5 
: 
TRANSACTIONS QF SECTION G. 939 
pressure, even if the inner tube or barrel be completely split ; that whether we 
regard the gun as a whole, or the parts of which it is composed, the changes of 
form should be as little abrupt as possible; and that any sharp angle or corner 
must be absolutely avoided. 
As in principles of construction, so in material employed, is the practice of the 
great gun-making nations closely agreed. The steel employed is ductile and sub- 
jected to severe specifications and tests, which differ slightly one from the other, 
ut exact, in effect, qualities of steel substantially thesame. So far as I know, the 
application of the tests in this country is more severe than in any other, and I 
take this opportunity of entering my protest against the statement which I have 
seen more than once in the journals ofthe day—that English gun-steel is in any 
way inferior to any that is produced in any part of the world. Sheffield has in 
no respect lost its ancient reputation in the art of steel-making, and to my certain 
Jmowledge has supplied large quantities of steel, admitted to be of the first quality, 
to gunmakers of the Continent. The steel made by Sir J. Whitworth & Co. has 
likewise lone been in great repute both at home and abroad, and looking at the 
care devoted to the subject by the Government, and the eagerness with which 
improvements in the quality and mode of manufacture are sought for and acted on 
by the steel-makers, we may be absolutely certain that to the best of our Inow- 
ledge the most suitable material is used in the construction of our guns. 
As many of you are aware, the mild steel which is used for the manufacture of 
guns is after forging and rough-boring subjected to the process of oil-hardening, 
being subsequently annealed, by which process it is intended that any detrimental 
internal strain should be removed. This process of oil-hardening, introduced first 
by Lord Armstrong in the case of barrels, is now almost universally adopted for 
all gun forgings. Of late, however, there has been considerable discussion as to 
whether or not this oil-hardening is necessary or desirable; and while admitting 
the increase of the elastic limit due to the process, it is asked whether the same 
results would not be obtained by taking a steel with, for example, a higher per- 
centage of carbon, and which should give the same elastic limit and the same duc- 
tility. The advocates of oil-hardening urge that steel with low carbon, duly oil- 
hardened to obtain the elastic limit and strength desired, is more reliable than 
steel in which the same results are reached by the addition of carbon. Those who 
maintain the opposite view point to the uncertainty of obtaining uniform results 
by oil-hardening, to the possibility of internal strains, and to the costly plant and 
delay in manufacture necessary in carrying it out. The question raised is un- 
doubtedly one of great importance, but it appears to me to be one concerning 
which it is quite within our power in a comparatively short time, by properly 
arranged experiments, to arrive at a definite conclusion. 
Sir F. Abel has in his Presidential Address given us so masterly a réswmé of the 
present state of the steel question in its metallurgical and chemical aspects that it is 
unnecessary for me to add anything on this head. I will only remark that in selecting 
steel for gun-making, individually I should prefer that which is on the side of the 
low limit, to that which is near the high limit, of the breaking weight prescribed by 
our own and other Governments. I have this preference because, so far, experience 
has taught us that these lower steels are safer and more reliable than the stronger 
—and in guns we do not subject, and have no business to subject, the steel to 
stresses in any way approaching that which would produce fracture. 
Of course if our metallurgists should give us a steel or other metal which with 
the same good qualities possesses also greater strength, such a material would by 
_ preference be employed, but it must not be supposed that the introduction of such 
new material would enable us, to any great extent, to reduce the weight of our 
guns. As a matter of fact, the energy of recoil of many of our guns 1s so high that 
it is undesirable in any case materially to reduce their weight. As an illustration 
I may mention that some time ago in re-arming an armour-clad, the firm with 
which I am connected was asked if by using the ribbon construction it would be 
possible, while retaining the same energy in the projectile, to reduce the weight of 
the main armament by three tons pergun. The reduction per se was quite feasible, 
but when the designs came to be worked out it was found that, on account of the 
3 P 2 
