THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
475 
were different, the larger bore of the Armstrong gun enabling it to 
burn 14 lb. of powder, while the Whitworth could only use 12 lb. effec¬ 
tually. On the other hand, the large diameter of the Armstrong 
projectile was adverse to its penetration, as compared with the smaller 
diameter of the Whitworth shot. The much greater effects of the 
Armstrong shot, although they did not establish the superiority of the 
rounded head, yet tended to dispel the illusion that there was any 
special virtue in the flat form; and it was noticeable that the round 
head did not glance more than the flat one, but bit well into the plate, 
in one case showing daylight through a hole in the plate 2 inches 
square. 
This experiment has value incidentally, as illustrating the uselessness 
of attempting to arrive at a definite conclusion upon any one issue 
when others are largely mixed up and confused with it. 
Many shots, both pointed and flat, were subsequently fired, from time 
to time, direct against iron plates. A list of such shots as, from the 
similarity of other conditions, were fairly comparable, is to be found in 
the Parliamentary papers already referred to—viz. “ Correspondence, 
&o.” p. 22; and the conclusions which the Ordnance Select Committee 
drew from their comparison (in the 8th paragraph of their Report, p. 14 
of papers above), are not in favour of the flat head. 
In October, 1866, we have further evidence. Six comparative rounds 
were fired with Palliser chilled shot and shell, and Whitworth flat¬ 
headed steel shot, the former weighing 115Jlb. and the latter 113 lb.; 
their diameters were alike, and their penetrative powers, as expressed 
by the “ work per inch of shots* circumference/* were very nearly the 
same.* 
The first pair of rounds were fired direct, and the remainder at an 
angle of 33° from direct impact. 
The results were largely in favour of the Palliser pointed heads; and 
it was noticeable that, so far from these latter having a tendency to 
glance off the plate, as argued by the supporters of the flat head, on 
the contrary they turned inwards, so as to improve the direction of the 
shot for penetration. 
Here terminates the record of War Office experience, which is alto¬ 
gether adverse to the flat heads ; the more so as Capt. W. H. Noble, R.A., 
has found by experiment that, with velocities of about 1100ft. per 
second, the loss of velocity of the flat head, due to the resistance of the 
air, is to the corresponding loss of the pointed head as 113 to 63—a 
ratio which becomes more unfavourable for the flat head as the velocity 
is higher, and less unfavourable when lower, than 1100ft. per second. 
This result has been questioned by Sir J. Whitworth, who, strange to 
say, proposes to estimate the comparative loss of velocity by the differ¬ 
ence between the extreme ranges of the two forms of projectile. 
The fact is, that long before either projectile attains its extreme 
* The War Office record numbers of the rounds are:— 
Steel flat-head . No. 1235 1234 1263 
Pointed “ Palliser” ... No. 1248 1245 1258 
