AND AMERICAN RURAL SPORTS. 
117 
as to distance, by which the gun is to be directed in advance 
of the bird, its flight varying at times from a greater to a 
less degree of velocity, as well as distance. In his essay on 
Duck shooting, he admits the necessity, even within the 
moderate space of sixty yards, of varying the direction of 
the gun from six inches to three or four feet; and I would 
ask, if this be the fact, what reliance can be placed on a 
mode of shooting liable to so much discretionary exercise 
on the part of the sportsman. In the diagram offered, the 
data there given, so far from supporting his position, and 
elucidating the subject, has only made its fallacy the more 
apparent; for if, as he supposes, it takes one second of 
time for the passage of the load from the breech to the muz- 
zle, and one second for a forward velocity of the contents 
in a hundred yards; two seconds must necessarily elapse 
before the shot would do execution at that distance; and esti- 
mating the flight of the duck at eighty-seven feet the second, 
it follows that it would require a direction of the gun twice 
eighty-seven feet, or one hundred and seventy-four feet in 
advance, in order to overcome the rapidity of its flight; or 
take any proportion of the above time, and, according to his 
own expression, “the result is the same.” This latitude, 
we should think, would stagger the faith of the oldest Duck 
shooter, and even I. T. S. must acknowledge his theory to 
be, however philosophically correct, practically unsound 
and defective. 
In this country, where, from the abundance of game, 
and the forbearance of restraint in its pursuit, the science of 
shooting, more than in any other, has been brought to its 
greatest perfection, the principle advanced by me is acted 
upon by the most skilful and practised shots, and its cor- 
rectness has been tested upon all game; for, let the bird fly 
fast or slow — with the rapidity of a duck, or the sluggishness 
of a rail — the sportsman who is governed by it, is satisfied 
that its truth can be relied on in every instance. If your 
correspondent would but reflect for a moment on the laws 
of motion, (and it is only on these, if I understand rightly, 
the argument rests, laying aside the opposing properties of 
air and gravitation) I think he would at once abandon his 
theory of shooting ; for it must be evident to the conside- 
rate mind that the same laws will apply to the projectile 
force of a gun, as to any other object. It is a law of motion 
that, if a stone be thrown perpendicularly into the air, it 
will fall upon the very spot from whence it was sent; or a 
rifle firmly fixed, so as to project a ball in the same perpen- 
dicular manner into the air, would, on the descent of the 
ball again, receive it back to its original starting-place. 
Now it is evident, from the earth’s motion, that the projec- 
tile body must receive a corresponding impulse, otherwise 
this rule could not be correct. It is computed that the mo- 
tion of the earth’s surface is at the rate of 950 feet in a 
Gg 
second ; and if a stone were projected to such an height as to 
take but one second for its ascent and descent, it must follow 
that, (unless governed by this impulse) when it reached the 
ground, it would do so at a distance of 950 feet west of the 
spot from whence it was thrown. This effect, we are con- 
vinced, cannot take place. The experience of every one 
demonstrates to the contrary; for the motion of the earth is 
communicated to the stone, in common with all other things 
upon its surface. Again, if a ball be dropped from the top 
of the mast of a vessel, under rapid sail, it will not fall into 
the sea behind the vessel, as might be suspected, but will 
arrive on the deck, at the foot of the mast. Also, a per- 
son on horseback, riding at a fleetness of a mile in two 
minutes, would, by throwing an object perpendicularly into 
the air, receive it back into his hand again. Now, as the mo- 
tion of the earth is to the stone — the vessel to the ball — the 
fleetness of the horse to the object thrown up by the rider — so 
exactly is the swing of the gun, to the contents projected from 
it, at an object in a direct line. To depart from this system of 
reasoning, all philosophy is confounded, and rendered use- 
less, without any other guide than chance or misapprehen- 
sion. Upon this principle, aim might be directed on a bird, 
which, if possible, would describe a complete circle around 
you, and the gun hold her fire from the commencement 
until the bird had completed its flight, and on the discharge 
would strike the object, because, acting upon this principle, 
which governs nature in her movements, the projected body 
cannot be diverted from the line of aim, having partaken of 
the motion, as before mentioned. Persons may argue about 
allowances before the object; but it certainly does not look 
like either practice or science in him who upholds the 
theory; and a man may act strictly scientifically, or accord- 
ing to the laws before mentioned in shooting, (which, in fact, 
as before stated, is the case with all of the best shots) which 
practice teaches him is correct, without being able to des- 
cribe those laws that govern him in this practice; and a 
person may, also, by much experience, be enabled to shoot 
with a degree of certainty, on the principle advocated by 
your correspondent I. T. S. ; but rules having their foun- 
dation in error, can neither be depended on in the many 
contingencies of shooting, or recommended to those who 
wish to embrace this enchanting science as a recreative 
pleasure. 
1 will merely say a word or two in relation to the 
“ striking of shot,” and I am done. I agree with I. T. 
S. as to the fact of shot being heard to strike. This 
position I have never denied — it is only against the effi- 
cacy of shot, when thus heard, that I contend. In the 
discharge of the contents of a gun, the proportion of 
shot which take effect on an object at a distance of thirty 
yards, to those that glance off, or are diverted from the 
