THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION, 
109 
This gun appears in the table, at 
page 70,as damaged after 104 rounds. 
The inside tube had been replaced 
by a new one of wrought-iron, rifled 
on the Woolwich system. In this 
altered state it burst after 368 rounds; 
but it cannot be discovered from this 
description whether the previous 101* 
rounds are included in this number. 
The inside tube and the coils gave 
way, but only two parts separated 
from the actual body of the gun—a 
part of the trunnion ring and a part 
of the outer coil." 1 
the coiled iron inner tube was a bad 
one, and that he reported that " had 
it not been desirable to see in what 
manner the gun would give way, lie 
would have proposed to remove the 
tube after the fiftieth round and re¬ 
place it." 3 He also thought “ the 
result favourable to Mr. Erasers 
mode of construction," 4 and that it 
showed "the advantageof iron barrels, 
which yield gradually in place of 
suddenly, as is the case with steel." 5 
The failure was, in fact, due solely 
to an acknowledged defect in the 
workmanship of the tube. 
The 104 rounds which the gun had 
previously fired as a shunt rifled gun, 
are not included in the 322 rounds 
which it fired subsequently with a 
wrought-iron barrel. 
“ Page 
is 
The particulars which Captain 
von Doppelmair complains are not 
given, are in fact given in great 
detail; 6 and from these particulars 
it appears that the gun had fired 
400 rounds, of which 350 rounds 
were with charges of 44 and 45 lbs., 
which gave a total consumption of 
“ no Jess than 17,124 lbs. of powder, 
or very nearly 8 tons," and an aggre¬ 
gate weight of projectiles of 43J tons. 7 
The Committee further observe 
“ that they are not aware of any 
guns having consumed a quantity of 
powder and shot comparable with 
the above in such large charges." 8 
Attention is further specially called 
by the Committee to the circumstance 
—which Captain von Doppelmair 
also omits to notice—that the failure 
was entirely due to the giving way of 
the steel tube, and that the gun “ held together at least fourteen rounds after 
the tube was split, during part of which the water was seen to pass through 
the gun when it was sponged" 9 —a circumstance which appeared to the 
Committee to afford “ an indication of very great strength in the material 
191.—Here mention 
made of the bursting of the 9-inch 
gun, No. 286, of cheap construction. 
The particulars are not given. As 
regards bursting, the Committee 
arrived at the opinion that the cheap 
construction is probably little inferior 
to the Armstrong system, and that it 
has the advantage of the latter, that 
in case of bursting the number of 
pieces is considerably less. In order 
to decide the question of the con¬ 
struction of the guns, and material 
for the inner tubes, the Committee 
recommended that four 9-inch guns 
made on the two systems, and fitted 
with wrought-iron and steel centre 
tubes, should be submitted to a trial 
of endurance." 3 
3 Extracts, Ordnance Select Committee, Vol. IY. p. 76. 
5 Ibid. 6 ibid. pp. 75, 76. 
9 Ibid. 
1 Doppelmair, pp. 75, 76. 
3 Ibid. p. 190. 
7 Ibid. p. 76. 
4 Ibid. 
8 Ibid. 
