THE 110YAL ARTILLEKY INSTITUTION. 
407 
construction, when a coil was shrunk on, the mass had to be moved from 
the shrinking pit to the turning lathe, and turned down for the next coil, 
and so on, coil by coil, until the gun was built up ; but in the new construction 
only two separate shrinkings are required, and it is computed that where 
fifty tons were moved in the former case, only seven are moved in the latter. 
From these circumstances, combined with the employment of cheaper 
iron, a “Fraser” gun can be made at two-thirds of the cost of a gun of the 
same nature as originally manufactured. 
But, it will be naturally asked, is this cheap construction as strong as the 
old one ? 
To answer this question in the most satisfactory form, it will be better 
to pass over the theoretical grounds which have already been discussed 
(see note t on previous page), and simply to state the facts of the case 
gathered from the trials of strength to which both systems were subjected, 
and then leave the reader to judge for himself. 
First mention of Cheap Guns , and trial of 9 -inch Guns on this plan. 
So far back as October, 1864, the Secretary of State for War drew the 
attention of the Ordnance Select Committee to the fact that a large number 
of 12-ton guns would probably be required for coast defences, and that it 
was advisable to adopt some cheaper mode of construction than the 
Armstrong method then in vogue. 
Colonel Campbell, 11. A., Superintendent KoyalGun Factories, being applied 
to by the Committee, explained that it was quite possible to reduce the 
expense hitherto incurred in the construction of wrought-iron guns, by the 
employment of steel with external coils reduced in numbers, and forged from 
iron of a cheap quality,* and subsequently he submitted tracings of two 
9-inch guns on this plan, one with a steel barrel (like the present 8-inch 
Mark II.) and one with a wrought-iron barrel; but both had breech-pieces, and 
the J) and C coils were not hooked together. The tracings were approved, 
and he was directed to manufacture the guns accordingly, 21st October, 
1864. 
They were tested in 1865. The gun with the iron barrel (Expl. No. 287), 
burst at the 104th round; but the Ordnance Select Committee expressed 
their opinion that the failure was one which need not shake confidence in 
the cheap method of construction, and in their report, 27th December, 1865, 
recorded their belief, founded on the trial of both guns as far as it had gone, 
that either gun was strong enough for all service purposes, and likely to be 
nearly or quite equal in endurance to the guns as previously constructed, 
and they thought the new construction should be introduced by degrees, and 
not entirely supersede the old method until its uniformity had been 
established by the proof of a considerable number of larger guns.f 
The trial of the second gun (Expl. No. 286), was continued, and 
burst at the 400th round, the steel tube having cracked some rounds 
previously. 
* Extracts from “Proceedings of O.S.C.” Yol. II. p. 230. 
f Extracts from “Proceedings of O.S.C.” Yol. III. p. 383, 
