266 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
not to say possible,, to maintain artillery in action at ranges much 
under 1000 yds., with any probability of being able to bring it out 
again ? I think we may safely say that the ordinary fighting ranges 
of artillery commence at about 1000 yds., and it appears that at these 
ranges the larger projectile will not only have the advantage of a larger 
number of bullets and splinters, but that this larger number will be 
moving at a higher velocity, so that the probability of striking the 
object aimed at will be greatly increased. This is when used as a shell. 
If used as a shot against guns, houses, &c. &c., the superiority is even 
more marked, as the energy or work stored up in a shot is represented 
by the mass multiplied by the square of the velocity. In fact all the 
advantages claimed, and established, for the M.L. 9-pr. gun over our 
present service 9-pr. and 12-pr. B.L. guns, apply with equal force to 
this same gun used as a 12-pr. instead of a 9-pr. 
The drift of the whole argument is this. A 3 in. calibre cannot be 
equally suitable for firing a 91b. and a 121b. shot, and, as it appears 
that better results can be obtained from this calibre with the heavier 
projectile, it follows that to fire the lighter one with perfect efficiency 
its diameter should be reduced. I am now only speaking of the advan¬ 
tage gained in velocity. There are undoubtedly practical advantages 
to be gained by having one gun for both horse artillery and light field 
batteries, but it does not necessarily follow that the same ammunition 
should be fired, as, on an emergency, the different ammunitions would 
be interchangeable. 
I may mention here that it is very doubtful whether the bronze 3-inch 
gun can be made into an efficient 12-pr., on account of the expansion 
of the bore with the heavy charge, and the consequent danger of the 
studs leaving the grooves. This is an argument which applies as much 
to sound as to unsound pure bronze, and bears against the introduction 
of that material, for home service, and in favour of the compound iron 
and steel gun. 
It may be objected that the carriage adopted for the 9-pr. gun will not 
be strong enough to stand the additional strain thrown on it by the 
extra charge, and that the recoil will be excessive. Now the endurance 
of the carriage can only be determined by actual experiment, but, con¬ 
sidering the test to which it was subjected by Major-General Eardley- 
Wilmoks Committee, I cannot think that there need be any fear of 
its failing. The Committee report that 3026 rounds were fired from 
one carriage, and 3746 from another, and that “ during the firing of 
500 rounds with ^th and Jth charges, the (latter) carriage was lashed 
to posts in front of the platform, so as entirely to stop recoil. The 
only injuries caused were—one spoke cracked, and the right axle-tree 
band broken through at angle.” 
This brings us to the question of recoil, which would undoubtedly 
be considerable if unrestrained. As however we have not been 
deterred from introducing into the service our enormous heavy guns 
by the difficulty of restraining their recoil, but have worked out 
the problem so satisfactorily that we can now safely bring up a 
25-ton gun firing 70 lbs. of powder in the space of two or three 
feet, surely, if it be an object to do so, some simple means can be 
