Dec. 33, 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



429 



Essex Sportsmen's Club.— The Gloucester, Mass., 

 Capo Ami Advertiser reports that "the Essex Sportemen's 

 Club held theu- fli'st aunual match last Friday and Satin-- 

 day. The club was divided into two sides, one wae led 

 by Mr. C. W. C%ipman, the other by Mr. J, E. Fuller. 

 The grand total of each side was as follows: Chipumu's 

 side, 7 partiidges. 13 quails, 8 rabbits, 7 red squirrels, 36 



snow 

 total po: 



buntings, S crows, 1 owl. 1 butcherbird, 1 bluejay; 

 points, 1,715. Fuller's side, 37 rabbits. 10 quails, 13 



Bumhatn, 185: W. Ross, 200: T. B. Fuller, 195. The club 

 and invited guests participated in a supper on Wednes- 

 day evening," at the expense of the losing team. Mr. 

 Fuller, who made the best record, as above shown, was 

 presented with an elegant silver medal suitably inscribed. 

 After supper the ckili reorgauized. imder the name of the 

 Essex Gun Club, and made choice of the following offi- 

 cers: President, J. E. Fuller; Vice-President, D. B. Riggs; 

 Secretary, C. W. Chipman; Treasurer, E. S. Andrews." 



A NoKTH Carolina Resort.— Garysburg, N, C, Dec. 

 14.— Many of your readers, especially those among the 

 sportsmen of the North, would be glad to know the 

 advantages otu' place offers them for hunting. Garysburg 

 is at the jimction of the Atlantic Coast Line with tlie 

 Seaboard & Roanoke K. R., which connects nt Norfolk, 

 Ya., with the iSe^v York, Pliiladelphia & Norfolk R. R., 

 and is only two iriiles south of Weldon, N. C. It is a 

 small village, blessed with educational and commercial 

 advantages, and inhabited by moral and hospitable 

 people. The climate in mild aiid salubrious. Within a 

 radius of ten miles any quantity of deer, Avild turkey and 

 quail can be foimd, and on the Roanoke River, only two 

 miles south, rare sport can be had shooting ducks and 

 geese. The hotel is kept by mine genial host, W. T. Kee. 

 He himself is an experienced huntsman as well as a good 

 caterer, and those of your readers who desire to spend a 

 vacation in pr<ifi table pursuit of game may rest assured 

 that no place can offer better facilities. — J. H, P. L. 



Proposed Alask^a. Excursion.— New York, Dec. 20.— 

 Editor Forest and Stream: It has often occurred to me 

 that I would like to fish and shoot for one summer in 

 Alaska, but when I have mentioned this to my friends I 

 have found them much more Avilling to go down to the 

 Great South Bay or one of the southern coast resorts than 

 to undertake a trip like this. I think I could get ready in 

 about twenty-fom- hours if a party of gentlemen could be 



f)t together "for this trip next summer, say to start from 

 ew York by the loth of May and return alwout Sept. 15. 

 I have taken the trouble to ascertain that there would not 

 be materitd difference in the cost by any of the numerous 

 routes to Puget Sound, and from there we could go by 

 the regular line of steamboats or liave a sailing vessel take 

 the party up and remain with it all sununer. I ask that 

 you publish this and see if they can not be banded 

 together for the trip. — J. E. Palmer (115 Greenwich 

 avenue). 



Quail in Confinement. — ^Brfwklyn, N. Y., Dec. 20. — 

 In answer to an iuqutry from ''H. M. W.," in regard to 

 the care and feeding of (juail, I have successfully kept 

 them for seasons, a7id have some at present which are m 

 the best of healtli. 1 feed them alternately ou wheat and 

 buckwheat mixpd, screenings and occasionally table cel- 

 ery. I have also planted wheat and buckwheat in two 

 separate boxes, v>^hich I keep in a \\ arm place imtil it 

 sprouts. After tliat I place one box in the coop and 

 change tiieni every mormng, keeping one l)Ox growtag 

 steadily. \n this manner the wheat is always fresh. I 



flant it as dee]) as possible, otlnirwise they wiU pull it out. 

 give tliem plenty of I'resh water twice a day. By this 

 mode of feeding I have inal but two birds out of a dozen 

 (wlrich two. by the way, appeared sickly when received. 

 —J. F. M. ■ 



J\LuNE. — CamiJ Caribou, Aroostook County, Dec. 13. — 

 Stdl-hunting has been a failm-e, all the earlier snow- 

 storms terminating in a cnist, and I know of no deer or 

 moose being shot. Many caribou have l)een Idlled, as 

 they are comparatively easy to get and are quite plenty. 

 Two have fallen to my gun. and two more tem]5ting 

 chances were had since," but I had gotten my quota. An- 

 other hunter, E. K. Peek, got two at one shot, and the 

 pith of it lies hi the fact that he saAv but one until after 

 firing* ; the second one, quite small, stood near by the one 

 aimed at. One of those shot by myself was a bull of 

 great size and had superb antlers. The head has been 

 set up by Bowler of Bangor. — Warfield. 



Manitoba Furs.— IJtica, N. Y., Dec. 20.— One day last 

 week a car laden with furs was ferried across the St. 

 Lawrence River at Brockville, ti-ansferred to the Rome, 

 Watertown & Ogclensbiu-g Railroad, and afterward sent 

 through to New York. The car Ciime from Winnipeg, 

 and the furs it contained were owned by the Hudson's 

 Bay Company and valued at $71,000. The skins in the 

 ear represented the destruction of 4iJ7 bears, 65 silver 

 foxes, 5,137 beavers, 800 foxes. 4,255 lynxes, 8,178 martens, 

 291 wolverines. 307 wolves, and a host of small animals. 

 Another carload valued at over §60,000 passed through to 

 New York a few days ago. — Portsa. 



High Point.— New York, Dec. 22.— Editor Forest and 

 Stream: I have recently received several inquiries in re- 

 gard to the weather at High Point, N. C. For the benefit 

 of those of our brother sportsmen who contemplate going 

 there for a, few days' shoot, I copy a, portion of letter just 

 received from David White under date of Dec. 19, in 

 which he says, "The snow all disappeared by Sunday, 

 12th, since then the w-eather has been very fine. The 

 birds (quail) seem te be more plentiful than tefore the 

 snowfall."— Geo. T. Leach. 



The Turkey. — Washington, D. C, Dec. 17. — I see that 

 a bushman adveiHises good tua'key hunting in your paper 

 at "$1.50 per day, including guide, dog, turkey, etc." I 

 was going to say that I will bar the guide, dog and trim- 

 mings if he will only furnish the iTirkcy to scale not less 

 than 121b8, weight,— Tar Heel. 



LESSONS OF THE TRAJECTORY TEST. 



Kdltor Forest and Strmm: 



The following article of Mr. R. H. Burns in your columns of July 

 8, imX is not true, but decidedly false, as the face of your report 

 cleavlv sho\va. (.See September and October, 1885, "Trial of Hunt- 

 ing Eifte? a t Creedmoor.") I Avill copy liis abort letter in full, that 

 all may see it; 



"I to call ibf attention of Mr. Napoleon Merrill to tne fact 

 tba t in your test of hunting rifles there was not a muzzleloadingr 

 buntine rifle in the contest, the nearest to it being the one [the 

 Merriir rifle] flred at the 100yds. range, and that one was beaten in 



'gvdaritv of bullet flii?ht, ). f ., in accuracy by twenty-seven of the 

 .jiTtv-thi-ee breechloaders in fomjjetilion. At 2(]0yds. the rnUiSKlc- 

 loadcr tarccet rifle [the Romer rifle], with all appliances of a target 

 riHe, beat all nf the breechloading hunting rifles In the reg-ularitv 

 of shooting, the nearest one to it being the Maynard .40-cal., which 

 was just four thousandths of an inch behind the it omer muzzle- 

 loader, the difference in cle\'ation at 100yds. of 5 sliots being: 

 Bomer, Maynard. difference, .004 of an inch. The worlc 

 of the breechloader is selling it." 



Thus boldlv and unqualiiiedlj' says Mr. Burns, who here steps 

 in aa n volunteer (M'itic to back up Mr. .1. T. Clapp in his criticism 

 .in iny "Turkey Shoot" arth^le, vide your columns of .July 1, 1886, 

 ]>. 149. Mr. Burns is a member of the Chautauouai Sportsmen's 

 Association or the N. Y. P. and O. Shootin;? Club and I see his 

 name ynite often in print .among the list of shooters who figure as 

 •'rifle experts" in this club. Hence when such a person boldly 

 plays the part of a critic he is very apt to be listened to and be- 

 lieved l)T a g^reat manv who do not understand the subject of rifle 

 -<ho(itiiig. His article flittly and most boldly denies (in efl'ect) the 

 fai ts and points 1 presented in my article drawn from your very 

 full report in pamphlet I'ovm of your rifle trial in reference to the 

 muzzle iind breechloaders, and his denial further serves to pervert 

 au-s traduce the true nieaning of your most valuable reijortby 

 assertine:, tliough indirectly and in a* roundabout way, that the 

 breechloading rifles wliich this critic well knew from your report 

 made comparatively high trajectories at the trial, were beaten in 

 "accurticy" by the tw^o muzzleloaders, which made, as he well 

 knew, flat trajectories. 



It fnrtlier apju ars in yotir columns that several other very 

 knowing por^,oi]s acting as critics also have at difl'erent times 

 adopted and artfully circulated tlie foregoing false doctrines nf 

 Mr. Biirns, and no to this date (No\'. 32) no person has publicly 

 come forward aucf repudiated thcra— not even ilic several makers 

 of tlie di/Terent kinds of American lireeehloaders whici), were 

 tested at this trial, and whose relative merits were involved, have 

 cun.ic forward to deny them, but have silently adopted them Our 

 ,'ei'y learned critic must liave known that flat trajectories result 

 from high velocities of the bullet and give straigliter shooting 

 than high trajectories, and that high trajectories rcsitlt from slow 

 velocities of tlie bullet and give more crooked shooting than flat 

 tra.iectericB. 



Consider all this, and what is still more important, to wit- that 

 your most valuable report should not be traduced but rem.aln in 

 hdl force in its true teachings for all future tune; and consider 

 that the cfl-rdiuid lesson of this report teaches that flat trajectories 

 ptr announce greater aceuracy (the shooting being equally 

 steady) tlian high tiajcctories; and that to show tliis greater accu- 

 raev ill a general way and at a glance of the eye your trial was 

 maile, and tlie heights of the trajectories given, so that e^-ery one 

 i:ari r=ei^ in a moment how the different rifles shoot, and Ihus be 

 Hide t(; deeidc vei-y nearl>- of their (vertical) trajectory accuracy 

 hv -n).ii()ly comparing the heights of the trajectories with eacli 

 oiher. CoHsidcr also that your pamphlet report in its table, as 

 \\-cll as i^'oniisr AND .Stream, show tliat the trajectory made by 

 tlie Merrill rifle for lOOyds. is much flatter than any of the trajec- 

 tories made by the 31 American breechloadei-s, as stated in my 

 rei'lv to Mr. Clapp (but in effect denied by Mr. Burns), as stated in 

 m> •■I'oiutS. :Merrill's muzzleloader also beat * * * all the .31 

 American breechloaders in a flat curve, all the way from :18 per 

 cent , as the least up to 278 per cent. as;the most (or greatest):" and 

 as proof of this 1 referenced your report. And now Mr. Burns 

 steps in and virtually denies tins. His denial is utterly false. 



The accuracy of the rifles tested a re inversely as the heiglits of 

 their respective trajcctoric-s nearly, and the. relative heights of 

 the trajectories vary sutTiciently to enable any one who knows 

 anything about rifle shooting to see at a glance which rifles were 

 tlie most accurate shooters. Mr, Burns being .a critic and belong- 

 ing to a shooting club, of course knew tins, or not knowing it, he 

 sliould have kept silent; and the same is true as to his followers. 



Did not these critics know the object of this trial, and that its 

 ^■ery end was to arrive at (near enough for the occasion) the re- 

 spective vertical accuracy of all these rifles by finding the respec- 

 tive heiglits of their trajectoi-ies and comparing them together? 

 Could they not see at a glance that every^ American breechloader 

 tested ataWyds. would shoot over and miss adeeratmidrangeand 

 along midrange, and some of them over an elk or small elephant, 

 tlie aim being on the cenicr, and the charge and aim being as for 

 point blank? Could they not see that.the Romer rifle only would 

 kill a deer under like circumstances? 



The Romer rifle beat the 31 breechloaders in the flatness of its 

 trajectory, as 1 stated it in ray article, bttt which this critic and 

 others of his kind try to suppress and smotiier, to wit: "Point 3. 

 But Romer's munzleloader beat (in a flat curve) at mid range in a 

 200yd8. trajectory, all the 31 American breechloaders, and very, 

 very badly too, to wit: from 37 per cent, as the least (Remington. 

 .33-cal., No. 9) up to 243 per cent, as the most (Stevens's Hunter's 

 Pet). Trajectory No. 21, a Wliitney, being abnormal, is rejected." 

 And yet the wUy critics try to make the public believe that these 

 two muzzleloaders were beaten in accuracy. Is it not evident 

 they know isetter? Had they not eyes to see in your report the 

 relative heights of tlie trajectories? And for what purpose were 

 tliey all gotten ? Answer to show by deduction the relative bullet 

 velocities, relocity jiowers, and accuracies of all the rifles. I mean 

 that vertical accuracy only which belongs to the trajectory (not 

 the target) and which could be seen very nearly when the heights 

 of all tlie trajectories were obtained aud presented by you to the 

 public. 



I do not here mean target accuracy, as found at the end of the 

 range, nor screen accuracy. Fohest awd SxRBiVM report says, 

 and repeats it, that target accuracy was not sought for nor ob- 

 tained, but that the shots were scattered purposely. The test was 

 for trajectory accuracy. The breechloaders, as the heights of their 

 curves prove, all shoot over too much at and along mid range to 

 make close-shooting rifles, such as is required for killing both 

 large and small game. A rifle which shoots correctly only at one 

 point in the range is a poor eoneern for use in htmting. You re- 

 quire one to siioot strong and good, and close, all along the hunt- 

 ing range and this, without changing the aim or sights. And no 

 amount of contradiction, whether direct, or roundabout, or under 

 cover by Mr. Burns, his followers, or all the world, can wipe out 

 the li-sdng facts declared by this trial, and which I Iionestly tried 

 to bring before your readers in my last article. To try and deceive 

 the public in this matter I hold to be a great sin, and it shall not 

 be done witli impunity. Please to rule them out of your columns, 

 Mr. Editor, as nuisances against a good cause. 



With these necessai-y explanations, alike due to you, myself and 

 your readers, 1 am now quite ready to reply, but in rather torse 

 terms. 1 o critic's flippant article. 1 will leave your readers to judge, 

 each foi- himself, "whether Mr. Burns and Ids followers (whose 

 articles they may ha-ve read in y(jur columns) witli your reports 

 before them, wTote in stupid ignorance of this subject, or rather 

 with the rutliless design of falsifydng the records in order to build 

 up the breechloaders at the expense of the muzzleloaders. And 

 in forming an opinion it must he borne in mind that this subject 

 of flat vs. high Trajectories )ias been much and veldely discussed, 

 and kept almost, constantly before the public for the past five 

 years or more, insomuch so that it seems to me the most verdant 

 tyro In rifle shootLag should and must know that flat trajectories 

 per sc silently declare greater accuracy than high ones. This is 

 so, as can readily be seen, because being straighter they conform 

 more nearly to the straiglit line of aim (or sight) throughout the 

 whole range (and beyond it also) and, mark well, it is fi'ora the 

 line of aim or sight tiiat "accuracy" {or error, it's opposite and the 

 same thing) as if is generally called, is, and always hiust be, to be 

 correct meastired. 



And yet right square in the face of the flat trajectorieslaid do^vn 

 In your reports for the two muzzleloaders, this vague and loose 

 critic, backed by his foUowors, unequivocally declares that the 

 Merrill rifle was beaten in accuracy by 37 of the breechloaders, 

 and that Romer's beat all these but the Maynard by only .001 of an 

 inch. 



\Vliat a wonderful coincidence, what a tight flt indeedl Only the 

 four-thousandth of an inch difference. Is this unblushingstateraent 

 really made in utter darkness or through "total depravity?" As 

 the breechloaders are shown to be comparatively all very weak 

 shooters, arising mainly from the slow speed of the buUet, why 

 did not Mr. Burns here change the subject from the ridiculous to 

 the amusing, and assert that the Merrill rifle was beaten by 27 

 weak-spoutlng diiferent waterpots? 



And now as to Mr. Burns's letter: 1. It is not true "that there 

 was not a muzzleloading hunting rifle in the contest;" therefore, 

 what he calls a "fact," and to which he so graciou.slv "wishes to 

 call my attention" is not a fact; proof, see your records. Hunting 

 rifles, as all know, have various weights, from 251b3. or more down 

 to 51bs, or less; aad who cousUtuted this critic a, sole judge in th? 



case? And on what notable records and merit? See the various 

 weights of the rifles tested, in your report. 



2. It is not true, but most absurdly and glaringly false, that the 

 Merrill rifle, "the one flred at the lOOyds. range, was beaten in 

 regularity of bullet flight, i. e., acciu-acy, by 27 of the 33 breech- 

 loaders." No, there is not a word of truth in this very bold asser- 

 tion; proof, the records. But it is true that this rifle beat, and 

 most badly, too, all the Amiorican breecliloaders (31 in all) in the 

 flatness of its trajectorv and consequent accuracy, and this, too, 

 as I correctly stated it in my article to Mr. Clapp, but now con- 

 tradicted and denied by Mr. Burns and others of his style. You 

 see, his "accuracy" refers to accuracy at 50yds, hence, under your 

 report, he stands' forbidden to claim target or screen acciu-acy. 

 This locates him at SOyds. on this point. You will also see that he 

 meant to be understood that the Merrill rifle was beaten in accur- 

 acv in its broadest or most common sense, for after first using the 

 words "regularitv of bullet (light," and these not coming up to his 

 wishes and purposes, he adds thereto, /. p., accuracy. This term 

 accuracy added, gives that deep tone and loud ring to his sentence 

 through which lie wislied to deceive your readers. Vain mani Are 

 all ritle shooters idiots? If he shaU say he meant "regularity," 

 tliis dodge wiU not better his position, 



3. It is not true that 33 breechloaders were tested, but only 32. A 

 critic shoidd learn to tell the trutli; possibly this was an error and 

 I iJass it by. 



4. Under his own way of arriving at accuracy (which is not cor- 

 rect), it is not true that the Merrill rifle was beaten by nearly as 

 many breechloaders as lie states. Under any claim for accuracy 

 of target or bunching of the bullets, several of the breechloaders 

 at both ranges stand ruled out, for on a reference to tlie trajectory 

 tallies of iielghts of the curves, it will be seen titat in many cases 

 the breechloaders stand credited with more than 5 (consecutive) 

 shots; in other words, that the vidldest shots have been rejected. 

 Example, shot No. 5, 200yds„ Maynard rifle, ruled out. But with 

 the muzzleloaders the shots are only 5, and no I'uling out was 

 deemed necessary. But for gettiag tlie normal trajectories only, 

 which was the object of the trial, and to be able to present correct 

 represetitative curves, it was right, proper and usual to throw out 

 the bad shots, as was the case in several instances. In speaking 

 of accuracv, vour report says, page 8: "Each of the two rifles, the 

 Romer and Merrill, with their heavy charges, maintaiued a high 

 degree of accuracy ." Exactly so, and thus with their flat trajec- 

 tories they beat all the l^reechloaders very badly. 



The Romer muzzleloador was tested at 200yds. only and "all the 

 appliances" it had to it and so insinuatmgly mentioned by Mr. 

 Burns made no difference in the height and strength of its trajec- 

 tory, as your readers are indticcd to believe they did. Mr. Burns 

 sliould hiive knovra this simple fact before lie appeared iu the 

 light of a brilliant rifle critic. He should have learned from your 

 report that neither this rifle nor any of them were tested for tar- 

 get (or screen) accuracy', and to prevent target accuracy or "bimch- 

 ing the bullets" in the screens along the range and on this target 

 some of the rifles were so aimed as purposely to scatter the .shots 

 on the screens and targets,andthis to prevent.as is stated in your re- 

 port, the screens from being so much cut by the bullets as to prevent 

 a correct measurement of the shots. Under this manner of shoot- 

 ing the buUets were generally scattered more or less over the screen 

 at mid-range, ."iOyds. and lOOyds. Take as an example, the best 5 

 shots— Nos. 1, 3, 3, 4 and 6— of the Maynard rifle (the boast of Mr. 

 Bums) and they are scattered on the lOOyds. screen 7.40ui. horizon- 

 tally and l.SOin. vertically (the Romer is some less). If No. 5 is 

 couiited in, as it should be for Mr. Burns's .accuracy, the vertical 

 spread is ll.;J()in. How as to Mr. Burns's .OOMn. Mavnard beat and 

 the 5 shots in this screeu? Now examine in the tables the heights 

 of the respective curves of the Romer and Maynard rifles at 50yds. 

 and lOOyds. and see how very little they dilfer in height. Tlie 

 great lesson to be dravrn from this is, tliat the slight difference in 

 the heights of these curves do not .siiow the spread of the bullets 

 by "a long way," and I presume this fact will astonish 19 in .30 of 

 your rea&rs who in glancing at the tables believe to the contrary. 

 And these tables, mark it well, furnish no positive proof of accur- 

 racy, and even if they suggest it, which in one view of the case 

 they do, this suggestion may or may^ not come out true when the 

 rifle is tested to settle the matter. On what platform does my 

 learned critic now stand as to the 5 shots being elevated on the 

 screen at lOOvds. and of the difference being just .OOtin. and this 

 beats, says he, the Romer by just .004in.? And how as to the Mer- 

 rill rifle being beat, wliich he declared is a fact, but does not go to 

 t he trouble of trying t o show or prove it. 



4. Our critic further says, "At 200yds. the Romer rifle beat all the 

 breechloading hunting rifles in the regularity of shooting [here he 

 drops "accuracy" after the words regularity of bullet flight], the 

 nearest one to it being the Maynard .40-cal., which was just four 

 thousandths of an inch behind the Romer muzzleloader." He 

 continues, "The difference in elevation of the Ave points being: 

 Romer, .293; Maynard, .396; difference, .004 of an inch." It is not 

 true that these rifles differ in accuracy (and this is just what he 

 wishes the public to believe) by only .004 of an inch. It is more 

 than 1,000 times this amount, and this too in favor of Romer's rifle 

 at mid-range, where he locates his "elevation of the five shots," and 

 it is at this point he says the Romer rifle beat all the breechloaders, 

 but the Maynard only by the four-thousandth part of an inch. 

 VfhAt audacious nonsense. Romer's beat the Maynard (approxi- 

 mately) 4.69 inches at lOOyds. in trajectory accuracy, or 66 per 

 cent, in trajectory accuracy at this point. Andpt beat it (adversely) 

 in the flatness of its trajectory at this point ,73 per cent., just as I 

 stated it in my reply to Mr. Clapp, and which Mr. Burns stepped 

 in and flatly (in effect) denied. I here challenge Mr. Bm-ns to 

 prove up his assertions: And let him specifically state from wliat 

 line the elevation of the five shots are measured and how he got 

 this lino, and how he locates the five shots for measurements or 

 calculations, and prove in particular that .004 of an inch represents 

 accuracy, and define what accuracy means, and how the measui'e- 

 ments must he made to get it. The tables do not show accuracy 

 or regularity of shooting to be as he states, .004 of an inch, and as 

 to the screen at lOOyds. the shots are, as before stated, widely 

 spread out over it and there Is nothing on it to measure accuracy 

 from, not even a bullseye or any center fixed. The public want 

 light not darkness from Mr. Bums. I well understand how he 

 worked it to get the nine mysterious figures on which he declared 

 accuracy', so that I want no more of this incorrect work or false 

 .show. It is a clioat. In closing his letter he says "Tiie work of 

 the breechloader is selling it." Very good, possibly, this may be 

 true. His entire letter, unless the last lines about the sale be 

 excepted, has not a shadow of truth in it. Proof, constdt the 

 Forest and Stream Report. 



If I have erred in this letter in anything material, I request to 

 be shown my error that it may be corrected. 



If Mr. Burns and his followers had studied your pamphlet report 

 of this trial and tried to profit by it, I am unable to see how they 

 shoidd have been so blind on this subject, as their criticism of my 

 article shows. 



I like to be criticised in an intelligent and truthful way, but 

 most heartily despise fallacy. I look upon those who seek to cover 

 up the truths of rifle shooting, instead of holding them up for the 

 ptibllc to profit by, as enemies to tlie cause, and I regret to see tha,t 

 tlie papers are too full of this kind of evil matter. 



The following data are given in order that every one can figure 

 for himself. Excepting the Maynard height of the trajectory, 

 which is now" added, the other data are the same as those onw^hich 

 1 made out my several points in my reply to IVIr. Clapp, but since 

 attacked by Mr. Bums and others. Indeed, tiiis false ball once set 

 in motion by him has been most willingly speeded on its course by 

 ^vily hands and hearts, imtil it is now full time that it shall re- 

 ceive a death blow square, and so be brought toahalt inits center. 

 The data, as wUl be seen, enables one to figure for the outside ex- 

 treme trajectories, but leaves the intermediate one to be specially 

 regarded if desirable: 



RANGE ICOyds. In. 

 Height of mean curve, 5 shots at SOyds.. Merrill's rifle, .42-cal. 1.30G 

 Height of mean curve, n shots at 50yds., Majmard rifle, .40-cal. 2.155 

 Highest mean curve of all the American breechloaders, Ste- 

 vens's Hunter's Pet rifle, .32-cal 4,955 



Lowest mean curve of all the American breechloaders, Rem- 

 ington-Hepburn rifle, .33-cal 1.803 



The Bland English double Express rifle, .42-cal., the same one 

 used in the rifle test of hunting rifles near London in 

 the fall of 1883, has, at •50yds., solid Express bullet, a 



mean curve, height ■ 1.334 



Also another mean curve, with hollow pointed Express bullet 



height 1.410 



EA-N'GE 200Y1)S. 



Height of mean curve, 5 shots at lOOyds., Romer's rifle, .43-Gal,- 6.399 

 Height of mean curve, 5 best shots in 6, Maynard. rifle, .40-cal.ll.087 

 Highest mean curve of all the American breechloaders, Ste- 



vens's-Hunter's Pet rifle, .SS-cal 31.987 



Lowest mean curve of all the American breechloaders; Rem- 

 ington-Hepburn rifle, .32-cal 8.8S0 



Bland mean curve, 5 shots at lOOyds., Bland rifle, .42-cal 7.530 



Now, the velocity and velocity powers of these rifles, as weU as 

 of all those tested, are inversely as the heights of the trajectories 

 at mid-range.' Now compare by this rule the speed of the muz- 

 zleloader bullets with the speed of the American breechloaders, 

 and then compare both with the rules which govern in horse 

 racing in reference to speed, and see if the American breech- 

 loaders were not "all more than distanced," as I stated it in reply 

 to >Ir, Olapps And if so, is not this a gad coium^nt pn tbin mucli 



