THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
327 
As a question of money the expense of the extra metal in the muzzle- 
loader is far below that of the machinery in the breech-loader, without 
reckoning the contingent cost of keeping the gun in working order. If 
under this head were included, as fairly ought to be, the daily pay of such 
artificers as might be dispensed with if a less delicate gun were in use, and 
the expense of providing supplies of tools and appurtenances to distant 
stations at home and abroad, we should have an approximation to what the 
maintenance of breech-loading guns amounts to. But to this would have to 
be added the extra expense of lead-coated projectiles, mechanically-ignited time 
fuzes, and special lubricators, before we could obtain the total cost of 
keeping up the system. 
How far the saving of this difference would go towards the cost of 
adopting a muzzle-loading -system is a matter for calculation. The 
Armstrong and Whitworth Committee reported, with reference to the pri¬ 
mary manufacture of the guns alone, that the difference was so unimportant 
compared with the interests at stake in having the most efficient, that the 
question of cost ought not to influence the selection. Under the present 
circumstances we are exposed annually to the greater expense without the 
satisfaction of possessing a more efficient description of ordnance. 
The Committee delivered their opinion in the following terms:—“ That 
the breech-loading gun is far inferior as regards simplicity of construction 
to either of the M.L. guns, and cannot be compared to them in this im¬ 
portant respect in efficiency for active service."* And again : “that both 
Sir W. Armstrong's and Mr Whitworth's muzzle-loading systems, in¬ 
cluding guns and ammunition, are on the whole very far superior to Sir 
W. Armstrong's breech-loading system for the service of artillery in the 
field."f 
Major-General Taylor, the present Inspector-General of Artillery, put on 
record a dissent from the opinion thus strongly ’worded, but he admitted that 
the “balance of advantages" lay with the muzzle-loaders, and only claimed 
the recognition of certain points of superiority in the breech-loader. J Two 
other members expressed dissent from the general report adopted by the 
majority, but their objections were directed to other points, and did not 
impugn the above decision. 
The chief advantages hitherto claimed for breech-loaders as field artillery 
guns (including those specified by General Taylor), may be briefly stated in 
general terms as follow:— 
(1) Superior accuracy and rapidity of fire. 
(2) Freedom from danger in loading, especially on field days and when 
used for saluting. 
( 3 ) Facility for being rendered useless to an enemy by carrying off the 
vent-piece. 
( 4 ) Facility for renewing the vent, which in any gun is the part which 
first deteriorates by use. 
* Report p. 32. 
[VOL. V.] 
f Ibid. p. 43. 
J Ibid. p. 45. 
44 
