OKEHAMPTON EXPERIENCES, 1892 . 
147 
think I am right in saying that it has not been popular at Okehampton. This 
has been a very dry year, and the ground has been rather hard. Last year, 
when it was very wet, and the ground was accordingly soft, it was found that if 
all six guns were laid, while the shooting was going on from No. 1 to No. 6 or 
vice versa the wheels sunk, and then what becomes of your Hammant indicator, 
unless you have got a stable platform ? Another disadvantage (I do not know 
the cause of it, but it certainly happened with one battery this year) was that 
the elevating gear went wrong. It was in one of the batteries that had the. 
double elevating screw, and the Hammant indicator was fitted to it ; the elevating 
screw jammed, and when they took the indicator off it went right ; I am not 
enough of a mechanic to explain the reason why. 
Colonel Bainbridge —I should like to say a few words about the ammuni - 
tion. In the first place, I think the method of calculating the effect per shell as 
carried out at Okehampton is a wrong one, because it is allowed that the common 
shell is not an effective shell for anything but ranging, and therefore the calcula¬ 
tion of the percentage of hits per shell I think should only be made from the 
shrapnel fire, leaving out the common shell fire, otherwise I think it is very 
misleading. 
With regard to the ammunition, one thing that I notice is that “ The time and 
percussion fuze is excellent, and every gunner will be glad to hear that the diffi¬ 
culty of screwing up the nut without shifting the collar has been overcome by a 
very simple expedient ’’—that is, simply by putting a fixed washer between the 
screw and nut and the dome, so that when you screw your nut up you do not 
move your dome. The time ring is also made round so that it can be more 
easily moved without the hand touching the dome. 
With regard to the new form of shrapnel, these are some results that were sent 
to me from Shoeburyness, which certainly look promising for the new shrapnel. 
The only land range they have there is 1500 yards. The service shell gave 90 
hits ; the Italian new pattern, being tried with a burster in the base, for the 12-pr. 
gave 136 hits ; and the 15-pr., with the lower velocity, 149 hits. I have here 
another comparison with the burster 11 feet up. The service shell gave 85 hits ; 
the Italian pattern, 99 ; and the 15-pr. gave 139. I think that looks rather 
promising for the new shell. 
The only thing that I am disappointed in is that the lecturer did not give a 
little more credit to the tube used for cordite, with which, when I was at Oke¬ 
hampton, we certainly had no failure during the whole day, and there was not a 
single misfire; but, so far as I know, the objection to it is that it takes rather 
longer to put in and to hook in the lanyard. 
We have carried out some experiments to-day with a tube which, instead of 
being pulled directly upwards, is pulled horizon tally, and I think that will over¬ 
come that difficulty. 
Captain Blunt —With reference to what you have said, Sir, about the hits 
per shell, I quite agree that it is not fair to include the common shell, but it is 
sometimes a little difficult to separate the ranging shrapnel and the common 
shell. Some Battery Commanders begin to range with common shell—two 
rounds, perhaps, of common shell—and then go on to shrapnel. Are you to 
eliminate all the ranging rounds, or are you to include in calculating the results 
the percussion shrapnel ? 
Colonel Bainbridge — I myself should only include the time shrapnel. But 
previously to this all the ranging has been done by common shell, and it has 
been calculated in the same way in previous years too. 
I beg to propose a vote of thanks to the lecturer.—Carried by acclamation* 
20 
