100 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
pared with the performances of scores of similar guns, abnormally and 
treacherously, was the steel, and not the wrought-iron. Captain von 
Doppelmair will easily believe us when we state that no pains had been 
spared in the selection for this gun of a perfectly sound steel tube of 
superior quality; and the material exhibited what we may call its charac¬ 
teristic defect—the defect of uncertainty. Whereas the tube ought, 
according to the evidence of former experiments, to have stood the test, 
severe as it was, of 600 rounds of battering charges of English powder, with 
a forward vent, it failed after a comparatively small number of rounds. 
But surely, as the tube was of steel, this can hardly be used as an argument 
in favour of that material. The conclusion to be derived from this expe¬ 
rience would be not, as Captain von Doppelmair would argue, to make the 
whole of your gun of steel, but, on the contrary, to employ as little of that 
treacherous and uncertain material as possible. On the other hand, the 
wrought-iron portion of the gun acquitted itself well and loyally. With a 
split steel tube, it resisted about 100 rounds, of which the greater part were 
with battering charges. In this portion of the gun—the portion which is 
peculiar to the English system of gun-making—there was no failure 
whatever. 1 
Such results as these obviously afforded too insecure and insufficient basis 
on which to attempt to establish the superior resistance of the Krupp to the 
Woolwich gun; and this consideration presented itself to Captain von 
Doppelmair with so much force, that he immediately set to work to collect 
from the highways and byeways of controversy, facts and fictions wherewith to 
eke out the slender means at his immediate command. With an appearance 
of great pomp and circumstance, he proceeds to consider the relative durability 
of the cast-steel and coiled wrought-iron systems of ordnance, and their 
liability to burst. But Captain von Doppelmair can never travel far without 
a theory; and the theory which he adopts on this occasion consists of two 
terms. It is as follows:—With regard to wrought-iron guns, he says, 
“ Erom the trials of one gun, a conclusion cannot be come to as to all guns 
of the same description;” as to steel guns, he says, “Prom the trial of one 
specimen, a judgment can be formed as to all guns of the same description.” 2 
It is hardly necessary to observe that this, for a writer who has undertaken 
1 The gun as a whole, if we except the steel portion, acquitted itself so well, that it is hardly neces¬ 
sary to press into the argument the consideration—notwithstanding that it is an important and legi¬ 
timate one—that the gun which was tried at Tegel was not of the present service construction, which 
is believed to afford double the resistance tangentially to the exterior of the tube. If we were so dis¬ 
posed, we might with perfect fairness throw overboard the endurance test of this gun altogether, 
in the same way as Captain von Doppelmair gets rid of the original (solid) construction of Krupp’s 
guns when it serves his purpose to do so (p. 74), although elsewhere we find him including some 
of these solid guns among his examples of the successes of Krupp (pp. 72-74). The Woolwich 
gun tested at Tegel was really no more a representative of the existing English service system, than 
was the Krupp 8-inch solid gun which burst, a representative of Krupp’s present service system. 
But, happily, we are not under the necessity of playing fast and loose with our different types of 
gun manufacture in this way. The performance of the English gun at Tegel, in firing 100 rounds 
after its steel interior had failed, was, we repeat, exceedingly good, and will compare advantage¬ 
ously with any result obtained with Krupp’s guns—whether solid or hooped—that we are acquainted 
with. 
2 Doppelmair, p. 69, 
