THE EOYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
259 
5-inch gun was rifled for some valuable experiments regarding the 
resistance of the air by Professor Bashforth, but was found to be totally 
unserviceable after a few rounds of Jth charges, the studs on the pro¬ 
jectiles having preferred to cut channels for themselves through the 
metal of the gun rather than follow the grooves prepared for them. 
Thus the gun was rapidly converted from a three groove into a multi¬ 
groove piece, and an iron gun had to be substituted in its place. It is 
worthy of remark that this same iron M.L. gun made the most accurate 
shooting of any gun ever fired at Shoeburyness, due probably to some 
fortunate suitability of the twist of rifling to the length and calibre of 
the projectiles. 
Again the 20-pr. bronze howitzers lately under trial were assigned a 
charge of 2 lbs. or Toth (that of our iron guns being Jth) and one of 
them when fired with 2*5 lbs. or Jth expanded in the chamber over Toth 
of an inch, and the studs have consequently left the grooves and cut 
their way through the soft metal. Looking then at all these causes of 
failure, bronze, in its present state, cannot be considered suitable for the 
inner barrel of a rifled gun, and the only method of adapting it for this 
use appears to be by alloying it with some foreign matter, or by 
devising some means for procuring a sounder, harder and more homo¬ 
geneous structure throughout the casting; at present we are unable to 
do so, and experiments carried out for this purpose in Prance, Belgium 
and America have I understand resulted only in failure, though the 
results obtained are not conclusive. 
3. Deterioration from exposure .—Bronze is undoubtedly a less oxidizable 
metal than iron, and will consequently deteriorate less from exposure to 
the weather uncared for . However the care required to prevent any 
deterioration whatever of an iron gun from this cause is so very slight 
that it practically amounts to keeping the gun clean; and, so far from 
neglecting to clean the material in their charge, the only accusation on 
this score that is ever brought against our field artillerymen is that 
they are, if anything, inclined to polish too much. Be that as it may, 
the fact remains that iron is the material of which both our small-arms 
and our heavy guns are made, and they appear quite capable of sus¬ 
taining, without perceptible deterioration, even greater rough usage 
and exposure than our field guns are likely to be called upon to endure. 
4. Economy .—This is an argument which at the present time carries 
great weight, and there can be no question that bronze is cheaper than 
iron for guns, simply because it is worth more when old. But to what 
does this economy amount ? It has been carefully ascertained how 
much it would cost, taking into consideration the value of the store of 
old bronze guns, to re-arm the whole of our field artillery, navy, reserve 
forces and reserves in store with iron and bronze guns respectively, and 
the saving in adopting bronze amounts to just £30,000, being con¬ 
siderably less than the cost of maintaining one battery on a war 
footing for one year. Is such an amount worthy of consideration in a 
question like this upon which the efficiency of our artillery in a great 
measure depends, and which, as we have seen lately, may greatly 
influence the fate of an army ? 
