480 
MINUTES OE PROCEEDINGS OF 
far unsuccessful, that these guns were beaten by the service breech¬ 
loaders in accuracy. The poor bronze gun soon gave in, after having 
been treated to a few shells with cast-iron ribs, which struck out a line 
of rifling for themselves. 
Finally, in December, 1868, a Special Committee was appointed 
under the presidency of Major-General F. M. Eardley-Wilmot, R.A., 
on the Equipment of Field Artillery for India. 
I feel sure, in mentioning General WilmoPs name as President, that 
the recommendations of the Committee will derive additional weight 
in the minds of those now present. After a long series of experiments, 
that Committee proposed the adoption of a muzzle-loading 9-pr. bronze 
gun of 8 cwt. as the sole gun for the horse artillery and ordinary field 
batteries in India. The gun has been so far adopted into the service, 
that the 9th Brigade of field artillery is about to be armed with it. 
To give you some idea of the piece and of its powers, is my object in 
addressing you this afternoon. 
2. Until within the past year there existed, and perhaps exists still, 
in the minds of many artillerymen, a somewhat ill-defined impression 
that a breech-loader must shoot better than a muzzle-loader. I, for one, 
hold that this is by no means the case. The muzzle-loading small-arm 
rifle is in nowise inferior to the breech-loader in accuracy. Why should 
the reverse be the case with guns ? 
I may be told that in the breech-loader the non-existence of windage 
is sufficient to demonstrate that it must shoot better than a gun with 
windage. I demur. I say, if I can centre a muzzle-loading projectile, 
and keep it centred as it passes along the bore, I shall have at least 
as fair a chance of making a good shot as the breech-loader, which at 
best can only do the same. 
But to quit theory and to come to facts. What is the result of actual 
practice ? Why, simply that as regards accuracy and uniformity of 
range, there is little difference between the two systems. 
If greater accuracy, then, is no longer allowed to be the peculiarity 
of breech-loaders for field guns, that system, according to my lights, 
has not a leg to stand on. For we know, as regards rapidity of firing, 
that there is no advantage one way or the other. 
I do not think I have ever seen the matter better put than in the 
Professional Tour Report of the Royal Artillery Officers who visited 
Russia in 1862; it was in these words:— 
“ The Russians are generally opposed to breech-loading for all services, as being 
unnecessary in the field, and impossible for large charges and heavy guns. 53 
That is, just where they would be useful, they fail ; and where they 
would be of no especial service, they may be used by those who like 
complication. 
I have been told that the Russians have gone back from this whole¬ 
some doctrine, and have taken to the complications they formerly 
believed to be unnecessary. I confess, in one sense, I am sorry for the 
Russians, as I firmly believe they have some bitter experience to buy 
