THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
113 
is only accidental.” 1 “ The tension of the wrought-iron in the coils, accord¬ 
ing to their different diameters, is left entirely undetermined, great accuracy 
in making the coils is not observed, and no trouble is taken to fulfil any of 
the requirements of the theory of the resistance of guns ;” 3 with more to the 
same effect, 3 which it would be unprofitable to quote. We are above all 
things desirous to conduct this controversy with every possible respect for 
the officer to whom we are replying, and carefully to observe throughout 
the limits of courteous discussion. It is therefore not open to us to meet 
these broad assertions with an equally broad and positive denial. And yet 
nothing can be more certain than that the construction of the Woolwich 
guns is based upon an intelligible principle, which may or may not appear to 
Captain von Doppelmair to be a “scientific” one, but which in any case 
admits of precise definition. The principle is well explained in Captain 
Stoney's paper on the “Theory of Gun Architecture. 4 “Sir William 
Armstrong's main principles of gun architecture,” says Captain Stoney, 
“ consist essentially :—First: In arranging the fibres of the iron in the 
several parts so as best to resist the strain to which they are respectively- 
exposed ; thus, the walls or sides of the gun are composed of coils with the 
fibres running round the gun, so as to enable the gun to bear the transverse 
strain of the discharge without bursting, whilst the breech end is fortified 
against the longitudinal strain, or tendency to blow the breech out, by a 
solid forged breech-piece, with the fibre running along the gun. Secondly: 
In shrinking the successive parts together, so that not only is cohesion 
throughout the mass ensured, but the tension may be so regulated that the 
outer coils shall contribute their fair share to the strength of the gun, in 
accordance with the theory .... that a gun should, if possible, be 
constructed in such a manner that each part of its mass would do its due 
proportion of work at the instant of firing.” 5 Here, at any rate, is a dis¬ 
tinct principle at the foundation of the construction of the English guns. 
Such modifications as have been adopted have been in the direction of a 
fuller application of that principle, and of the reduction to a minimum of 
the employment of the material which in practice has proved the most 
treacherous and the most difficult of control—viz. steel. In short, in the 
latest designs of English guns, the quantity of steel has been so reduced 
that, in point of strength, the guns are independent of it under the most 
trying conditions of service. 6 
To this, as a further reply to Captain von Doppelmair's statement, that 
the arrangement of the metal of our guns is wholly “ accidental,” may be 
added the fact already mentioned—that of 6000 guns made on this con* 
struction, not one has burst on service. 7 The “ accident ” which can pro¬ 
duce such satisfactory and uniform results must at least be admitted to be a 
happy one, and perfectly unobjectionable. 
1 Doppelmair, p. 71. 2 Ibid. pp. 71, 72. 3 ibid. pp. 68-70; 
4 “Proceedings, R.A, Institution,” Vol. VI. p. 335. 
6 Ibid. pp. 336, 337. Eor fuller details on this subject, the reader is referred to the paper from 
which these passages are extracted. 
6 See ante, p. 112. Also, “ Proceedings, R.A. Institution,” Yol. YI. p. 411, where the adoption of 
a steel tube only 2 ins. thick is recorded. Also, “Changes in Artillery Materiel,” §§ 1905, 1906. 
The main reason for the retention of steel, is the superior hardness and surface which it presents 
for the bore. 
7 See what has been said, ante, pp. 106,107, respecting the endurance of the Woolwich guns. 
15 
