284 
MINUTES OF PKOCEED1NGS OF 
projectile with a muzzle velocity of at least 1221 f.s. (the same as the 
Belgian gun). 
Such a gun would be much superior to the present 9-pr. breech¬ 
loader in every way; it would have 151 f.s. more muzzle velocity; also 
a greater number of rounds of ammunition in the limber and wagon : 
while the inferiority to the 9-pr. muzzle-loader would be about the same 
as you would get by firing that gun with a charge of 1 lb. 6 ozs. instead 
of 1 lb. 12 ozs., with a clear gain of 3 or 4 cwt. in mobility. If it were 
found advisable to reduce the bore to 2*8 ins., the gun would range 
nearly, if not quite equal to the 9-pr. muzzle-loading Indian gun. 
For field batteries the Committee of Superior Officers recommended 
that the weight of the gun should not exceed 8 cwt., and that the weight 
of projectile should be about 12 lbs. This is exactly the weight of the 
muzzle-loading wrought-iron and steel gun; only it throws a 9 lb. shell 
instead of 12 lb. 
This gun would perhaps bear a 2 lb. charge (if we may judge by the 
Prussian canon de 6, which throws about a 151b. projectile with a 
charge of 11b. 13 ozs., the gun only weighing 8*37 cwt.), and in Table III. 
I have estimated the weight behind team owing to the additional weight 
of ammunition to be about 36 cwt., i.e., about 1 cwt. less than the weight 
of our present 12-pr. breech-loader. This gun (so far as weights are 
concerned) would then closely correspond with the Prussian and Belgian 
canon de 6, with this exception that they throve a 151b. projectile with 
a smaller charge of powder, but it would be superior in range to both 
of them. It may be noticed that at present we throw a 9 lb. shell out 
of an 8 cwt. gun with a large charge, while the Prussians throw a 15 lb. 
shell out of the same weight of gun with a small charge; illustrating 
extremes on both sides: I venture to submit that the golden mean 
viz. a 12 lb. shell out of an 8 cwt. gun would be found the best for 
practical purposes.* 
We next come to heavy field batteries or batteries of reserve which 
the Committee of Superior Officers unanimously recommended should 
fire a heavier projectile than 12 lbs. This recommendation is being 
practically carried out by a committee, who have already experimented 
on a gun weighing about 12 cwt., and firing a 161b. shell with 3 lbs. of 
powder. The calibre of this gun is 3*6 ins., and projects a shell with a 
bursting charge of about 16 ozs., i.e. } 3 ozs. more than the bursting 
charge of the old 24-pr. howitzer. 
Now on comparing the power of this gun in table with the 12-pr. 
muzzle-loading gun, it will be seen that if projected with the same 
velocity, it would not range so far (the power of overcoming the resist¬ 
ance of the air being only 1234 to 1333 for the 12-pr.); when it ought 
to be more powerful on account of the heavier shell. This is owing to 
its relatively large bore to the weight of the shell. 
* The only advantage of a 9 lb. shell would be a slightly flatter trajectory for short ranges; but 
as it seems likely that mitrailleuses will be more than a match for artillery at short ranges, it is not 
of much importance. The disadvantages are less effective shrapnel in having a smaller number of 
bullets, less effective common shell, only having 7 ozs. bursting charge instead of 11 ozs.; besides 
having less “ energy ” or power of penetration at any distance. 
