442 
Q.F. GHJNS FOE, FIELD ARTILLERY. 
shock of discharge, the destructive effect of which upon the carriage 
is very great if all recoil be prevented, the rate of fire must be much 
increased if the quick firer is to have an appreciable superiority; and 
this is well brought out by Major Inglefield. 1 2 Let us see what are 
the points of a Q.F. Major Elmslie says 8 — 
1. —A rapid breech action. 
2. —Fixed or simplified ammunition. 
8.—No recoil. 
4. —Sights not to require removal. 
5. —Layer to be undisturbed by loading or recoil. 
6. —Layer to lay and traverse. 
7. —Firing to be by trigger or short lanyard. 
8. —Percussion fuze only to be used when great haste is needed. 
But these points are nearly all equally applicable to an improved 
type of field gun— 
1. —A rapid breech action certainly is. 
2. —So is any simplification of ammunition ; that fixed ammunition is 
objectionable is shown by Majors Elmslie and Inglefield, 
Captain Barlow and Lieutenant Buckle. 
8.—Absence of recoil is peculiar to the Q.F. 
4. —Sights have been tried and probably will be adopted for our 
field guns, which do not need removal. 
5. —Our system of opening and closing the breech does interfere 
with the layer, but there is no reason why that system should 
not be modified. To lay undisturbed by recoil is peculiar to 
the Q.F. 
6. —Traversing saddles worked by the layer have been tried and 
given up by field artillery. They are necessary in the case of 
quick firers as the trail digs into the ground and traversing 
by the trail is difficult. 
7. —But the traversing arc must be small, as no carriage would 
stand strain of recoil directed across carriage. Captain 
Barlow says 6° is feasible, presumably 8° each way. In the 
case of hostile cavalry working rapidly round a flank difficulty 
and delay would ensue. 
7 is equally applicable to field guns. 
It is therefore apparent that a quick firer must differ from a field 
gun in there being a total absence of recoil (an advantage), and in a 
traversing saddle being necessary (a disadvantage); in all other res¬ 
pects the quick firers proposed differ from our existing type of field 
gun, but not from that field gun as it might be improved. And this 
is where the comparisons drawn in the essays appear misleading. 
Let us now see what rate of fire is claimed for quick firers. 
Major Elmslie says that from four to five rounds per gun per 
minute; Major Inglefield thinks six to possibly eight; Captain Mont¬ 
gomery fixes five as a fair estimate; Captain Barlow considers three 
1 Page 313, No. 7, Yol. XXV. R.A.I. ‘Proceedings.’ 
2 Page 288, No. 7, Vol. XXV. R.A.I. ‘Proceedings.* 
