THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
261 
the other hand, we have guns which, however perfect bronze may 
become, cannot with onr present knowledge be improved upon, and 
which would consequently appear to answer the question, “What are 
the best guns with which we can arm our field artillery V } The gun 
they have now is a very good one, but it is not the best we can give 
them, and the same argument applies in this case as that which has 
led to the decision to re-arm our infantry with the Martini-Henry rifle, 
although we are well aware that the Snider-Enfield is superior to every 
rifle in use on the continent. When this re-armament is carried out 
the infantry will possess the best weapon the country can produce; 
whilst our ships and garrison artillery are already furnished with the 
best heavy guns in existence. Should not then our superb field artillery 
be armed with a weapon worthy of them ? 
6. Facility for changing the system of armament , Sfc. —This, the last 
point of comparison between the two metals, is altogether in favour of 
bronze. That material is always worth as much in the form of old 
metal as it cost when new, and can, with the addition of a proportion 
of fresh metal, be re-cast. Consequently, if it should appear desirable 
at any future time again to re-model our field guns, we could do so 
with greater facility and less cost in the case of bronze than in the case 
of iron. It is only reasonable to suppose that, had our present B.L. 
guns been bronze, the change to muzzle-loaders would have been 
carried out much more rapidly, as, no doubt, the heavy sacrifice entailed 
by the supersession of our present guns has delayed a step which the 
majority of us have been'anxiously looking for. But after all it is only 
a matter of money, and the question still stands, whether the wealthiest 
nation in Europe is prepared to sacrifice one iota of efficiency for the 
sake of a few thousand pounds—a trifle compared to the total cost of 
her army and navy ? 
We have now discussed the various points of comparison between 
bronze and iron combined with steel as materials for field guns, let us 
recapitulate the results arrived at. 
(1) As regards security from bursting, both are perfectly trust¬ 
worthy, and there is nothing to choose between them. 
(2) As regards qualifications for an inner barrel, steel is undoubt¬ 
edly greatly superior to sound bronze, if we could g*et it,—much more 
therefore to the unsound stuff that is now produced. 
( 3 ) A bronze gun will deteriorate less from exposure uncareclforj 
but the iron M.L. gun requires simply to be kept clean. 
( 4 ) Bronze is cheaper than iron, taking into consideration the value 
of the old metal. 
( 5 ) Bronze guns, if we could make them sound and serviceable, 
would be simpler to manufacture than the compound guns. 
(6) Bronze affords greater facilities for a change of armament if 
deemed advisable. 
Balancing all the points which bear on the one side or the other it 
is evident that the decision to stop the further manufacture of bronze 
guns is necessitated by the results arrived at up to the present time, 
