Gunpowder and Ammunition, Their Origin and Progress

CHAPTER XII

Chapter 164,396 wordsPublic domain

GUNPOWDER

THE oldest recipe for gunpowder is Roger Bacon’s. If the solution of his anagram which I have ventured to propose be accepted, the proportions of the ingredients in 100 parts were:—

_Saltpetre._ _Charcoal._ _Sulphur._ 41.2 29.4 29.4

The French recipe of 1338 being incomplete (Table VIII.), the next complete recipe for gunpowder is that given in the MSS. of Dr. John Arderne of Newark, who began to practise as a surgeon before 1350:[415]— “Pernez _j._ _li._ de souffre vif; de charbones de saulx (i. weloghe) _ij._ _li._; de saltpetre _vj._ _li._ Si les fetez bien et sotelment moudre sur un pierre de marbre, puis bultez le poudre parmy vn sotille couer-chief; cest poudre vault à gettere pelottes de fer, ou de plom, ou d’areyne,[416] one vn instrument qe l’em appelle _gonne_.” This gives in 100 parts:-

_Saltpetre._ _Charcoal._ _Sulphur._ 66.6´ 22.2´ 11.1´

The word _gonne_, in the sense of cannon, must have been commonly known during the last quarter of the fourteenth century; for Chaucer uses it with this meaning in the “Hous of Fame,” iii. 553, cir. 1380—

“As swift as pelet out of gonne, Whan fyr is in the poudré ronne;”

and Langley uses it with the same meaning in the C text of his “Vision of Piers Plowman,” xxi. 293, _cir._ 1393:—

“Set bows of brake and brasene gonnes, And shoot out shot enough his sheltrums to blend.”

Now the explanatory phrase, “qe l’em appelle gonne,” shows that _gonne_ was but little known when the above recipe was written. We may therefore date it at 1350.

It will be observed that down to the word _marbre_, the recipe is a literal translation of a receipt for rocket composition given by Marcus Græcus.[417] Yet the two powders, although made of _nominally_ the same ingredients in the same proportions, did not produce the same effects when fired; for gunpowder will not propel a rocket, and rocket composition will not project a cannon-ball. The difference in their effects was probably due to the researches of Roger Bacon, who had discovered the importance of using pure saltpetre and of thoroughly incorporating the ingredients. It is improbable that Arderne’s recipe represents the powder used in the cannon of his time. Its proportions are so entirely out of keeping with those of the French powder of 1338 (Table VIII.) and those of Whitehorne’s powder of 1560 (Table VII.), that we may regard it as no more than a laboratory receipt.

It needed but little experience to show how far short of perfection serpentine powder fell.

While the fouling of dry, well-incorporated powder is comparatively trifling, a damp or slow-burning powder, such as serpentine, leaves a much larger residue. The consequence was that, after a few rounds, it was exceedingly difficult to reload small arms, a considerable part of the loose, floury charge sticking to the fouling.[418] The remedy for this evil was the use of cartridges. Whitehorne mentions “bagges of linnen or paper” for the charges of cannon in 1560,[419] and in 1590 Sir John Smythe speaks not only of cartridges, but of composite cartridges for small arms—“cartages with which (musketeers) charge their peeces both with powder and ball at one time.”[420]

There are payments for talwood (faggots) “for drying powder” in the English store accounts 1372-74,[421] and in 1459 the Scotch Government were endeavouring to keep their powder dry by storing it in waxed canvas bags.[422] An official recommends the English Privy Council in 1589 to sell certain “bad powder” at Dorchester, adding, “the longer it is kept the worse yt wilbe.”[423] The Navy were of course, then and always, the chief sufferers from damp powder. Serpentine powder, Sir Henry Manwayring tells us in 1664, was never taken to sea (after big guns had become strong enough to stand corned powder) “both because it is of small force, and also for that it will, with the aire of the sea, quickly drie and lose its force.”[424] But corned powder was by no means proof against damp. In the action fought off Grenada in July 1779, Bishop Watson says “the English shot would not reach” the French. The powder, it was found, “had concreted into large lumps, in the middle of which the saltpetre was visible to the naked eye.”[425] Between the years 1790 and 1811, 189,000 whole barrels of powder, “which had formed into lumps from the damp of H.M.’s ships of war,” and had consequently been returned into store as useless, were rendered serviceable in the Government powder factory.[426]

Being merely a loose mechanical mixture of three substances with different specific gravities, serpentine powder had a tendency, when shaken in transport, to resolve itself into three strata, the heaviest substance (the sulphur) settling down to the bottom, and the lightest (the charcoal) remaining at the top. This meant, practically, that on coming into the enemy’s presence the ingredients had to be incorporated afresh. To save trouble, and to avoid the danger of a second mixing, it was for a long time customary to carry the ingredients separately,[427] or, at least, to carry the charcoal apart from the saltpetre and sulphur. There was another argument, however, in favour of this course. While serpentine powder, however tightly secured, gave out a large quantity of impalpable dust which might cause an explosion at any moment, no explosion was possible so long as the ingredients were kept asunder. But whatever was the reason for resorting to such an expedient, it is evident that the remedy was nearly as bad as the disease.

Serpentine powder had another drawback,—it required very careful ramming home. “Thrust the pouder home fair and softly,” says Whitehorne.[428] “The powder rammed in too hard and the wad also,” says Bourne in 1587, “it will be long before the peece goeth off.... The powder too loose ... will make the shotte to come short of the mark.... Put up the powder with the rammer head somewhat close, but beat it not too hard.”[429] By beating it too hard the interstices between the particles through which the flame permeated the charge were diminished in size, and if beaten sufficiently hard the mixture tended to become a solid which burned away without exploding. Finally, the combustion of serpentine, at the best, was so slow that a large volume of its gas escaped wastefully through the vent.

These evils were in some cases much lessened, and in others quite got rid of by the gradual introduction of corned powder, which is mentioned in 1429 in the Firebook of Conrad von Schongau,[430] and was in use for hand-guns in England long before 1560. Corned powder (1) deposited less fouling than serpentine; (2) it was less susceptible to damp, especially after the introduction of glazing;[431] (3) it did not resolve into strata in transport; (4) it gave out less dust; (5) it was much less affected by hard ramming; (6) owing to the larger interstices between the grains,[432] it burned so quickly that there was little or no waste of gas through the vent, and it was consequently so strong that 2 lbs. of corned did the same work as 3 lbs. of serpentine powder.[433] It was, in fact, too strong for cannon for a long period: Chemistry had outrun Metallurgy. “If serpentine pouder should be occupied (used) in handguns,” says Whitehorne, “it would scant be able to drive their pellets[434] a quoit’s cast from their mouths; and if handgunne (_i.e._ corned) pouder should be used in pieces of ordnance, without great discretion, it would quickly break or marre them.”[435] Here we have the cause which necessitated the general retention of serpentine powder for cannon until the first half (or middle) of the sixteenth century, after which it is heard of no more except for secondary purposes, such as priming, &c. We must not overlook the importance of Whitehorne’s remark. He was an educated man of sound, practical sense, who had been a student of Gray’s Inn, and whose experience was not confined to the English Artillery, for he had seen service in the Low Countries. What he says is a sufficient safeguard against inferring too much from Schongau’s mention of corned powder in 1429. It came slowly into use for hand-grenades and small arms in the fifteenth century; but no country then possessed cannon strong enough to stand its explosion, and it did not come into general use for another century.

In addition to its being at first too strong for big guns, corned powder had the disadvantage of being dearer than serpentine. The latter was sold in 1569 at £80 the last (2400 lbs.); the former in 1570 at £90.[436] The following Table gives the price of English powder at various times:—

TABLE V.

_Price of English Gunpowder per lb._

+----------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | Nature. | 1347 | 1378 | 1462 | 1482 | 1569 | 1578 | 1588 | 1595 | 1695 | 1865 | | | | |[437] |[438] |[439] |[440] |[441] |[442] |[443] |[444] | +----------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+ | | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | _d._ | |Serpentine|13-3/4|13-2/3| 12 | 10 | 8 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | |Corned | -- | -- | -- | -- | 9 | 10 | 12 | 13 |10-3/4| 7 | |Fine | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 11 | -- | -- | -- | -- | +----------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

The remarkable uniformity in the prices of English powder has been noticed by Prof. Rogers in his “History of Agriculture and Prices,” iv. 631. He thinks that “fine” powder meant priming powder, because infantry soldiers were usually served out with 1 lb. “common” (corned) powder and ¼-lb. “fine” powder. It doubtless did at one time; but the term was applied to all small-arm powder eventually.[445]

The prices of the first two powders have necessarily been calculated. The price of charcoal in 1347 was .013d. per lb.; in 1378 it was .02d.[446] The prices of sulphur and saltpetre in 1347 were 8d. and 18d. per lb. respectively;[447] in 1378 they were (for large quantities) 4d. and 20d. respectively.[448] From an English MS., quoted by the Emperor Napoleon III., it appears that the cost of manufacturing powder at Southampton in 1474 was .864d. per lb.;[449] and, as it is the only fact available, I have been obliged to assume that this was the cost of making powder in 1347 and 1378. But it is probably not far from the truth. The proportions taken for the 1347 powder are Arderne’s, 6-2-1; those for 1378, 3-1-1. From these data we have:—

The price of French powder in 1375 was 120d. per lb.;[450] but in order to be able to compare it with the price of English powder in 1378, we must know the ratio of French to English money at that period. The French Troyes livre then contained 5760 gs.; the English Tower pound 5400 gs. Therefore—

1 livre (pure silver) = 16/15 pound (pure silver).

Under Philip of Valois (1328-50) the livre was debased to 1/12 its original value,[451] and almost simultaneously the pound was debased by Edward III. to 4/5 its primitive value.[452] Or 1 good livre was worth 12 bad livres, and 1 good pound was worth 5/4 of a bad pound. Therefore—

12 livres = 16/15 (5/4 pound) = 4/3 pound; or 9 livres = 1 pound.

Dividing the price of 1 lb. French powder, 1375, by the price of 1 lb. English powder, 1378, we get 120/13.664 = 8.7; so that the French powder at this period was somewhat cheaper than the English. As the purchasing power of fourteenth-century money was about ten times that of ours, the French powder of 1375 cost about 11s., and the English powder of 1378, 11s. 4½d. per lb.

The high price of early gunpowder resulted from high freights and (in the case of saltpetre) the rapacity of Eastern merchants. We may form some notion of the price they exacted for their saltpetre which cost them little,[453] from the price they put upon their naphtha which cost them next to nothing. “Another fountayne there is towarde the Oryent whereof is made fyre grekysshe, with other myxtyons (mixtures) that is put thereto; the which fyre when it is taken and lyght is so hote that it can not be quenched with water, but with aysel (vinegar), urine or sande only. The Sarasynes sell this water dere, and derer than they do good wyne.”[454]

The manufacture of gunpowder soon became a trade. We find a powder-mill in Ausburg in 1340, in Spandau in 1344, and in Liegnitz in 1348.[455] There was a gunmaker in Stockholm in 1430, who was very probably a powder-maker too;[456] and it is certain that there was a powder-maker there in 1464—Mäster Berend.[457] Nor were Governments blind to the importance and the profit of the trade. Beckmann states that the Archbishop of Magdeburg in 1419 only permitted the collection of saltpetre on payment of a license,[458] and Clarke informs us that the Pope and the Archduke of Bavaria engaged themselves in powder-making at an early date.[459] Louis XI. appointed commissioners in 1477 to collect all the saltpetre they could find, with power to force an entry wherever they suspected it was stored.[460]

During the Ancient Period, say 1250-1450, when serpentine was exclusively used, one powder could only differ from another in composition, that is, in the proportions of the ingredients used, supposing them to be equally pure; during the Modern Period, say 1700-1886, the powders used (in each individual State) differed only, as a general rule, in the size of the grain;[461] during the Transition Period, 1450-1700, they generally differed both in composition and grain.

The proportions of the ingredients were quite arbitrary during the Ancient Period, and not only Governments, but private manufacturers, had their special recipes. As late as 1628 Norton says there were “infinite recipes for making of powder, but most states have enjoyned a certain proportion.”[462]

The introduction of corning, far from curbing the lawlessness of the Ancient Period, made confusion worse confounded. _Then_ there was but one variable—the proportions of the ingredients; _now_ a second independent variable was introduced—the size of the grain. But a reaction was at hand, which set in first in France, where corned powder had been adopted in 1525.[463] It appears to have been noticed during the second half of the fifteenth century that large-grained powder was the fittest for big guns, and this fact the French utilised in 1540 by officially restricting the service powders to three, of uniform composition but different-sized grains.[464]

The largest-grained powder was used for the largest guns, and the composition was 80.7 salp., 11.5 char., and 7.8 sulph., which closely corresponded to Whitehorne’s (corned) hand-gun powder—78.3 salp., 13 char., and 8.7 sulph.[465] It may be questioned, however, whether the French, official injunctions notwithstanding, confined themselves very religiously to powders of uniform composition. Boillot, whose work was published at Chaumont in 1598, says the grain for big guns was as large as a pea, that for medium guns the size of hempseed, and that for serpents, &c., still smaller. But from a remark he makes on reaching the manufacture of powder—“vous viendrez à la composition (de la pouldre), mais par poix et mesure, selon que vous voudrez faire les pouldres”[466]—it is clear that powders for all purposes were not of the same composition.

During the first half of the seventeenth century the French official powder was weaker than the above—75.6 salp., 13.6 char., and 10.8 sulph.—and for big guns had grains as large as hazel-nuts.[467] At Pont-à-Mousson, just across the German border, powders of different compositions were in use in 1620;[468] and east of the Rhine powder for different guns probably varied in grain, and certainly varied in composition. “Of the various powders now made,” says Furtenbach in 1627, “the following are generally employed:[469]—

Saltpetre. Charcoal. Sulphur. 69.0 16.5 14.5 for big guns; 72.4 14.5 13.1 for small guns; 75.7 13.0 11.3 for small arms.”

The information given to us about granulation by the early English gunners is neither clear nor full.

When Whitehorne tells us that the method of corning “all sorts of powder” was the same, namely, by means of a sieve and a few heavy metal balls,[470] what meaning did he intend to convey by the phrase “all sorts of powder”? There can be little doubt that he meant “powders of whatever composition, and whatever the size of the grain to be produced;” first, because it would be preposterous to assume that all the sieves of his time had meshes of equal size; and secondly, because there is abundant evidence to show that, long after Whitehorne’s time, the powders for different guns in England (and elsewhere) varied both in composition and grain. In 1620 Thybovril and Hanzelet tell us that powder to be granulated is to be passed through a sieve with holes “de la grosseur que vous desirez votre poudre”;[471] and eight years afterwards Norton uses the very same ambiguous phrase, “a syve ... made full of holes of the bignesse you desire your cornes.”[472] Did they mean that the size of the grain in their time was purely arbitrary and might be of any magnitude whatever? A passage in Boillot’s (earlier) work explains their meaning much better than they have done it themselves. He first tells us that the sieve is to have holes “de telle grosseur que vous voudrez,” and he then goes on to explain the proper size of grain for use in the different classes of ordnance, as given here on a previous page. In a word, three or four kinds of sieves (differing in the size of their meshes) were procurable—some for graining powder for big guns, others for graining powder for medium guns, &c. &c.—and having fixed upon the gun from which your powder (when grained) was to be fired (and consequently upon the size of the grain), you were to select those sieves which had meshes “of the bignesse you desired your cornes.”

From the phrase used above by Norton, it is certain that several powders, differing in grain, were in use when he wrote; from the evidence of Norton,[473] Nye,[474] and others, it is equally certain that several different receipts for making powder were in use during their time. The conclusion is that during the first half of the seventeenth century powders made in England for different guns varied both in composition and size of grain.

The lawlessness in composition and grain during the greater part of the Transition Period was the natural consequence of the absence of any instrument to measure the comparative strength of different powders, and enable gunners to establish some standard for the proportions of the ingredients and the size of the grain.

The earliest instrument proposed for testing the strength of powder was, I believe, Bourne’s “engine or little boxe,” which, he says, was “very necessarie to be used.”[475] Whether he invented it himself or not, it is impossible to say: he tells us, “some of (the inventions) I have gathered by one meane and some by another, but the most part of them hath been mine own.”[476] The engine was a wretched one. The powder to be tested was ignited in a small metal cylinder with a heavy lid (working on a hinge) which when raised could not shut of itself. The angle through which the lid was raised by the explosion indicated the strength of the powder.

A better instrument was that described by Furtenbach in 1627.[477] It differed from Bourne’s “little boxe” in that the lid was only laid upon the cylinder. When the powder exploded the lid was blown upwards along two vertical wires which passed through it; but it could not descend again of itself, being held in the place it reached by iron teeth (like those which supported the lid of Bourne’s box). Nye describes this instrument, and suggests that the comparative strength of powders should be further tested by measuring the penetration of pistol balls into clay, and the ranges of projectiles fired from a small mortar.[478] This is, I believe, the first proposal of the _mortar éprouvette_, 1647. The French certainly adopted them before 1686, often though it has been said that they then introduced them. On the 18th September of this year Louis XIV. published an ordonnance complaining of “the variety of eprouvettes” in use for testing powder, and directing that for the future no powder should be accepted unless 3 oz. of it could throw a ball of 60 lbs. 50 toises (320 ft.) from the Government pattern mortar.[479] In a previous ordonnance (April 16, 1686) the King had protested against the bad charcoal (_de méchante qualité_) constantly employed; against impure saltpetre (_rempli de graisse et de sel_), insisting upon the exclusive use of saltpetre “de trois cuites”; and against insufficient incorporation (_dix ou douze heures ... au lieu de ... vingt quatre heures_).[480] But he marred the reforms he made by taking the unaccountable step of introducing one powder, of the same composition and size of grain, for all arms.[481] For this blunder the French afterwards paid in blood, especially during the Peninsular war.[482]

About the beginning of the eighteenth century most countries had reduced their powders to two or three, which were of the same composition, and differed only in grain. In 1742 Benjamin Robins, by his “New Principles of Gunnery,” placed gunnery upon a strictly scientific basis, and by his epoch-making invention of the ballistic pendulums[483] enabled gunners for the first time to measure the muzzle-velocity of projectiles with considerable accuracy. It may have been owing to the lessons taught by this instrument that, between 1742 and 1781, we changed the proportions of the ingredients of our powder from 75—12½—12½ to 75—15—10. Profiting by the rapid progress of electricity during the first half of the nineteenth century, Sir Charles Wheatstone proposed in 1840 his electro-magnetic chronoscope,[484] which registered to the 1/730 part of a second, to replace Robins’ ponderous pendulum.

Wheatstone’s instrument was not adopted by our Government, but his idea was followed up and improved upon by Captain Navez, of the Belgian Artillery, who in 1847 brought forward his electro-ballistic pendulum.[485] Only one instrument was now wanting to enable the mechanical effect of the explosion to be directly and completely observed—an instrument to measure the pressure upon the bore of the gun; and this want was supplied in 1861 when Captain T. J. Rodman, Ordnance Department, United States Army, produced his Indenting Apparatus and his Internal Pressure Gauge.[486] The following Table gives the results of some experiments with the new instruments:—

TABLE VI.

_Showing the connection between the Size of the Grain, Muzzle Velocity, and Pressure on Bore._

+-------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------------+ | Diameter of | Charge. | Weight of | Muzzle | Pressure on | | Grains. | Lbs. | Shot. | Velocity. | Bottom of Bore. | | Ins. | | Lbs. | F.s. | Tons per Sq. In. | +-------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------------+ | .1 | 8 | 43 | 1261 | 21.5 | | .15 | ” | ” | 1235 | 21.0 | | .2 | ” | ” | 1199 | 18.8 | | .25 | ” | ” | 1151 | 17.1 | | .3 | ” | ” | 1146 | 15.3 | | .4 | ” | ” | 1187 | 14.2 | +-------------+---------+-----------+-----------+------------------+

This Table shows that as the size of the grain slowly increases, the muzzle velocity decreases very slowly, and the pressure on the bore decreases very quickly. The consequence of this discovery was the manufacture of various very large grained powders such as pebble powder, &c., for heavy guns. But the thorough knowledge of the mechanical effect of the explosion of gunpowder gained by the use of the Navez and Rodman instruments, was of little avail to anybody, for gunpowder had nearly run its course. Just twenty-five years after the introduction of the pressure gauge M. Vieille put the French Government in possession of a nitrocellulose explosive,[487] and gunpowder was added to the list of things that were.

Throughout the whole gunpowder period enthusiasts seem never to have been wanting who believed in the possibility of making smokeless powder and noiseless powder. Castner’s powder, which contained only 3 per cent, sulphur, seems to have been the nearest approach to the former, but no powder containing sulphur could be absolutely smokeless. Whether early gunners suspected this or not I do not know; certain it is, however, that sulphurless powder was under discussion centuries ago. Rabelais (who may have heard soldiers talking about the matter) alludes jokingly to “pouldre de canon curieusement composée, degressée de son soulfre.”[488] In 1756 the French actually experimented with sulphurless mixtures, one of which (80 per cent. sulph. and 20 per cent. ch.) gave good results in range, with very little smoke. It proved to be worthless for military purposes from the difficulty of corning it, and from its crumbling to dust during ordinary transport.[489] The belief in a noiseless powder was scoffed at by Whitehorne: “There be many who bring up lies, saying that they can tell how to make pouder that shooting in gunnes shall make no noise, the which is impossible.” A century afterwards Sir Thomas Browne believed means might be adopted, if not to stifle the sound altogether, at least “to abate the vigour thereof, or silence its bombulation.”[490]

Tables VII. and VIII. give the composition of gunpowder at various times.

TABLE VII.

_English Gunpowder._

+---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+ | | 1250[491]| 1482[492]| 1569[493]| 1578[494] | 1588[495]| 1595[496]| 1695[497]| | | _cir._ | _cir._ | | | | | | +---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+ |Saltpetre| 41.2 | 66.6´ | 50.0 | 66.6´ | 71.4 | 75.0 | 75 | |Charcoal | 29.4 | 22.2´ | 33.3´ | 16.6´ | 14.3 | 12.5 | 15 | |Sulphur | 29.4 | 11.1´ | 16.6´ | 16.6´ | 14.3 | 12.5 | 10 | +---------+----------+----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------+----------+

_N.B._—All these writers give the proportions of gunpowder in their own times.

TABLE VIII.

_Foreign Gunpowder._

+---------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+ | |France[498]|Sweden[499 |Germany[500]|Denmark[501]|France[502]|Sweden[503]|Germany[504]| | | 1338 | 1560 | 1595 | 1608 | 1650 | 1697 | 1882 | +---------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+ |Saltpetre| 50 | 66.6´ | 52.2 | 68.3 | 75.6 | 73 | 78 | |Charcoal | ? | 16.6´ | 26.1 | 23.2 | 13.6 | 17 | 19 | |Sulphur | 25 | 16.6´ | 21.7 | 8.5 | 10.8 | 10 | 3 | +---------+-----------+-----------+------------+------------+-----------+-----------+------------+