474 
MINUTES OF PEOCEEDINGS OF 
But the strain also, on both gun and projectile, is greater than in any 
of the “ soft-metal-bearing ” systems, and this produces a liability of 
the shell to break up in the gun. 
This accident happened seven times during the trial of the Whitworth 
7-inch gun on board the Excellent (see “ Correspondence, &c.” 1867, pp. 
29-33), and seventeen times in 150 rounds of shrapnel fired by the 
Armstrong-Whitworth Committee from the Whitworth 70-pr. (see their 
Report, 1866, pp. 405-7). It is also described as having repeatedly 
and constantly occurred with the two 80-pr. Whitworth guns used 
against Charleston (see “ Correspondence, &c.” p. 22 ); and after this 
experience of the liability, we find the same thing happening again in a 
9-inch Whitworth gun of 14| tons, fired at Shoeburyness so recently as 
March 2nd, the shell being made of the very “ Whitworth metal,” from 
which we are invited to anticipate so much. 
Lastly, the hard projectile is found to wear away the surface of the 
bore. 
The most striking demonstration of the superiority of the "soft- 
metal bearings,” as regards the durability of the bore, is to be found in 
the brass rifled field-gun recently adopted for service in India, which 
may fairly be compared with any of the brass guns formerly rifled on 
the Whitworth system. One of these Indian guns, with grooved rifling 
and studded projectiles, has fired 2700 rounds, and a considerable length 
of the bore from the muzzle inwards is still perfectly sound ; whereas, 
of the brass Whitworth 12-prs. already mentioned, the bore of one was 
found to be expanded more than a tenth of an inch, with other injuries, 
after only 460 rounds, and the four other guns became unserviceable 
after no more than 200 rounds. It is therefore clear that, cceteris 
paribus, the Whitworth rifling is more damaging to the bore of a gun 
than service rifling. 
Sir J. Whitworth advocates a flat-headed steel projectile for pene¬ 
trating iron plates, and more especially for piercing them at oblique 
angles of impact; for general purposes of other kinds, he uses a more 
or less pointed head. 
The service projectiles are pointed for all purposes, those for use 
against iron plates being the well-known Palliser projectiles of chilled 
iron with sharp ogival points. 
The only noticeable difference in form of head or material between 
the two systems, is therefore to be found in the armour-piercing pro¬ 
jectiles. 
This question, like those of twist and calibre, is quite independent of 
the material or rifling of the gun, but we have some evidence of the 
comparative merits of the specialities advocated by Sir J. Whitworth. 
During the competitive trial of Armstrong and Whitworth 70-prs. 
in 1865, three rounds were fired at 200 yards range from each gun with 
steel projectiles against 4-inch iron plates, thrown back at an angle 
of 38° from the vertical. The heads of the Whitworth shot were flat, 
and those of the Armstrong hemispherical. 
There was a marked superiority in the effects of the round-headed 
Armstrong shot in all three instances ; but the experiment was not 
conclusive as regards form of head, because the calibres of the guns 
