THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
279 
burning the greatest charge with which the projectile is to be fired:— 
but it should be reduced to that limit; and no doubt as there is consider¬ 
able surplus strength in the field guns,, a quicker burning powder might 
be made if necessary. Sir J. Whitworth seems to have corrected his 
mistake in the 12-prs. he has recently supplied to the French Govern¬ 
ment. He fires a 121b. shell with 2 lbs. of powder out of a 2*75 in. 
bore with a twist of about 1 turn in 18*2 calibres. Another practical 
difficulty in the reduction of the bore is the consequent decrease in the 
capacity of the shell for bursting charge—no doubt we can go too far 
in that direction, but the juste milieu in this, and other matters is the 
great thing to be obtained. On the other hand, it is easy to have a 
shell with a large bursting charge, by sacrificing the range accuracy 
and penetration of the gun—and a great deal has been said about the 
advisability of introducing howitzer batteries, as in the old smooth-bore 
equipment. „ 
It was necessary in those days to have howitzers to throw a shell with 
large bursting charge, because there was no means of increasing the 
internal capacity of shell, otherwise than by increasing the diameter of 
the bore—but now when by increasing the length of the shell, the 
bursting charge can be increased proportionately, there seems to be 
only the necessity of having two shells of different lengths, with dif¬ 
ferent capacities for bursting charge, to perform all the functions of the 
old howitzer and gun batteries, without the disadvantages consequent 
thereon. In fact, with a properly constructed rifled gun, i.e. } one with 
sufficient twist to spin a long projectile, the specialities of the old 
howitzer and field gun would be imitated in one gun by a variation in 
the length and weight of the projectiles, thus having a common shell 
for use as a gun battery, and a double shell for use as a howitzer 
battery. It does not seem advisable to make a compromise between 
the two, i.e. 3 between a gun and a howitzer; which would in reality 
effect neither purpose to the greatest advantage. 
How comes the question of mobility; (1) for horse artillery acting 
with cavalry, (2) for field batteries and horse artillery of the reserve, 
(3) for heavy field batteries or field batteries of reserve. 
The weight of the projectile being fixed upon in each case; what is 
the maximum weight of gun and carriage that can be allowed so as to 
keep within the bounds of efficient mobility ? 
This point was I think well and ably determined by a “ Committee 
of Superior Officers of the Royal Artillery appointed to consider whether 
the rifled field guns to be hereafter constructed should be on a breech¬ 
loading or a muzzle-loading system, and to report what calibres are 
desirable to be introduced Tor the various branches of field service.” 
Sir Richard Dacres was President, and Colonel Miller Secretary to 
the Committee. Their report was published on the 4th of December, 
1866—an extract from it is as follows :— 
“ For Horse Artillery.-—The Committee recommend a gun of not less than 3 ins. 
calibre, length of bore not to exceed 60 ins., and weight not to exceed 6 c?vt. ; weight 
of projectile to be 9 lbs., or thereabouts. 
“ For Field Batteries.—A gun of not less than 8 ins. in calibre, length of bore not 
37 
