THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
5 
range of small-arms, guns will scarcely be able to unlimber for the future at 
case-range.” 
The ways and means to remedy this evil were therefore examined. This is 
gone into in the 2nd Chapter. The author acknowledges the efforts made 
towards an increase of effect by the construction of shell-guns, examines the 
experiments carried out with the Trench and Saxon shell-gun, and arrives at 
the conclusion (as does Waldemar Strenbel in his book, “The 12-pr. Shell- 
Gun”), that these guns did not answer. 
After giving an outline of the efforts made in the artilleries of some other 
nations towards the invention of a more effective and lighter field gun, the 
author passes over to the Prussian short 12-pr. He affirms “that with 
this gun the requirements with respect to increased effect with case must 
remain unfulfilled;” that after a slight experience of the short 12-pr., loud 
cries were raised that “ the eccentric shell manifest an unmistakeable 
inaccuracy and error on the practice grounds,” and that the new gun failed 
to answer the main object and requirement—viz., general extension of the 
zone of effect, commensurate with the increased power of rifled small-arms. 
A striking change in ideas occurred, with reference to effect and mobility, 
at the close of this period. The conviction had forcibly gained ground that 
“effect” must at once be placed before “mobility,” which must consequently 
be proportionately sacrificed. 
In the 7th Chapter of this part, the author gives a sketch of the develop¬ 
ment of rifled guns. He draws attention to the fact that the question of 
rifled guns has been raised at various epochs of time, and though it has fallen 
through—invariably owing to imperfect technical science—has again come to 
the front since the introduction of rifled small-arms, and now, in spite of all 
manner of depreciatory opinions, can no longer be kept back. The experi¬ 
ments made by the artilleries of various nations between 1850 and 1860 are 
spoken of with very great interest. Of these, the author subjects those of the 
Prussian artillery with rifled breech-loading guns to a more especial evaluation. 
In examining the experiments made with the view of determining the class 
and kinds of ammunition required for rifled guns, it is stated that the shell 
in all cases replaced the solid shot. The most material reason for abolishing 
the latter was, however, the conviction, which continually gained more ground, 
that, for all ranges and purposes in a campaign, the shell was not only 
sufficient, but indeed was more effective than solid shot. Even in the closing 
epoch of smooth-bore guns, the solid shot was acknowledged to be ineffective; 
in 1859 the Austrian artillery had frequently experienced the inadequate 
effect of solid shot against skirmishers, and had, in consequence, ordered the 
employment of shell only, with the smooth-bore 12-pr. After these acknow¬ 
ledged facts, the supply of solid shot for rifled guns could obtain no justifi¬ 
cation. 
With reference to case, the author says :—“The effective power of case—to 
which an undue importance continued to be attached—became less in 
proportion to the smaller charges employed with rifled guns, compared with 
smooth-bores.” The opponents of rifled guns endeavoured later to put 
forward this evil as a fundamental defect, which ought to place in question 
the utilisation in war of these guns, mainly as field pieces. 
The arguments of military critics, collected in Chapter 10, are of im¬ 
portance. Paixhans said“The solution must be discoverable; it must be 
