THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
267 
devised whereby the recoil of a field gun may be checked without 
damage to the carriage ! Whether this be possible or not, a matter 
of two or three feet more recoil would scarcely seem a sufficient 
argument against our increasing the power of our guns in the manner 
proposed, for the arguments in favour of a 12 lb. projectile would 
appear to be irresistible, provided that it be allowed that 100 rounds 
are sufficient for horse artillery to carry in their limber and wagon. 
If, on the other hand, it be considered that the evidence of the one 
campaign in Bohemia is not sufficient to justify us in reducing the 
number of rounds below what it at present is, it would seem from the 
foregoing table of velocities that the 9-pr. gun should have a calibre of 
less than 3 ins. 
The field battery gun next claims our attention. 
As it has been considered advisable to give the horse artillery an 
8 cwt. gun, and the advantages of increased calibre and weight of pro¬ 
jectile being well recognised, we should undoubtedly give our ordinary 
batteries as heavy a piece as is consistent with celerity of movement. 
And here I would point out that the weight of the equipment of our 
present B.L. rifled 12-pr. is considerably less than that of the smooth¬ 
bore gun and howitzer which it was intended to replace, viz., the 9-pr. 
gun and 24-pr. howitzer, though I am unable to discover any com¬ 
plaints of the weight of these guns and their equipments being 
excessive. Moreover by the introduction of rifled guns we have up to 
the present time lost entirely one important projectile, viz., an efficient 
common shell; in fact we have nothing to take the place of the old 
24-pr. howitzer in this respect. Seeing then this want, can we now 
give our batteries a rifled gun of sufficient calibre to fire an efficient 
common shell, and still keep the weight of draught within that which 
has previously been allowed to our field battery carriages ? 
A gun has lately been made, weighing 12 cwt., which*will fire a 161b. 
shell with a charge of 3 lbs. of powder, the calibre of the gun being 
3‘6 ins. A common shell of this calibre and weight, and of the proper 
length for good shooting, will contain a bursting charge of over ljlb., 
that of the 24-pr. common shell being only 13 ozs. The shrapnel shell 
will contain 134 bullets, that for the B.L. 12-pr. containing 56. Both 
these projectiles, moving with the high velocity which it is proposed to 
give them (1350 ft.), will be much more efficient and destructive than 
any missiles taken into the field by any artillery at the present time. 
The question is can we carry a sufficient number of them ? Now the 
average weight of one round will be 19 lbs., so that six rounds will 
weigh about 1 cwt. The iron carriages now used can be made much 
lighter than the former pattern made of wood, which has the double 
advantage of both causing the carriage to be less injured by the shock 
of discharge, and also of enabling us to carry the reduced weig'ht in the 
shape of more ammunition. 
Now the carriage designed for the 16-pr. gun is very little heavier 
than that for the 9-pr. of 8 cwt., and will probably be about 11^ cwt. 
The limber is the same weight 10 \ cwt., and, assuming that we can 
allow the same weight to our equipment as that of the old 9-pr. S.B. 
gun, viz. 40 cwt., we have 6^ cwt. to devote to stores and ammunition. 
