piece of snow or clay, a piece of paper or wadding. Were a current established around this projection it would pass on, but the air strikes these light obstructions when in a high state of condensation, amounting to many atmospheres in one: so many as to be nearly equal to a solid which is more powerful than the barrel; the latter therefore succumbs to it.

The resistance of the air is so highly philosophical a question, that I merely touch on its actual bearings on the passage of projectiles to show how the quantity of force is absorbed or expended in relation to the quantity of the gunpowder employed; which, it may be assumed, is a proportion of nearly one-third of the whole, or a quantity independent of that necessary to give velocity to the leaden projectile, to enable it to overcome the still and uniform impeding agent up to the end of its flight. The rapid exit of the bullet from the barrel, with a resisting influence of this weight into the comparatively insignificant one of 15 lbs. to the square inch, will fully explain how it is that a bullet increases in velocity even up to a considerable distance after leaving the muzzle of the gun; and further showing that in all arrangements of truly scientific gunnery, the increasing resistance must be met by a fresh production of explosive fluid over every atom of space in that tube, where it is demonstrable that the resistance is increasing in a geometrical progression as the point of exit is becoming nearer; so that gunnery, unless all the contingencies are provided for, must necessarily remain an imperfect science.

Intimately allied to the displacement of the atmosphere is the amount of friction. Gunnery is now rid of the anomaly of being assisted by friction: the detention of the projectile in the tube by artificial friction, to enable more force to be generated, is one of those absurdities pardonable only in bygone days. Science is best consulted by lessening friction; guns of steel, with interiors as fine as the polish in a mirror, are found to shoot best: a rough road is but so much force uselessly absorbed; the experience of the last few years having proved that a range of 1,800 yards cannot be accomplished except with barrels having surfaces as smooth as possible.

Rifles, no doubt, are now in use in which, by increasing the degree of spiral, friction is more than doubled, perhaps trebled; but such unscientific constructions are but as one error to counteract another. Unscientifically formed projectiles not having in themselves the principles necessary for true flight, have to receive a counteracting agency in the shape of additional spinning, on an axis coincident to the line of flight, to enable them to range a given distance, with, as it will be perceived, an additional amount of expellant agency; but these cannot be included in the category of scientific gunnery.

3rd. Next to absence of friction is the construction of the gun barrel. Already have we shown that the inner surface of a gun barrel requires to be like glass; next to this it is necessary that the metal should be composed of the most unyielding structure. Metals absorb force in proportion to their softness: a barrel constructed of lead gives the worst result of any metal; in truth, as is the increase of tenacity and density in the tube, so is the increase of range in projectiles. The wonderful results displayed by the use of steel guns of all descriptions bear out this assertion to the fullest extent. A yielding gun barrel may be compared to the dragging of a heavily loaded waggon over boggy ground, which rises in a wave before the wheels during its progress.

4th. Next in importance to the inflexibility of the gun barrel is the form of projectile best calculated to displace the atmosphere during its extended flight. Under the head of Rifles this subject will be more fully discussed; but, as thousands of years have stamped the arrow as being in accordance with nature’s laws, it should no doubt be the object of science to approximate the leaden projectile to that form as much as possible, and hence the cylindro-conoidal may be assumed to be the best form of projectile.

That both Jacob’s and Whitworth’s bullets partake of a certain amount of “_wabbling_” motion after leading the muzzle of the gun is certain, from their length, as well as from the fact that in both the centre of gravity is in the hinder part of the bullet; thus they are both in reality bad in a scientific point of view.

If any merit can be claimed for either, it is on account of the mechanical ingenuity displayed in neutralizing the effects of want of scientific principle. The want of principle, however, is not the only evil, were such guns to come into general use; their manufacture, in the hands of that portion of the gun trade which never estimates consequences, and never studies the theory of the science at all, but manufactures all fire-arms by “rule of thumb,” would prove dangerous in the extreme.

The bursting of barrels in any attempt to project lengthened projectiles is of a very different description to that which ordinarily occurs, on account of the different direction in which the force is applied. In consequence of their greater length, and their increased friction against the sides of the barrel, they are more reluctantly set in motion--_i. e._, their inertia is with greater difficulty overcome. The result of this is, that in overcoming their inertia the greatest strain is exerted backward, on the breech of the gun; which, if not more firm than usual, is blown out, entering the forehead of the shooter: an accident which would prove fatal not only to the gun, but to the person who used it.

This accident may no doubt be effectually guarded against by strengthening the breech end of the gun as well as the breech itself; but without that precaution it is to be feared that such accidents would be of frequent occurrence.

A considerable error may easily be promulgated, as to the heat necessary to be applied ere gunpowder will explode. A late writer says, it is necessary to raise it to 600 degrees before it is explosive. This is a splitting of hairs, and such a palpable mystification, that it is scarcely worth noticing. But I will explain: if you place upon a plate a few grains of powder, by heating the plate underneath (for instance, on a smith’s fire,) you will see the sulphur giving out a blue flame, it being easily fused. As the plate becomes heated to nearly a red heat, the whole explodes, in consequence of the charcoal and nitre not being hot enough to allow the gases generating the heat to be liberated; but as soon as this does take place the explosion ensues. Now, it is a well known fact, that the smallest particle of matter possessing above 600° of heat, will ignite any quantity of powder it comes in immediate contact with; we will suppose with one portion of charcoal, one of sulphur, and one of nitre (it matters not how small they are: a ten hundredth part of the substance of one of the smallest grains of powder would suffice), and if it has the means of communicating to these small portions 600°, this is sufficient, as their explosion induces also that of the very largest quantity: for it ought to be perfectly understood, that a great explosion is but so many millions of small ones combined, and by their united force effecting the great results we see. The ingredients of powder are ground and intimately mixed together on the bed of the mill to the great extent they are, to the end that, if possible, there shall not be in the composition two grains or portions of one ingredient in immediate contact with each other; but that, when the ignition does take place, each may be present to add its peculiar gas, in order that each affinity may be supplied. Thus becomes evident the necessity of a most extensive incorporation, a blending and equal division of mixture throughout the whole material.

The advantage of unglazed gunpowder is here fully shown; for it presents an inequality, a roughness of surface, over which the flame from the percussion mixture cannot travel without igniting some of the prominent parts, and thus the whole. You may glaze powder and make it so smooth that it would be very difficult indeed to ignite; but except that it enables the powder to resist moisture better, it is otherwise very detrimental, as tending both to prevent ignition and lengthening the period of effecting it.

The flame from the percussion powder is of that intense and vivid description, that if a charge of powder in the breech of a gun is loose, the flame will form a mass of condensed air round itself, and driving the grains of powder before it, prevent the immediate contact of the heat and the particles of powder, until the heat is expended; and thus arises a “miss fire.” If the powder is up only to the nipple, there being a quantity of air in the tube of that nipple, the explosion of the fluid will drive down this air, and condense it between the powder and top of the nipple to such an extent as to cause a certain “miss fire.” It becomes requisite to find a remedy for this, and it can only be done by bringing the powder into the very vicinity of the explosion on the nipple. This can be effected in several ways, but the most perfect is to obtain as direct a communication as possible; a widening of the perforations of the breech, and space to allow the powder free access up the nipple. For this purpose we propose an improved form of nipple. The centre one of the three (here shown in section) is considerably broader and shorter than the others. A cap made broader and not so deep would be an improvement, as bringing the point of ignition nearer the charge, and thus effecting a saving of time; for great and wonderfully quick as is the explosion, it is clear to the senses that it may be quickened. We are not finding fault with the “lightning being too slow,” as Colonel Hawker says; but science means perfection, and the nearer we can come to it the better.

The nipples now in general use have the smaller orifice at the bottom, and, being lined with platina, never foul. Experience has shown that admitting the gunpowder into the nipple “is not advantageous,” especially with large grained powder; by constructing the nipple with the small orifice at the bottom, the largest grain can be used beneficially. As the velocity of the fulminating gas is much greater than “a train” of gunpowder ever can be, quickness is also gained by their adoption. I have used them for many years with great success; nothing but cost deters their general adoption. The passing of the flame through the very small opening in the platina, by this very high impingement, increases its heat to a great extent, ensuring explosion.

The true science of gunnery consists in knowing that a certain force is requisite to effect a certain purpose, or, in other words, to kill at a certain distance; and also how to arrange that force so as to effect the purpose without having any extra _force_, or any waste of powder, nor yet too little, but with a corresponding result: a sufficiency; neither more nor less. This we have shown is attainable by the mechanical arrangement of granulation; for it is useless to use less, or to use an iota more of fine grain powder, if the size larger will effect the purpose without that iota. Propellant velocity is the grand desideratum in all gunnery; the obtainment of this, to the greatest extent, is the power of killing at the greatest distance: all ranges are dependent on velocity; no extreme _range_ can be obtained without a corresponding speed.

The very finest powder, it will be perceived, is fitted--perfectly fitted, preferable, indeed--to coarser grain for guns of a short length of tube, where a perfect combustion of the whole charge can be obtained without any waste or want; but as such is quite unsuited for longer barrels: I cannot too often repeat it. The column of air is the ruling power. Look what its effects are by Hutton’s calculations, with the very low velocities he obtained! So great as to bring all projectiles he used to a medium velocity, before they were projected beyond a certain distance. Then what must its resistance be where the velocities are trebled? I say trebled, for my powder and the percussion combined have more than trebled the velocities. You must then clearly have a powder of such grain as suits the capacity of your gun. All barrels have a size of grain that will suit them best, and manufacturers of gunpowder will consult their own profit and the convenience of sportsmen, if they assimilate the grain of powder to various sizes; as in shot, to No. 1, No. 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on: eventually this system must be adopted.

This will explain quite clearly how the fact (singular to many) occurs, of short guns excelling their longer competitors, and how frequently a particular maker obtains an immensity of credit for an excellent gun only twenty-two inches: “Beat my Lord So-and-so’s of thirty inches!” and how, “When I cut four inches off my double, she shot better than ever she did.” All these occurrences are perfectly dependent on a knowledge of the generating of the explosive force, and may be reversed at any time by a person possessed of sufficient knowledge of these facts: put in coarse grain into the short gun, and fine into the long, and the facts will be changed considerably, as will be easily seen. A degree of mystery has hitherto existed as to the cause of this discrepancy; but I trust this explanation will clear it up.

Experiment has shown the error of stating that only a certain quantity of powder could be consumed: the proportion stated was considerably below the actual quantity, as the experiments of punching the plates show; for since twelve drachms can be burnt in a three-feet barrel, therefore ten drachms may be consumed in one two feet eight inches, with a given weight to lift. In addition to this, must be placed the fact of improvement, both in the composition and granulation of the powder; which we have no hesitation in stating has been considerable, within only a very few years, all tending to the quickness of generating force. The granulatory system, if acted upon, will give the sportsman or soldier a completely new power in gunnery; for it must be evident, if we have the means of projecting certain bodies with an extreme velocity, say 5,000 feet per second, it becomes a simple calculation to ascertain the quantity of force and length of tube to give to a certain weight. Take, for instance, an ounce ball in a barrel two feet six inches long. Extremely fine grain powder, from its rapidity of expansion, gives to the ball this velocity at fifteen inches from the breech; the remaining fifteen inches contain a column of air highly condensed, which will inevitably reduce this velocity back nearly fifty per cent., or 2,500, and with that velocity the ball leaves the muzzle. Therefore, as we have already said, it must be evident you have here generated a high speed to be as quickly reduced; and it shows clearly that if a different grain of powder would expand from breech to muzzle, increasing the velocity on a granulated scale until it obtained the highest, or 5,000 feet per second, as the ball left the muzzle, you would save here clear 50 per cent. in force, with less recoil, less internal strain on the barrel, and with exactly the same weight of powder; thus showing that you have just a definite quantity of force in a definite quantity of powder.

The true science of gunnery is the knowledge how to best arrange the collateral parts, so that you may obtain the greatest result with the least means. I have also clearly shown that the resistance of the atmosphere is one, and the principal obstruction in the attainment of high velocities; its resistance being regulated entirely by the degree of speed with which it is wanted to be displaced. Thus it is true, as both Robins and Hutton have shown, that only a certain velocity can be obtained beneficially; though the degree is considerably greater then either conceived, as far greater impetus has been obtained, and projected bodies have ranged much beyond their calculations, and that beneficially too. One drawback on the theory of these gentlemen is their calculating the velocities with iron projectiles; for the heavier the material the more powerful the momentum, and consequently the longer retention of their velocity, from not presenting the same space to the resisting medium, the air.

The development of the system of granulation must and does exercise considerable control over the shooting of barrels of every description. I have already explained what has been hitherto considered the curious phenomena of short and long barrels shooting so dissimilarly, and this illustration completely establishes the fact of the expulsive and repulsive forces being controlled by each other: as either preponderates, so is the result. The open-ended barrel projecting balls, and eventually bursting, is a beautiful and interesting elucidation, both of the force of gunpowder and the stubborn nature of the atmospheric fluid. All these facts are valuable, inasmuch as they lay bare circumstances which have never been satisfactorily accounted for, and enable the mind of lowest capacity to understand the cause and effect.

The superiority of one barrel in throwing shot stronger and more evenly distributed, arises, it will be easily seen, from the absence, or existence of, internal friction, when contrasted with the different degrees of expelling force, and the degree of resistance from the atmosphere; it also accounts clearly for the fact of guns shooting stronger on one day than on another, in fine and in rough weather: the weight, the resistance of the air, is the only cause of the variation; for gunpowder cannot drive back a dense atmosphere as quickly as a lighter one. The cause of guns bursting is to be placed to the account of both air and the generation of the explosive fluid so instantaneously; the solid front which air offers to quick compression, throws the force on the barrel, and the sides of the tube give way because they are weaker: this cannot occur so easily with powder of a more gradually expansive force, therefore safety is consulted in its use, in addition to the numerous advantages it otherwise possesses.

Mr. Blaine, in his Encyclopædia of Rural Sports, has the following: “The increase of metal in the detonator, we think, with Colonel Hawker, to be an essential requisite, first, to resist the quicker, and, consequently, more forcible, expansive force applied by the ignition of the powder through the agency of detonation, and tend to lessen the recoil so much more forcibly felt in most detonators. This increased weight of percussion Mr. Greener, however, objects to, and inquires, ‘Whether some of the best flint guns met with, have not been very light?’ To this we answer, that it was the principle on which the explosion of the flint gun was effected that enabled it to be made lighter, and yet to remain equally safe in using; but we also know, that where it was required to add to the rapidity and force of the ignition, it then became necessary to increase the substance of the barrel.”

Experience teaches the writer, and I dare say it would Mr. Blaine, if he were to experiment to the extent I have done, that there is no rapidity in the ignition further than the closing of that point of ignition by the cock, and no “force” beyond what the comparative instantaneous ignition of the gunpowder in the nipple creates. This is quite sufficient to prevent the further penetration of the percussion flame; and the only increase, to quote his own words, “to resist the quicker, and, consequently, more expansive, force applied by the ignition of the powder through the agency of detonation,” arises from an improvement (as it is termed) in the granulation of the powder, which alone creates the increased expansive force. This will be clearly understood by any one reading this work from the beginning; the only difference between the flint and percussion systems is the stopping of the orifice of ignition in one, and allowing it to escape in the other; for the flame has to travel to _windward_ (to use a nautical expression) in the flint; the other has its own accumulating power to force ignition through the body of the powder. This alone constitutes the difference. The necessity for an increase of metal at the breech of a barrel does not arise from any peculiarity in the mode of communicating the fire, but in the increased inflammability of the powder alone. The extreme smallness of grain has effected this more than the use of fulminating flame; and the continuous cry for fine powder, to get better up the nipples, has produced an alteration which is placed wrongfully to the credit of the percussion.

Again, he says, “Mr. Greener, however, would have us acquire this increase of power of resistance, not by quantity of material, but by increased tenacity and elasticity in the metal the gun is formed of, and we agree that it would be a great improvement if it could be brought about. But what is our prospect of it? Is it not the general complaint that gun metal is not by any means what it was? We have shown that it is not; and, therefore, we do not think, as Mr. Greener asserts, that any recommendation of increased weight of metal to the percussion barrel beyond that of the flint gun “is founded on ignorance;” but, on the contrary, that the very reason Mr. Greener gives to prove it, is that which we think affords evidence of its perfect rationality, _the explosive force created_.” The answer given above applies to this also: save on the score of lessening recoil, superior quality is preferable, to quantity.

The shooting powers of gun barrels are dependent on two circumstances--goodness of metal, and a proper shape of exterior: it cannot be too often repeated, _that a gun barrel is a spring_, to all intents and purposes; if you add metal, you add stubbornness, and destroy that expansibility, without the existence of which the barrel is, comparatively speaking, useless. Heavy, ponderous barrels do not propel a charge of shot with either that smartness or degree of closeness that a barrel more scientifically constructed does; you have less recoil certainly, but the addition of half an inch of more metal behind the butt of the breech would do this more effectually, and save you carrying an additional weight. The gradual ignition of powder obviates the necessity of a great thickness of metal in the sides of the barrels; but if it is determined to persevere in the use of peculiarly fine grained powder, you would certainly be justified, nay, required, to have more and better metal than at present, for the electrical nature of the explosion will throw upon the tube that force which would be more judiciously employed in giving impetus to the charge of projectiles.

I have found that expansion will increase the shooting powers of a barrel; but then it must not be the expansion of an unelastic piece of metal, but of metal whose elasticity rebounds with a force equal to that with which it expands; for whatever else you may obtain by creating friction, by boring the breech end of the barrel wider you obtain a greater expansion, as it no doubt has that tendency. We find it an invariable fact, that when barrels are very heavy, compared with their size of bore (if a cylinder), they shoot weak. Also, when barrels are made of irons of different temperatures, where one is placed to prevent the expansion or springing nature of the other, they are never found to shoot well. As a proof of this fact, let any one take the best barrel he ever shot with, and encase it with lead very tight; fire it at a dozen sheets of paper, and see if the effect be equal to what it was when the barrel was unencumbered. On the contrary, it will be found to have shot very weak, though close. Let him then examine the lead; and, if any moderate substance, he will find that the explosion has enlarged it considerably. This experiment I have tried repeatedly, and can vouch for its truth.

The proof of barrels is another fact corroborating the truth of our assertion. What else can occasion the bulging, but the expansion? Where the barrels are possessed of soft and hard portions (which is the result of different tempers of different metals), one expands further than the other, and then, of course, the soft part receives no assistance from the hard, and it does not return to its original state.

Put on a barrel, from the breech end to the muzzle, a number of rings of lead; be sure you have them tight, and not further apart than three or four inches; fire that barrel with a usual charge, and if it be a correct taper for shooting, it will have expanded the whole of the rings an equal distance.

From the observations already made, the reader will perceive that the shooting of all barrels depends on a certain degree of friction. The degree of friction necessary, varies according to the nature and substance of the metal. Those metals that require least shoot best. The object of the friction is to create a greater force, by detaining the charge longer in the barrel. If, then, there should not be an extra quantity of powder to consume, the friction would be a decided evil.

This may be understood by rifle practice, in which we find that a short barrel of eighteen inches, with a certain charge, will throw a ball as straight, and quite as strong, or stronger, than a barrel of three feet, loaded with a similar charge. I account for this fact thus: the barrel of eighteen inches will burn all the powder put into it; the long one can do no more. As soon as the ball has left the short barrel, it meets with no impediment but the air. By the time the ball in the longer one has travelled eighteen inches the powder is all consumed; the volume of air in the remaining eighteen inches acts as a destroyer of the force given to it, and it naturally drops its ball short of the other. Increase the charge of powder to as much as the long one can burn, and then it will throw its shot to nearly twice the distance of the other.

An addition of powder beyond the quantity the barrel can consume is disadvantageous; the reverse will be found equally so. Thus it is with fowling-pieces. The quantity of powder that a gun would burn in the shape of a cylinder, would be too little, when, by altering that shape, you increase the friction. The quantity must, therefore, be increased, or this friction will diminish the force of the shot. It is on this that the mistaken supposition is founded, that short barrels will shoot as far as long ones. It is true that with a small charge, or very fine powder, the short barrel will kill at the distance of thirty yards, as well as the long one; but put in the long one as much powder as it can consume, then try the two at twice the distance, and you will find out the mistake under which you have been labouring.

It is on the nature of the metal that the goodness of the shooting principally depends. That barrel which is possessed of the greatest degree of elasticity and tenacity, will throw its shot strongest and closest with the least artificial friction. It is on the knowledge of the qualities and temperatures of the various irons, and on practice in the art of shooting, that a man’s ability in making guns shoot with precision must rest. All plans are merely methods by which an unscientific maker has most frequently succeeded. It would be no difficult task to produce a hundred barrels which will shoot nearly alike; yet every barrel shall be different in its bore.

The length of friction depends entirely on the length of the barrel. Long barrels require more than short, though the latter require it in a greater degree. A mode of creating friction, much practised by those who are ignorant of the true method, is to bore the barrels as rough and as full of rings as possible. These rings are often taken for flaws; though that may be ascertained by noticing whether or not they have the same inclination as the twist, and whether or not they are at the jointing of a spiral. If they be not, the chance is that the barrel is ring-bored, as it is termed. This roughness, however, answers the same as friction by relief; but barrels thus roughened are very liable to lead, and become foul. While the well-bored barrel will fire forty shots as well as twenty, these cannot be fired more than twenty times with safety and effect.

Each of the barrels in the table below, if 3-16ths thick at the breech, is equal to the pressure stated. The resistance of a charge of shot of one ounce we find to be more than before stated; and the additional increase of explosive force obtained at the moment of ignition, requires the amount to be much greater in computation, therefore, we may safely take a pressure of 1,700 pounds to the inch of tube. The reader will perceive, on reference to the following table, that with the tube filled with powder for an inch in length, which is a small charge, the explosive force will be equal to 40,000 pounds, or nearly 1,700 pounds to the inch.

Pressure of Surplus charge. strength. Laminated and other steel barrels lbs. lbs. lbs. are equal to a pressure of 6,022 1,700 4,329 Wire twist 5,019-1/2 1,700 3,319-1/2 New stub twist mixture 5,555 1,700 3,855 Old stub twist 4,818 1,700 3,118 Charcoal iron 4,526 1,700 2,826 Threepenny skelp iron 3,841 1,700 2,141 Damascus iron 3,292 1,700 1,592 Fancy twisted steel 3,134 1,700 1,434 Twopenny skelp iron 2,840 1,700 1,140

If the charge he increased to one ounce and a half, the length it occupies, and the lateral pressure by the jamming, will create an additional pressure in proportion, or near 2,550 pounds, as under:--

Pressure of Surplus 1-1/2 oz. shot. strength. Laminated and other steel barrels lbs. lbs. lbs. are equal to a pressure of 6,022 2,550 3,472 Wire twist barrel 5,019-1/2 2,550 2,469-1/2 New stub twist mixture 5,555 2,550 3,005 Old stub twist 4,818 2,550 2,268 Charcoal iron 4,526 2,550 1,976 Threepenny skelp iron 3,841 2,550 1,291 Damascus iron 3,292 2,550 742 Fancy twisted steel 3,134 2,550 584 Twopenny skelp iron 2,840 2,550 290

A charge of shot two ounces weight will be greater in pressure than barrels of these dimensions are equal to restrain, and, consequently, no barrels should be charged to this extent at any time; but inferior barrels, as a matter of certainty, are sure to give way if so loaded.

Pressure of Surplus. 2 oz. shot. lbs. lbs. lbs. Laminated barrels, &c. 6,022 3,400 2,622 Wire twist barrels 5,029-1/2 3,400 1,619-1/2 New stub twist mixture 5,555 3,400 2,155 Old stub twist 4,818 3,400 1,418 Charcoal iron 4,526 3,400 1,126 Threepenny skelp iron 3,841 3,400 441 Damascus iron 3,292 3,400 Fancy steel barrels 3,134 3,400 Twopenny skelp iron 2,840 3,400

The foregoing tables show clearly the danger of persevering in using heavy charges of shot; for it must be borne in mind that accidental circumstances will increase this pressure, and never can act so as to lessen it: a foul gun, or a variety of other circumstances, being sure to increase the danger.

Having fully explained the nature of gunpowder, it remains to say something about the other portion, namely, the shot. That a barrel creating explosive force, until the charge is in the act of leaving the muzzle, will shoot better than another which does not do this, there cannot exist a doubt; for this is the germ of the science. Also that the column of air in barrels, where the explosive fluid is sooner expended, acts upon the wadding, and influences the lateral direction of the shot, there can also be no doubt; therefore, more attention is requisite to this point than is generally given. I am quite certain that all well-constructed barrels, both as regards metal and exterior shape, shoot best, shoot so longest, and foul or lead less, than barrels having the aid of friction: soft barrels require it, no doubt, but why make soft barrels? The others cost but little more, and the superiority admits of no question. The quantity of shot is a matter of the first consequence, and I think that I have clearly established the fact, that the less the weight, in proportion to the force, the greater the speed or velocity given to that weight; hence it follows that to be beneficial a certain quantity is suited.

All guns, according to their bore and length, will shoot a certain weight and a certain size of shot best. A great deal of shot in a small bore lies too far up the barrel, and creates an unnecessary friction; and the shot, by the compression at the moment of explosion, becomes all shapes: a circumstance which materially affects its flight. If of too great a weight, the powder has not power to drive it with that speed and force required to be efficacious, because the weight is too great in proportion.

Those who reason from mathematical calculation will object to this doctrine. They will say, the greater the weight the greater the effect. No doubt it is so, if thrown with a proportionate force; but that cannot be obtained with a small gun. We must adapt the weight of projectile force to the power we are in possession of; and from many experiments, I am inclined to think, that a fourteen gauge, two feet eight inches barrel, should never be loaded with above one ounce and a quarter of shot (No. 6 will suit best), and the utmost powder she will burn. A fifteen gauge will not require more than one ounce; and no doubt No. 7 would be thrown by her quite as strong as No. 6 by the fourteen gauge gun, and do as much execution at forty yards with less recoil. Setting aside all other reasons, I should, on this account, prefer the fifteen gauge-gun, if both be of a length; as I find as much execution can be done at the same distance with one as with the other. To render a fourteen gauge barrel superior, Colonel Hawker is right in stating, that it should never be under thirty-four inches; which description of barrel I very much approve. He also says, “You cannot have closeness and strength in shooting combined, beyond a certain degree:” an observation, in the truth of which I fully concur; it being found that where there is a greater degree of either strength or closeness, the other requisite is always wanting. Neither would it be advisable, as the sportsman will find a medium decidedly the best: a medium that will give the shots fairly spread over a space of thirty inches diameter, at forty yards; and so regularly, that a space, which would allow a bird to escape, shall not occur above twice out of five shots, and each shot to penetrate through thirty sheets of paper. It will be found, that a gun doing this regularly, is far superior to one throwing twice as close and not one-half through the paper; as the latter will require four or five pellets to kill a bird, when two of the other would be quite as efficacious, on account of penetrating twice as far.

In favour of small shot, Mr. Daniel’s observations are so pertinent, that I cannot do better than quote him. He says, “The velocity of a charge of No. 7 being equal (we will say nearly) to one of No. 3 at that distance (35 yards), and since small shot fly thicker than large in proportion to its size; and as there are many parts about the body of a bird, wherein a pellet of No. 7 will affect its vitality equal to a pellet of No. 2, the chances by using the former are multiplied in the workman’s favour; for it is the number and not the magnitude of the particles that kills on the spot. They who prefer large shot, and accustom themselves to fire at great distances, leave nearly as many languishing in the field as immediately die. Whereas, those that use small shot, and shoot fair, fill their bag with little spoil or waste beyond what they take with them from the field.” To an old gamekeeper of his (he tells us) he has often put the question, “Why he was so partial to small shot,” and his reply was, “Sir, they go between the feathers like pins and needles; whilst the large shot you use, as often glance off as penetrate them.” No doubt, here Mr. Daniel is as correct as may be. Mr. Blaine says, query? But he ought to be aware, as I suppose he is, though allowing himself to lose sight of principles, that small shot can be, and are, propelled from the barrel with an equal velocity with the larger; it is only in the length of range that the greater triumphs; but if we take thirty or thirty-five yards’ distance as an average, the latter will not “_lead_” in the race. Therefore, the advocates of small shot have unquestionably the better of the argument at this distance; at greater, I will not dispute it, though I have picked up No. 5 shot 300 yards from the spot fired from; larger, No. 3, rarely reaches 400 yards.

Hard shot is not so liable to be mis-shaped, nor does it lose its velocity by contact, as easily as soft.

Under the head mixed shot, Blaine observes, “We do not believe any law in projectiles can be brought forward to prove its impropriety. The mass of shot is propelled by the expansive power of the powder; it is ejected in a mass; and when it separates, each shot carries with it its own share of ejective force, with very little interference with any other, it being evident that the projectile force acting on each shot is in the proportion of its area of dimensions,” &c.

Here is a great mistake. The law of projectiles is not wanted to prove its fallacy; the laws of motion will do that. If you take any number of equal or dissimilar sizes of shot, and place it as a charge is placed in a gun barrel, occupying 3/4 of an inch of tube, there is, of course, a wadding between powder and shot; this wadding is, or ought to be, a piston; velocity is communicated to this piston by the explosion; it does so to the shot immediately above it, that to the layers above, and so on until the whole mass is in motion. The velocity behind the piston is increasing to a certain point, where it ceases; then it is that the layer farthest from the piston, having received its maximum from the layers below, travels quicker than its assistants; who, having parted with their force, fall behind in proportion: so does each layer, even until the last one which received it from the piston, having communicated so much to his friends before him, is left without himself. It is an undisputed law in motion that one body may convey to another, by contact, nearly its own velocity, but in so doing, is sure to come to rest immediately. Strike one billiard ball against another, if the blow is centrical, the ball struck receives the motion, the other comes to rest; and so is it with shot: it is only the layers next the muzzle which strikes the target, the remainder fall without travelling the same distance. I have fired three balls from a rifle, and having marked them I found the uppermost projected farthest, and the others in proportion. This is easily proved.

Thus, it is quite clear that in all charges of mixed shot, the larger will extract the velocity from the smaller, and consequently become useless for the purpose intended: this fact is unquestionable.

In speaking of the longest duck or swivel guns, I may instance Colonel Hawker’s account of the performance of such fowling artillery. It appears evident that they do not effect anything like the execution which might be expected from their immense size and capability. The reason of this is obvious. From the great space of the interior, in order to receive that equal pressure on the inch which a common fowling-piece receives, they should be charged in proportion to the increased size; but then, I scarcely need add, they would become ungovernable. In addition to this objection, they could not be forged of malleable iron, so as to be safe; on account of the impossibility of forging a barrel of that weight by hand hammers, and the little probability of hammers ever being invented to work by steam to do it sufficiently quick. The greater the weight of the barrel its strength is gradually decreased, owing to the impossibility of sufficiently beating it throughout the whole body.

It must be well known to any one versed in mechanics, that an anchor-shank weighing some hundredweights is more easily broken than iron one-twentieth part of the weight, which has had the advantage of being forged by hammers where the blows were felt through the whole mass. This cannot be the case in forging large barrels, as the workmen cannot use hammers heavy enough; consequently the barrel is turned out of hand with the pores more open than a piece of cast iron. They have tried this with large guns for the artillery, and it has repeatedly failed, entirely from the want of sufficient power to compress the iron.

All guns, therefore, of an unusual size, are not of strength in proportion to a small gun; hence the reason they cannot with safety be charged up to the corresponding scale. Neither are they of the length they should be, if the bore is to be the criterion. It must be remembered that to be charged in proportion, the pressure on the inch should be as many times the pressure on the inch of the small gun, as the one is the number of times larger than the other. If we come exactly to the real state of the case, we doubt much (when taking into consideration the difference of surface) that the pressure on the inch in the large gun is equal even to that on a small gun. The comparison might be carried up to the largest artillery, and I doubt whether it would come up to this scale; as it is well known that the heaviest guns will not throw their projectile as far in proportion as the small gun, because you dare not generate the force required to do it. The same principle is applicable to artillery as to fowling-pieces.

From the above data, I would say, never make duck-guns above seven-eighths in the bore, if you wish them to kill at a great distance; and not less than fifteen or sixteen pounds weight, and full four feet long; because then you can generate strength sufficient. Therefore, instead of the large stanchion-guns being one hundred pounds weight, they should, strictly speaking, be two hundred, and so on. In proof of this I may just mention that, upon repeated experiments, I have ascertained that a double stanchion-gun, with each barrel of the same bore, weight, and length, as a single gun, will kill further than the latter; simply owing to the advantage of the greater weight of the double gun. I have made observations, when trying moderate-sized and shoulder duck-guns on that fine level piece of sand before spoken of, and by tracing the grazing of the shots I have been enabled to pick them up. The large shot from the duck-gun, mostly No. 2, I found scarcely 400 yards from the spot where she was fired; the small shot, five and six, from a fourteen bore, were repeatedly picked up at 350 yards: thus showing that the large gun had not much advantage; but yet making probable many assertions made of killing at seventy, eighty, and sometimes a hundred yards, with a common-sized gun. By this it appears possible; for shot that will fly that distance must kill, if it hit during its flight through the first quarter of such a range; but then, at a single bird, above fifty-five or sixty yards, it is always twenty to one against hitting the object at all; as the pellets begin to separate rapidly at that distance, though their force is still sufficient, and in large flocks is apt to do execution.

The invention of the patent wire cartridge is rather the production of a scientific mind than the production of chance; though the invention of General Shrapnell contains the principle, and the perfection attained is but the extension of that principle: namely, the means of projecting a number of bodies of a similarity in size without subjecting them to an extreme jamming by the lateral expansion, and thus allowing each to travel his allotted distance without any of his companions robbing him of his speed by impact. The great peculiarity of the wire cartridge is, that being less than the bore, and having no bottom wadding, the explosive fluid acts all around, between the sides of the barrel and the net, by what may not inaptly be termed the windage, and the shot are thus expelled by a cushion-like force, which does not jam or compress them in the way it is liable to by a wadding forcing it outwards. Here the net is of use to keep the whole in a mass; but you must not suppose the same would be obtained by a charge of shot, without a wadding below. The net opens, after leaving the muzzle of the gun. The introduction of bone-dust is intended for, and answers the purpose of preventing the grains of shot being mis-shaped by the compression: during their passage up the barrel they form with the bone-dust a comparatively solid body, and keep the pellets from impact, thus allowing them to go forth into the atmosphere beautifully round and uninjured; and, as such, more likely to travel farther and stronger. The latter arrangement possesses all the science, as the net can be dispensed with; for it aids the combination but slightly, and in no case more than a moderate quantity of good paper would do.

The science of this mechanical construction of projectiles is perfectly in keeping with all the established laws of motion, and more particularly good in thus avoiding the necessity of lateral pressure on the sides of the tube of the gun, the upper end having the means of better resisting the column of air in their progress outwards; for there can be no question but this controls and induces the divergence of the shot in leaving the muzzle. One of the old arrangements, often laughed at, I mean the bell muzzle in old guns, intimates that our ancestors possessed some smattering of science; as the relief in the muzzle of a gun has a tendency, by allowing a gradual expansion laterally, to keep the charge of shot better together: for it is quite apparent that any body severely compressed for a certain distance, expands in proportion when free of that restraint; and the consequence is a tendency to fly off at a tangent, as the friction of a crooked barrel induces a ball to fly in a curve contrary to the bend of the barrel.

The extreme relief we find in some old barrels is certainly not required; but still it clearly shows that the principle was understood and acted upon: the very extreme has been produced by ignorance, as certainly as the suggestion was a proof of knowledge on the part of the suggestor; for many think, if a small dose is good for a patient, a large one must be equally so. Like ourselves of the present day, having discovered that fine gunpowder was advantageous, we have carried the principle so far as undoubtedly to overstep the line to which it was beneficial we should advance; thus clearly establishing the truth of the old adage, “One extreme begets another.”

Therefore, in advocating the adoption of gun-barrels of the very essence of iron, I also say, let that part of the tube whose duty is the generating of force be nearly cylindrical, and let there be a gradual expansion of the bore for a few inches in approaching the muzzle, that the restraint of the lateral pressure may not be too rapidly loosened. But yet let that expansion be so graduated that there shall not be an extreme either way--only a scarcely perceptible relief; yet such as will influence and prevent the divergence of the projectiles to a considerable extent.

Blaine says--“A very long barrel is liable to have the force of its discharge lessened by the increase of counter pressure in the greater volume of internal air in a long than in a short barrel.” The column of air in the barrel is unquestionably calculated to lessen the force of the discharge. But I have already shown that this is completely controlled by the system of granulation. Further, he says--“Its force must also suffer by the loss which the elasticity of the propelling gas experiences in its lengthened transit through an extended range of barrel.” He is here supposing an instantaneous generation of force, which cannot possibly happen; and if it did, would be comparatively useless. But he is evidently on the right scent, if he could only follow it up. Again,--“In such cases, it is probable, that the shot, which should leave the mouth of the piece at the instant when the propelling force has gained its maximum, in a long barrel are detained beyond that particular limit of capacity we have pointed out as inherent in each barrel; and which properties, and which quantities of charge, nothing but repeated and varied trials can teach the owner of the gun.”

This is an excellent illustration of the “theory” of the resistance of the column of air in long barrels with very fine quickly-burnt powder; and could he have pointed out the cause, the explanation would have been perfect; as it must be quite apparent to the reader that it is not the length of barrel which is in fault, but a want of a continuous producing force in the powder; for when all the charge is exploded, the maximum has been obtained. This clearly proves that the charge was too small to keep up that maximum, or that the grain of the powder was too fine, and thus too quickly expended. There is no discrepancy between the fact of long barrels being preferable half a century ago, and short ones now; for it is in the improvement of gunpowder burning in half the time now that it did then, and leaves the question of length of barrel precisely where it has ever been. You may have any length you like in moderation, if you suit the grain of powder to it.

I am quite satisfied to steer between extremes; avoiding alike too small a charge of projectiles and too wide a calibre with too heavy a charge of the former, and preferring a size of bore that gives, under all circumstances, the greatest range with the least amount of explosive material; which neither requires that to be too fine a grain, nor too coarse: namely, a bore of fifteen and two feet six inches long. Under all the above circumstances combined, this size will long hold a position in the front rank of sporting guns.

The Belgians have long been, and still are, our principal competitors in supplying those parts of the world which do not rank gun manufacturing among their staple trade. The cost of labour being small, they have great facilities for producing cheap material; and the extent to which they tempt the eye of those inexperienced in gunnery is quite obvious to the world; but excepting the cheapness of the lower grade of guns, the Belgian products are not at all to be placed on an equality with the well made English manufacture.

In consequence of the relaxation of our custom laws, foreign gunnery is now admitted at ten per cent. duty; and as soon as this change was made, the Belgians sent large quantities of their guns and pistols to London; whence they found their way through different parts of the country. Regular establishments were opened for the sale of their very highly ornamented barrels: ten different varieties were produced, even to the imitation of laminated steel.

These barrels were at first sent in the bored and ground state, in large quantities; their apparent low price and great beauty quite captivated some of the “Brums,” so that for a period they were all the rage; and the Belgians began to boast of the extensive trade they were doing. But nothing in this world runs smooth. “The best laid schemes of mice and men oft gang agee;” and so it was with the Belgian importations. Our proof was not exactly to their liking, or perhaps the iron was not equal to the proof; losses and discoveries began to accumulate: “Too soft, by far,” says one; “They are all plated,” says another; “Filed it through, by jingo!” exclaimed a third; “Common iron, by all that’s wonderful!” protested a fourth; “Oh, twisted iron, under such inimitable Damascus!” growled a fifth: in short, steel over iron turned out to be the secret of the whole business.

It is very probable that such facts as these soon established the inferiority of “the beautiful Damascus and arabesque” of the Belgian manufacturers; and they have, I trust, disappeared for ever from the English market: at least, they are not held in estimation by those qualified to judge.

Their advocates have for years adduced the fact, that the Belgian laws required guns to be twice proved; and our old laws not requiring this, they had certainly a tangible argument; but our improved proof laws have now removed that anomaly, and certainly our proof is now much superior, even to that of the Belgians: so much so, indeed, that I have now before me a letter from a Belgian barrel maker, who, in reply to the inquiry why he did not send any more barrels, says very truly, “your English proof is too severe.”

A very carefully conducted experiment on at least twenty best Belgian barrels, satisfied me of the indisputable fact, that at least nineteen out of the twenty were plated, and principally on twisted iron of the softest description; as was shown by eating it entirely away, by a lengthened immersion in a solution of the sulphate of copper. This may be done in the course of a few hours, leaving the Damascus, and the arabesque plating comparatively untouched. The production of that extremely beautiful figure has to be effected by using metals of considerable dissimilarity in their state of carbonization; the iron evidently being entirely decarbonized before mixing with the steel, and the steel even appearing extremely soft; although, no doubt, much of this would be effected during the heating of the barrels to solder with brass: and it is well known this cannot be done, except by heating them to nearly a white heat.

As this is the universal practice with all barrels which the Belgians finish, a good shooting gun is, by all fixed laws of science, a scarcity with them. But a point of still greater importance arises from this injurious proceeding. In the act of heating two tubes like gun barrels, it is an impossibility to heat them equally, so that neither shall be at a higher temperature than the other; and again in lifting them from the furnace, and in cooling, all are subject to bend by expansion and contraction alone; the result is that perfectly straight Belgian hard soldered barrels are utterly unattainable. To an unpractised eye the bending in and out appears trifling, but professionally, it is a very serious defect indeed; and on that score alone, the Belgian can never compete in quality with our own manufacture. Time, however, will no doubt remedy this; already they are great imitators, and they will, no doubt, become greater. They are competitors whom respectable manufacturers need not fear; and though they eschew the imitation of our higher quality, they imitate, even to the name, the “marks” of our leading makers. I still would welcome and fraternize with them, as highly skilled workers in elaborate mixtures of metals suitable for ornamental gun-barrels.

The French gunmakers have not yet realized the true value of the shooting of their fowling-pieces. This arises, in a great measure, no doubt, from the want of a proper field for improvement. Necessity has always been an important improver, and wild game creating the necessity for good guns in England, a different direction has been given to the manufacturer, owing to the continual cry for long killing guns; and not a doubt can exist that English guns are better constructed for that purpose, than those of any other country. Attention to the shooting has always been the first study of every English gunmaker, and great progress has been made during the last twenty years; indeed, a comparison between the largest “target” of to-day, and the best that Colonel Hawker ever made with his crack Joe Manton, will show a progressive improvement of nearly 100 per cent., not only in closeness of shooting, but also in penetration. All this may not be due entirely to the gun, but in part to the gunpowder; and to the sensible course we now pursue of using less weight of shot, avoiding artificial friction in the barrels, instead of increasing it to retard the shot with the view of increasing its power: also by having the expellant agent accelerative to the greatest extent, closeness and strength of shooting are obtained, with the least amount of recoil possible.

Our French competitors have paid much more attention to the artistic decoration of their guns than to their usefulness; and the universal result of this sort of proceeding, ever since the invention of gunnery, has been a total neglect of their power of extreme projection. The metal, like other portions of their work is, in all cases, manipulated with a view to beauty only; as the fact of their veneering, or plating, their barrels proves.

If at all masters of the science, they must be aware that this weakens the shooting of the barrels, and is an injurious practice. But the greater fact remains, that they continue to fix all their barrels together, by brasing them with brass from end to end, as they do in Belgium; thus lessening the strength of the barrels in point of safety, and nearly destroying any smart shooting power they might have possessed.

The French appear to me to have only reached that stage of progress which we attained forty years ago, when every intelligent mechanic was seeking after that “useless thing,” even when attained, “a perfect safety gun;” which, from its complex character, might have been designated “the dangerous gun;” indeed, experience taught (though not without great cost) that few would use it when attained, and the consequence was that it fell into disuse. Our Continental neighbours, however, are mining it with great energy. A little more of our experience, and they, also, will see the folly of the attempt. All the facts go clearly to establish the truth of the assertion, that for all useful purposes they are half a century behind us in the essential part of gun manufacturing. The anxiety shown by all leading Continental sportsmen to obtain a first-class English gun, and more especially of laminated steel, is very strong evidence in support of this assertion. All the guns I exhibited in Paris in 1855 were eagerly bought up at high figures; and I have since executed many orders for France, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, and Russia, as well as for other northern states.

The display of artistically constructed guns by the French makers in their Great Exposition of 1855, was very great, and by certain classes of sportsmen would be considered superb. My notes, made at the time of inspection, will show better than a description can do, in what state of transition their manufacture is, and how they vacillate between their old and our present style:--

Parisian gunmakers presented 36; Rheims, 1; St. Etienne, 14.

Leopold Bernard, barrel-maker.--Very good work; barrels made of two spirals, inner and outer, with the twist running the reverse way; fine figure; mixture of steel and iron.

Monsieur Gauvain.--Very good sound work; all highly artistic; the cock formed so as to resemble a tree with a snake coiled round it, the head of the snake striking on the nipple. Several other guns of the latest English patterns.

Monsieur Beringer.--Guns ornamented arabesque; a medium show of work; principally breech-loaders.

Monsieur Caron.--Showy, ornamental, very middling.

Lepage and Moutier.--Work good, ornamented, principally arabesque. Game and English scroll pattern, engraving, cocks, &c., but inferior to the English patterns of Gauvain.

Houllier Blanchard.--Good work; designs English; a very novel pattern of figure in the barrels.

Monsieur Le Perrin.--All his guns artistic; raised, embossed, artistic, ornamental, heavy cocks to imitate my shape; one good English pattern soft gun.

Monsieur Lainê.--Good sound work; English pattern of twenty years ago.

Monsieur Andrê.--Good work; ornaments embossed; “Devisme” inlaying; carving and embossing unequalled; several English pattern guns, but of the standard twenty years ago.

“Thomas.”--Guns well inlaid; work medium.

Albert Benard, barrel-maker.--Iron very good, but all lined; bar apparently reduced from a mass two inches square, which tenuates the figure extremely, as the bars are only 1/4 inch thick.

Gastienne Renette.--All highly artistically ornamented; work good, carving very elaborate. A novel mode of breech-loading: a piece on hinge turns out, a cartridge, slides in return to its place, and a quoin like a wedge forces it up into a chamber; the wedge and head receiving all the force of the recoil.

Lenoir, barrel-maker.--Iron very good; thirty rods in a faggot 5 + 6, and welded and drawn down into 3/8 of an inch square: an enormous elongation of the fibres.

Doye.--Good English pattern-work--nothing else.

Fontereau.--Work, all English pattern; very good.

M. Brunn, successor to Armand and Bourbon.--Highly embossed work: a novel breech-loader; artistic design for cock; female figures with fishes’ tails in scroll on to the tumbler.

Guerin.--A novel safety guard; locks while on the nipple at half cock, and full cock; swivel double like a split ring.

May.--A novel safety guard, very likely to break the finger: sure to do it if on an English gun. Breech-loader: central fire, the same as now made by Lancaster.

Loger, barrel-maker.--Bars faggoted 6 + 2, and so formed to imitate laminated steel.

Dufour.--All breech-loading guns; but all work of the first class.

Juelle Magana, barrel-maker, St. Etienne.--Barrels well fitted and figure varying, but not possessing the regularity observed in the Belgian barrels.

Chapellon.--Coutereau.--Exhibit some barrels filled, with a charge of 12 inches of powder, 6-1/2 inches of shot, and warrant them not to burst on firing that charge.

Delabourse, Paris.--Good work “à la Purdey.”

Lefaucheaux, Paris, prize medalist, 1851.--Good embossed work; breech-loaders; also very good imitation of English work.

Such is a fair sample of the whole. But the best work by far is that by Gauvain, though not so highly estimated by the jury; but that is in many cases no test of ability whatever--as much depends upon the influence and standing of the individual.

Great exhibitions are calculated to effect great good if properly carried out. In that of the English exhibitors at Paris nothing could be more reprehensible, for the jurors left them to the tender mercies of their foreign competitors. In the case of the gun-makers, nothing could be worse, for the two jurymen appointed by the English Government never, I believe, saw a gun, home-made or foreign; and the fact of my obtaining two first-class medals speaks much for the impartiality of our Continental brethren.

RECOIL.

Recoil varies according to the position of the gun; when fired on the horizontal, the resistance to be overcome is the tendency of the projectile to fall to the earth, and its friction as it moves in a line parallel to the earth. When the muzzle is elevated this resistance is increased, because the force generated by the explosion of the gunpowder has to exert its action more directly in opposition to the direction of the force of gravity; and when this force is exerted in a line directly opposed to the centre of gravity, as it is when the gun is fired vertically, then the recoil is doubled, and is made more painful, because the body resting on the earth cannot yield.

A gun fired in the direction of the earth, or in the line of the centre of gravity, would recoil much less (perhaps fifty per cent. less) than when fired vertically; from the very obvious fact, that if the bullet was not kept in position by its friction on the sides of the barrel, it would fall to the ground of itself.

“The recoil of a gun is inseparable from a discharge of its contents--on the broad principle that action begets reaction; it is, therefore, only when the ‘kick,’ as it is called, becomes painful, that it is essential to avoid or lessen it. Irregularity in the bore of the barrel is a very common source of violent recoil; _contracted breeches_ also, but more than all, the contraction of the barrel at its centre, occasion recoil, and that of the most dangerous kind: the expanding flame, during its ignition, presses violently to make its way through the contracted to the wider part, thus also destroying the expelling force. ‘Now, action and reaction being equal, it follows, that the weight of the piece being the same, the recoil will be in proportion to the quantity of the powder, and the weight of the ball, or shot; and that with the same charge the recoil will be in proportion to the weight of the piece, or the lighter the piece the greater the recoil.’”--_Essay on Shooting._

Here is a true exposition of recoil, though not of contractions in the breech; for there the action would not be directly back, but have an inclination towards the muzzle; for the reaction would not have time to tell on the breech, before the charge was out of the muzzle. An extremely spiralled rifle barrel destroys the explosive force of gunpowder, but the effects are not felt in the recoil, being most all expended laterally. Blaine says, “Could we entirely obviate all recoil from a gun, we should not only remove an unpleasant shock to our persons, but there is reason to believe we should much assist the range and force of the shot likewise; although there is an opinion prevalent, that the degree of the recoil is in the proportion of the projectile force.” Of this, however, some doubts are entertained, which are warranted by the following fact:--“Mortars with iron beds immoveably fixed in the earth throw their shot to greater distances than guns which are affixed to carriages can do, and which, therefore, can recoil. This has been incontestibly proved, both in large and small artillery. Having suspended a gun barrel, charged with a determinate quantity of shot, from the ceiling by two cords, so as to allow of its recoil, fire it point blank at a target, and mark the result accurately. Now, fix the same barrel to a block, and charge it exactly with a similar charge; then having moved the target fifteen yards further, fire the barrel; it is probable that the last shot, though at this increased distance, will exceed the former, both in range and force.’ These and such like experiments are laughed at by the giddy and inconsiderate; but it is by these illustrations that the most important facts are brought to light.

“Projectile force is, therefore, to be increased by resistance; and the knowledge of this fact offers us a practical hint, that when we stand immoveable to our shot, not only by holding the gun tightly to our shoulder, but by also _leaning somewhat forward_ in our shooting attitude, we considerably increase the resistance, and, consequently, we not only lessen the shock of the recoil to ourselves, but we aid the force of the shot and extend its range. That such is the case, may be further exemplified by the following experiment:--Throw a hand-ball against any moveable body, and it will displace that body; but the ball will drop to the ground perpendicularly, however hard the body against which it is thrown may be. Fix the same body securely, and then the rebound of the ball will be nearly equal to the force with which it was thrown.”

The weight or amount of force with which a gun recoils against the shoulder, is due to, and regulated by, several circumstances. The first and most important is the amount of explosive force generated before the charge is moved and during the act of moving, and the amount of inertia in the body of the projectile. When a quantity of gunpowder is exploded without any resisting weight in front of it, then the column of air gives comparatively a slight recoil; though there is, in fact, considerable recoil, but such as is due to the resistance of the air only, and, consequently, more like a push than a blow. The exact amount of recoil is also due to the difference between, or proportionate weights of, the charge of shot or bullet and the gun; action and reaction being always equal until one or the other body moves; the division then will be in favour of that moving fastest, and hence the obtaining of accelerative velocity: it thus follows, as a truism, that the smaller the quantity of exploded gases that can be employed to first move the charge, the less the recoil.

The advantage of the granulation system is here again most clearly shown; and (alluding again to the law of putting matter in motion gradually) if you would gain the greatest benefit, it is clear that, in the same length of tube, you would, at the termination of the accelerative power, have gained a much greater amount of velocity than could be obtained under any other circumstances with the more violently explosive gunpowder.

Many theories have been advanced, and many conjectures made as to the cause of the recoil of guns; and it must be evident that the causes vary with the form of gun, with the nature of the gunpowder, and the weight; or peculiar arrangement of the shot or bullet. For instance, an ounce of shot, and an ounce of lead in the form of a round bullet, fired from the same gun would give two very different amounts of recoil, when measured by the spring cushion; the ounce bullet not giving much more than half the recoil produced by the ounce of shot. This is owing to the simple fact that the bullet being a compact body, offers only the resistance of its weight, and the simple friction of sliding or rolling along the barrel according as it is tight or loose; but the tendency of the hundreds of shot corns is to “jam and wedge” in the most extreme manner, offering, by their lateral pressure against the sides of the barrel, the greatest amount of friction and reluctance to be driven out: hence the reaction on the gun, and thence on the shoulder of the shooter; and the smaller the size of shot the greater the jamming. Again, the same weight of shot, fired from a 16-bore and a 12-bore will recoil much more in the smaller than in the larger bore, even when all other points are equal; because the charge reaches higher in the 16-bore, thus offering at first a greater amount of inertia. Secondly, there is also more tendency to jam; and, thirdly, the extension of the surface of lateral pressure on the tubes of the barrel must also add to recoil. Dirty guns, it is well known, kick violently, simply from the greater friction, or difficulty of the matter of the charge being put in motion.

The question as to what the actual amount of recoil really is has never been settled satisfactorily; the most erroneous opinions have been given, and assertions equally erroneous have been made, by those who have attended to the subject. To clearly elucidate this question, it is absolutely necessary that the circumstances be reduced to one standard: but the difficulty is to obtain that; for it would vary according to muscular development, the weight and height of the sportsman. Indeed any principle laid down would be liable to be disputed, from the very different way in which every sportsman lifts his gun to his shoulder: if one presses it against his shoulder with a pressure equal to 5 lbs., he will receive a certain amount of recoil; he that presses it with a force equal to 10 lbs. will receive less; and with a pressure of 30 lbs. it will be found to yield the least of all. I will illustrate it in this way. Take a spring cushion (something like the spring machine found at all fairs for testing the force of a man pressing against it), if you allow a gun to recoil against this when the starting pressure is only 5 lbs., it will drive it up to 70 lbs., or nearly so, from the velocity with which you have put the 7 lbs. of matter which is contained in the gun into a long sweeping blow. The next time you try, put the starting point at 10 lbs., and you will find a much less result in the extreme weight denoted; but carry on this experiment, placing the cushion with a resisting force of 30 lbs., and you will find the extreme recoil indicated at from 40 lbs. to 45 lbs., and even up to a higher starting resistance. But to this extent it is not advisable to go, for the strain becomes too great on the handle of the gun-stock, and there is too near an apparent approach to a solid resistance, which it is well-known would break the best stock that was ever made.

Having shown how we may approximately obtain the exact amount of force, and how it may, even with two persons, give different results, I will now state what I have found to be the result of many hundreds of trials made with the view of deciding this question. Before doing so, however, I will further premise that hundreds of attempts have been made at various times by different Governments, and by many talented men, to obtain a correct recoil machine which shall efficiently measure the recoil, and in such a perfect line with the intended direction of the projectile as to obtain accurate results: but this is found to be perfectly unattainable, though I believe the nearest approach to it has been made by Mr. Whitworth during his experiments with the hexagonal rifle.

To prove that it is impossible to get all the circumstances alike, so as accurately to ascertain the exact force of the recoil, one instance only need be cited. Fire your gun at a fixed object, then fire at an object in motion, and to your senses the recoil will appear double when fired at the fixed object; but it is not really so: in the latter instance, the body of the person firing the gun, and the gun itself being in motion, a considerable amount of the force of the recoil is absorbed in overcoming the motion of the gun, and then that of the shooters body, so that the effect is not noticed. I have already alluded to the greater force of recoil felt from the lighter pressure of the gun against the shoulder; here the tendency of the gun and body moving in one direction is to close them together, and the proportion will be as the velocity of that movement. Therefore, to bring this to a conclusion, I find that under ordinary circumstances a 12-bore gun of 7-1/2 lbs. weight, 30 inches in length, with a charge of 2-1/2 drams of No. 5 grained gunpowder, and 1-1/4 oz. shot, the barrels draw-bored cylindrically, with the least possible easing at the breech ends, and metal of the best laminated steel, will recoil with a force of from 40 lbs. to 48 lbs., or on an average 44 lbs.: this is the most satisfactory conclusion I have been able to draw from my experiments. This of course will vary, as I have shown; and it is also liable to deviations, according to the state of the atmosphere, and other collateral circumstances. Great variations will of course arise from guns of fine or rough insides; guns new or old, well kept or neglected; and in guns bored larger at the breech-ends, in order to give artificial resistance to the escape of the charge. These last are now, I trust, obsolete, except in that abortion of science the “French breech-loading crutch gun;” and as an exception, all ill-constructed guns.

The science of the question may now be regarded as clearly established. Gun-barrels of the utmost tenacity, with insides of a cylindrical form as true as possible, polished as fine as a mirror, with a moderate weight of shot calculated to suit the gun and a good charge of large granulated gunpowder, will give the greatest killing power, with the greatest amount of comfort, or absence of recoil, that is to be found in the pursuit of shooting.

A point of considerable importance in obtaining regular and good shooting--one, however, which is frequently neglected--is that of ascertaining what sized shot is particularly suited to the size of bore used.

The correct adaptation of No. 5 or No. 6 for your particular gun is easily attained. Place in the muzzle an ordinary wadding, press it into the barrel the depth of the diameter of the shot, which should be exactly flush with the muzzle, place as many shot corns on this as you can, without having more than one distinct layer, and observe the size that best fills, in concentric rings, the whole circumference of the bore, leaving no half-spaces unfilled; note whether it be No. 5 or No. 6 shot, and keep to that size for your general shooting. Again, on other occasions you may wish to use larger shot (Nos. 4, 3, or 2); then ascertain by the same method which fills the concentric rings most perfectly: the same should be done with the smaller sizes, Nos. 8 or 9.

The rationale of this proceeding is that any half-spaces are filled by shot from above pressed in upon the lower layer, disfiguring itself and those it comes into contact with; this is multiplied up to the 13 or 14 layers of which the charge is composed, and the inevitable result is that four or five pellets are pressed together until they adhere; either “balling” or leaving empty spaces in the distribution of the charge, to the injury of the gun’s shooting--a defect which may easily be obviated by attending to the instructions given above. One other point may be observed, viz., that if 1-1/4 give 15-1/2 layers of shot in concentric rings, the charge should be reduced until the rings are complete, for the half-layer will do much mischief by its unequal pressure on the layers beneath it. And it is further necessary to observe that in loading a gun, either with powder or with shot, the gun should be kept as nearly in the upright position as possible: the more upright the gun is held, the more perfectly will it be charged, and the more perfect will be its shooting.

A vast number of useless changes have of late years been introduced into the construction of gunnery; they have died, however, a natural death, as they ought to have done, and have thus afforded additional evidence that sportsmen of the present day only adopt what are really improvements. Great professional reputation in a gunmaker is not now, as formerly, all that is required to command a trial of individual plans of improvement: the improvement must be self-evident; nothing being taken on trust: a _bonâ fide_ benefit to the sportsman is essential in the present day to obtain patronage.

There has lately been introduced a very novel improvement in the construction of double gun barrels, in order to overcome that defect long admitted to exist in firing the second shot. It has long been known that in a 40 yards’ flight, shot falls several inches; and it is an established fact that few sportsmen can kill with the second shot so well as with the first, although it is certainly within range of the gun. This no doubt arises in almost every case, from the shot having fallen below the object in traversing the greater distance; or, in other words, the second barrel, in order to kill as well as the first, ought be fired six inches higher; but this the best shots find it difficult to do, and it has therefore been proposed to do it for them.

Mr. F. W. Prince, of No. 138, Bond-street, has patented an improvement to obviate this difficulty; this he does by elevating or pointing upward the second barrel, so as to cover the calculated fall in the body of the shot; and the result is, that the second bird is as well aimed at and as efficiently killed as the first. The alteration is so exceedingly simple, and the benefit resulting from it so apparent, that the only wonder is that it should never have been done before; and it being the improvement of a really practical sportsman of the very first class, as Mr. Prince has long been known to be, is sufficient to stamp his invention as worthy of every consideration.