THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
105 
Conclusions arrived at by the Committee . 
The report was on the whole most in favour of the Armstrong muzzle- 
loaders for the following reasons, which among points of the utmost 
importance to gunnery, the committee established in the course of their 
experiments 
e< That the many-grooved system of rifling with its lead coated pro - 
jectiles, and complicated breech-loading arrangements, entailing the use 
of tin cups and lubricators, is far inferior for the general purposes of 
war, to both of the muzzle-loading systems, and has the disadvantage of 
being more expensive both in original cost and in ammunition. 
" That muzzle-loading guns can be loaded and worked with perfect ease 
and abundant rapidity. 
u That guns fully satisfying all conditions of safety can be made with steel 
barrels strengthened by superimposed hoops of coiled wrought-iron, and 
that such guns give premonitory signs of approaching rupture; whereas 
guns composed entirely of steel are liable to burst explosively without 
giving the slightest warning to the gun detachment.” 
These remarks are not supposed to be limited to heavy guns, they apply 
with equal or greater force to field guns; in fact, the committee expressed 
their opinion that both Sir ¥m Armstrong’s and Mr Whitworth’s muzzle¬ 
loading systems, including guns and ammunition, are on the whole very far 
superior to Sir Wm. Armstrong’s breech-loading system for the service of 
artillery in the field, 
Question of M.L, Rifled Guns for Field Service, 
This startling conclusion led to further enquiry; a new committee, con¬ 
sisting of Sir B. Dacres as president, and 1£ experienced E.A. officers of 
high rank, as members, was appointed in 1866 specially to investigate the 
subject, and according to Lieut.-Col. Miller, Secretary, the actual terms 
of this committee’s decision are,* “ That the balance of advantages is in 
favour of M.L. field guns, and that they should be manufactured hereafter.” 
The general reason for coming to this result is briefly summed up by 
Lieut.-Col. Miller as follows :— 
(( If we had to take immediate part in a European war we should bring 
into the field a delicate gun requiring constant care and a great variety 
of stores for its sole use ;t we should further be liable to the risk of the 
gun failing us at critical moments, but we should not have the satisfaction 
* See paper entitled “ The comparative advantages of breech-loading and muzzle-loading 
systems for Rifled Field Artillery.—“Proceedings” R.A. Institution, Vol. V. p. 312. 
f “ Each battery, in addition to spare articles connected with the breech-loading apparatus, is 
supplied with a box of facing implements weighing 105 lbs,, and containing 25 articles required 
for re-facing the vent pieces and bouche rings, and with a set of special tools in two boxes, 
together weighing 83 lbs., containing a large number of articles.”—Report of the Armstrong and 
Whitworth Committee, p. xxxi. 
