100 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
Lieut.-Colonel Barry, who commanded the Armstrong battery referred 
to, reported that, “ After having bivouacked for the night at Sangku in 
the rain, the breech-screws were nearly completely jammed with rust.” 
It is to be observed that these were the old pattern breech-screws with 
square threads; jamming from rust could scarcely take place with the 
bevel-shaped thread, which has a play of *02 of an inch. 
Major R. J. Hay, R.A. Assist.-Adj.-Gen., R.A. in the same campaign, 
finding that his statements relative to the Armstrong gun were so twisted 
and distorted by opposition written in the public press, wrote 25th March 
1861, to Sir Win Armstrong, to say that “the Armstrong guns in China 
rendered the most valuable service, being always in the most efficient 
and serviceable condition, although put to very severe tests. It would 
have been most surprising if slight alterations had not suggested them¬ 
selves in both guns and ammunition, considering that they were tried for 
the first time, and that they were most jealously watched by all.” 
Lieut. Pickard, UC., R.H.A., who took an active part in the New 
Zealand campaign, 1861, 3, 4, records his opinion as follows :— 
“The Armstrong field guns were always most effective where a long 
range or great precision was required, and they are therefore in every way 
an admirable substitute for, and improvement on, the old 9-pr. bronze 
smooth-bore guns. 
“ The great number of times that the Armstrongs were taken to pieces, 
and the continual rough usage which they met with in embarking and dis¬ 
embarking and in crossing rough country, without sustaining any damage, 
shows that they are not liable to get out of order from being of too delicate 
manufacture. They can be loaded and fired very quickly with time and 
concussion fuzes with well drilled detachments. 
“But although the Armstrong field gun has been proved to be an 
admirable substitute for the 9-pr. smooth-bored gun, yet it can in no way 
replace the 24-pr. howitzers which for obvious reasons were associated with 
9-pr. batteries before the introduction of rifled ordnance. 
“When a moderately thick earthen field parapet requires to be breached 
by field guns, as at the ‘ gate-pah * engagement—-when shell require to be 
thrown by hand amongst assailants or defenders of earthworks as at 
Rangiriri—when ricochet fire at very short distances is required, as at 
Orakau—the Armstrong field shell will always fail to be as effective as a 
common shell from a 24-pr. howitzer. Therefore the same arguments which 
held good for associating 24-pr. howitzers with 9-pr. guns in the old 
smooth-bored batteries, still apply to the necessity for associating an 
improvement on the 24-pr. howitzer with the 12-pr. Armstrong.”* 
A favourable opinion is given also by Colonel E. A. Williams, C.B*, who 
commanded the Artillery in New Zealand in 1864 ;— 
“ As far as I could judge,'” he writes, “ the Armstrong field guns stood 
the exposure and rough usage incidental to campaigning wonderfully well* 
* Vide Vol. IV. p|). 387-88; 
