278 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
opposes to it in proportion to the weight of the shell—so that for an 
extended range the 12 lb. shell has the greatest advantage even in 
f atness of trajectory, while at all ranges it has the advantage both for 
shrapnel (in having a larger number of bullets) and for common shell 
(in having a larger bursting charge), besides having greater “ energy.” 
This brings us to the consideration of the second branch of the 
subject with reference to field artillery. The same principle, which I 
have before stated with regard to small-arms, holds for field guns. 
The first thing to be determined is the weight of the projectile which 
can be conveniently carried in the limbers of a battery,—and the heavier 
the better consistent with the mobility both of gun and carriage. 
This is a question which I think should be decided absolutely before 
the gun is constructed by the general consent of officers who have had 
practical experience in actual campaigning, and should have the greatest 
possible ventilation, so as to collect the opinion of all who are capable 
of giving one: always remembering this, that (cceteris paribus) the heavier 
the projectile the greater the power of the gun ; so that it is very 
important to carry the maximum weight of projectile consistent with 
the mobility both of gun and carriage. 
This being done, the calibre of the gun should be determined so as 
to give on the whole the best practical results; and this is a point 
which requires the closest consideration before the matter is definitely 
settled. The tendency of all improvements in rifled arms is to increase 
the ratio of the weight to the diameter of the projectile. 
Table I. shows the comparative power of many of the service rifled 
guns, from which it appears that the power of the gun generally increases 
as the projectile increases in weight. 
Comparing field guns and small-arms, it is evident that the latter can 
never compete in power and range with field artillery; hence mitrailleuses 
although useful in their way up to 1200 or 1400 yds. can never compete 
with field guns when properly constructed; but it becomes imperative 
on us to get the greatest mechanical advantage out of the guns that we 
possibly can. To neglect this is to throw away an advantage which a 
heavy projectile puts us into the possession of. 
But it may be said, if this is the case, where will you draw the line 
in reducing the diameter of the bore ? It is only reviving Sir J. 
Whitworth’s notion. He tried it and failed ? 
Perhaps it is not very generally known that we have in the service a 
Whitworth rifle of *45 in. in diameter introduced in the year 1863—in 
fact, so far as bore and twist is concerned, much the same as the 
Martini-Henry, so that to Sir J. Whitworth is mainly due the credit 
of first pointing out the advantage of small bores. 
But then what about his guns ? Well, he carried his notions beyond 
practical limits.: being a good mechanician he saw the advantage to be 
obtained, but being an indifferent artillerist he overlooked the practical 
difficulties—one of the principal of which is the burning of the powder 
in the bore—he could not burn enough powder to project his shot with 
as much velocity as his rival, and so for comparatively short ranges 
failed in the competition. Hence we arrive at a practical limit to the 
reduction of the bore, it must not be so much reduced as to fail in 
