■74 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
Nor do we quote the passage with a view to gibbeting the confusion of 
thought which can thus trace an inevitable connection between the English 
proportion of charge to calibre and the mode of gun manufacture, and 
between the metal of our guns and the system of muzzle-loading. Nor is 
it our immediate object to expose the reckless inaccuracy of statements 
which follow: that we are unable to make cast-steel guns; that we are 
unable to make breech-loaders; that we are compelled to employ a powder of 
rapid combustion, because our guns are short: that we are compelled to use 
short guns, because we cannot make breech-loaders; that “ the uncertain 
stability of the guns remains as a prejudicial consequence of the selection of 
the metal;” that our guns are so weak that we are compelled to adopt the 
increasing twist; that with our guns there is no security against a sudden 
bursting. 1 These points will call for some remark hereafter; for the present, 
it is only necessary to observe that they afford so many examples of the 
worst possible form of begging the question—so many examples of the 
“ wheel of life” system in full play. The passage above has been quoted 
here, however, rather to show upon what grounds and by what sort of 
reasoning the indisposition of the Prussians to give the English gun the 
same opportunities as the Krupp for developing its penetrative power is 
attempted to be justified. 
When the guns were now fired, the following results were obtained:—- 
Bound 1, with .Krupp, firing a Gruson shell, struck the 8-inch target, but 
without penetrating it. An explanation of this failure is ready at hand. 
“The shell was not of the usual excellence.” 2 Mr. Krupp ascribes the 
failure to another cause—-the shell struck “ obliquely against the plate.” 3 
Whichever explanation be accepted, the round was a failure. 
Bound 2 was a Krupp steel shell, which penetrated the 8-inch target. Both 
Captain von Doppelmair and Mr. Krupp neglect to state, however, that this 
shell struck actually on the junction of two plates, and therefore on what is 
always considered in target experiments a weak place. Indeed, Mr. Krupp 
ventures to affirm that this round struck on a less favourable place than the 
Woolwich projectiles. The plans of the practice, and the testimony of an 
eye-witness in the “ Times,” clearly contradict this assertion. 
Bound 3. A fair hit with a Gruson 336 lb. shell, and a fair penetration 
a result, however, which it is proper to notice had also been accomplished 
by the Woolwich gun with Palliser 250 lb. shell and 43 lb. charges. 
Bound 4 Captain von Doppelmair omits altogether. Erom Mr. Krupp'’s 
pamphlet, 4 we learn that this was a Gruson shell, which stripped its lead 
coating in the gun, made several ricochets, and struck obliquely—affording 
an illustration of the difficulty attending the desired alteration of the lead 
jacket. 
Bound 5. This round also Captain von Doppelmair omits, which is the 
more remarkable since Mr. Krupp writes “through” against it. It is, 
however, clear from Mr. Krupp's detailed record of the effects, that the shot 
only went “ partly through the inner skin.” 5 ' It is not equally clear why 
Captain von Doppelmair has left this round out altogether, especially as the 
1 Doppelmair, pp. 24, 25. 
4 Krupp, Table IV. 
2 Ibid. p. 29; 
6 Ibid; 
3 Krupp, Table IV. 
