ME ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
87 
advances a statement of this character at the present time. This fallacy, 
which rests upon purely theoretical considerations, and which can be main¬ 
tained. only by deliberately ignoring the published results of actual practice, 
has long since been exploded in England; and in England we may at least 
claim to speak authoritatively on this point, having had an experience of both 
the breech and muzzle-loading systems unequalled for variety and extent by 
that of any other country. The remarkable accuracy of the breech-loading 
Armstrong guns has not been disputed, and yet we find that whenever 
these breech-loaders have been carefully compared for accuracy with muzzle- 
loaders, the result has invariably been favourable to the latter. Thus, both 
the reports of the Armstrong and Whitworth Committee of 1865 show that 
the superiority in point of accuracy and uniformity of range rested with the 
muzzle-loading Armstrong shunt and Whitworth guns, as compared with 
the breech-loading Armstrong guns. 1 The following passages bear upon this 
point:—12-pr. Eeport: “ The advantage of the Whitworth gun in respect 
of accuracy with solid shot, as compared with the breech-loading Armstrong 
gun, is very marked throughout. . . . The muzzle-loading Armstrong 
gun has a marked superiority over the breech-loading Armstrong gun.” 3 
“All the three guns may be considered as practically equal as regards 
accuracy with segment or shrapnel shell.” 3 70-pr. Eeport: “Up to a range 
of about 1700 yds., the accuracy of the muzzle-loading Armstrong is supe¬ 
rior to that of the other two guns. . . . At a range of about 3500 yds. 
. . . the accuracy of the breech-loading Armstrong is decidedly inferior 
to that of both the muzzle-loading guns. At ranges greater than about 
3500 yds., the Whitworth gun exhibits a decided superiority over the 
muzzle-loading Armstrong gun, and this latter a very marked superiority 
over the breech-loading Armstrong.” 4 “Up to a range of about 1600 yds. 
the breech-loading gun exhibits (with shrapnel and segment shell) a decided 
superiority over the muzzle-loading guns, which, however, it soon loses, as 
at 1900 yds., and at all higher ranges, it is far inferior to them both.” 5 
The probable relative accuracy of the three systems, irrespective of the 
projectile, is stated by the Committee to be as followsUp to a range 
of about 1500 yds. the accuracy of the breech-loading Armstrong and the 
Whitworth guns may be considered as equal, and up to that range the 
accuracy of the muzzle-loading Armstrong gun is superior to both. At 
greater ranges than 1500 yds. the accuracy of the breech^]oading gun is 
inferior to that of both the muzzle-loaders.” 6 
More recently a comparison has been made between the bronze 9-pr. 
muzzle-loading gun, recently adopted for India on the recommendation of 
General Wilmoths Committee, and the breech-loading Armstrong 9-pr. and 
12-pr. guns, which has shewn that the breech-loaders have no advantage 
whatever in point of range, and that they are at a decided disadvantage in 
respect of flatness of trajectory. 7 
Einally, the 9-pr. muzzle-loading gun above mentioned has given the 
following results when fired for accuracy :— 8 
1 This Committee fired over 1800 rounds to test accuracy. 
2 “Armstrong and Whitworth Report,” p. 23. 3 Ibid. p. 24. 
4 Ibid. p. 57. 5 j b i d> p> 58t 6 ibid. p. 58i 
7 Captain W. H. Noble, R.A., has recently made a full report on this subject to the War Office. 
8 “ Report of Special Committee on Field Artillery Equipment for India,” p. 22, Appendii. 
