326 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
periodically wetted with fresh and salt water during the space of six months. 
They were not in any way injured, and afterwards bore being fired. 
One of the objections alleged against lead-coated projectiles—that the lead 
was apt to come off or (< strip 3> when fired,—was not experienced in these 
trials, except in that part of the rapid firing when lubrication was omitted. 
This is due to an improved mode of attaching the lead by zinc solder; the 
projectiles, as now manufactured, may be fully relied on for ordinary service, 
though doubts are still expressed whether they will equally bear the effects 
of very hot climates.* The only cases in which defects had been observed 
in projectiles with the lead attached by zinc were attributed to faulty work¬ 
manship, t 
Such are the results of actual experiments, carried out carefully and con¬ 
ducted with apparent fairness, so far as the efficacy of breech-loading in 
opposition to muzzle-loading is concerned. As the object of these extracts 
is to furnish a simple comparison between the two, the final conclusions 
drawn from each series of trials connected with field service are shown in 
the following abstract, the gun that evidently answered best being shown 
by the figure 1, and equality being denoted by the sign =. 
Trial. 
B. L. 
M. L. 
Remarks. 
\ shot . 
1 
Mean errors ... 19-3 and 18-8 
vv -K-ango .... 
[segment shell... 
1 
a 6’92 n 6 - 82 
' shot.* 
1 
Mean velocities 1246 » 1356 
Initial veio- j 
segment shell... 
1 
„ 1248 ;/ 1356 
(2)» 
.| 
[.shell. 
1 
„ 1238 „ 1358 
I 
["shot.. 
1 
Retardations ... 190 „ 247 
.Retardation -i 
segment shell... 
1 
„ 189 „ 247 
1 
[shell ...,. 
1 
„ 184 n 238 
f shot . 
1 
See Table, p. 315. 
(3) Accuracy. A 
segment shell... 
1 
1 
(4-8) Effect in the field ...... 
v ’ r 
(9,10) Ease of working and rate \ 
_ "S 
1 
= 
tinder ordinary circumstances. 
By special arrangements. 
ui iiriiig . * 
1 
Without lubrication. 
(13-17) Hard Usage, &c. .... 
= 
= 
(18,19) Durability of ammunition... 
1 
Considering how different the two kinds of guns are, it is surprising that 
their performances should be so nearly on a par. Whatever objections may 
be taken to particular points of the trials the general result can hardly be 
disputed* and 1 would state it in the following terms t “ that no superiority 
of practical value for general purposes can be attributed to the breech- 
screw system for field artillery 39 It may fairly be urged that the muzzle- 
loader consumed more powder and had more weight of metal, but the 
difference in the first, as a question of weight to be carried, only adds 2 per 
cent to a complete round of ammunition, and in the other it is com¬ 
pensated (assuming that it is indispensable)! by the absence of spare parts 
and cumbrous sets of tools with which breech-loaders have to be provided. 
* Report, p. 39. t Evidence, Questions 2758, 2794. 
$ They were intended to be of the samo weight. Report, p. 15, and Evidence, Question 157. 
