BY G. A. MORELL, ESQ., C.E. 265 



Comparing the number of men required in each case we have 

 for the rifled guns 



T\vo 600-pounders 40 men 



Five 300 ditto 80 



Twelve 150 ditto 120 



Total ... 240 men 



And for the one hundred and forty (140) 68-pounders we shall 

 have to employ 1120 men, even by reducing the detachment for 

 each piece from 10 to 8 men. 



It must be remarked also that beyond 1000 yards this equiva- 

 lent number of 68-pounder guns would be useless with solid shot, 

 whereas the rifled guns could still send their shells through 

 armour-plates. 



The cost of maintaining 1120 efficient artillerymen instead 

 of 240 would be more than four times as great, and supposing 

 that half of the 1120 men were volunteers, a saving of more than 

 20,000 annually would still be made in troops alone, by using 

 heavy rifled guns instead of the ordinary smooth bore. 



The weight of shot used with these rifled guns is not more 

 than one-half of that used with the 68-pounders to do the same 

 work, and not over one -fourth of the quantity of powder is re- 

 quired. The expense of a general discharge of one round with 

 the rifled guns is less than half the cost of the same discharge 

 with the 68-pounders, 



The original outlay, taking into consideration the cost of 

 ammunition per piece, would also be considerably less for rifled 

 guns. 



I do not wish to say that 68-pounder guns are useless, on the 

 contrary, I admit that at 200 or 300 yards they are very formid- 

 able, particularly if in large number, but they would not answer 

 for long range guns (2000 yards or more for instance) against 

 ships protected with some kind of armour. 



One 68-pounder from our highest work would probably fire 

 more than 100 rounds before sending one shot through the deck 

 of a moving vessel, for according to the latest experiments, the 

 best rifled guns would at 2000 yards have a mean difference of 

 range of 30 yards for every five rounds. 



