THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
285 
In fact having* so large a calibre is a retrograde step even with refer¬ 
ence to the present service breech-loading guns, as you will see by 
comparing it with the 20-pr. breech-loader of 3*75 ins. in calibre, and 
the 12-pr. breech-loader of 3 ins. in calibre ; and it is the very reverse 
of the plan we are about to adopt in small-arms, and is not adapted for 
getting the greatest mechanical power out of a gun designed to throw 
a 16 lb. shell, taking all practical considerations into account. These 
considerations are the burning of 3 lbs. of powder in a smaller bore; the 
slight corresponding decrease in shell capacity, and the avoidance of 
undue lengthening of the shell. 
If it were found advisable to reduce the calibre to 3*3 ins., the ce power ”■ 
of the gun would be increased from 1333 to 1469, as compared with 1000 
in the Indian gun; the bursting charge would still be about the same, 
and the length of the shell would be increased about an inch. Experi¬ 
mental shell for the 3*3 in. have been recently made in the Royal 
Laboratory, which are compared with the 3*6 in. thus :— 
Shrapnel. 
Common shell. 
Calibre. 
Length. 
Weight. 
No. of bullets. 
Calibre. 
Length. 
Weight. 
Bursting charge. 
ins. 
3’6 
3-3 
ins. 
9-36 
11-55* 
lbs. ozs. 
16 
16 7* 
63 at 18 per lb. and 
66 at 84 per lb. 
72 at 18 per lb. 
ins. 
3-6 
3-3 
ins. 
10- 30 
11- 55* 
lbs. ozs. 
16 0 
16 5 
ozs. 
15 
16* 
The shrapnel and common shell for the 3*3 in. bore would be thus the 
same length—and the shrapnel would contain a greater number of larger 
bullets, and therefore be more effective, against carriages, materiel, &c. 
The increased length of projectile could be met by slightly increasing 
the length of the gun, and diminishing the length and thickness of the 
iron jacket at the breech, so as to keep the gun the same weight; and 
also by increasing the twist of the gun, making it 1 turn in 90 ins., instead 
of 1 turn in 108 ins. At any rate it might be easily tried, by boring 
out a new gun first for 3*3 in. calibre, and then if found unsatisfactory 
to go to. 3*6 ins. 
A double shell, weighing about 22 lbs., fired from this gun would 
perhaps answer all the purposes of a howitzer battery. The tendency 
also of reducing the bore would be towards the prevention of excessive 
recoil. 
The French have a 12 cwt. gun for their heavy field batteries with a 
bore of 4*77 ins., throwing a 251b. shell with a charge of 2\ lbs. of 
powder—with its low relative charge of powder and its large calibre, 
the gun can only be effective at very moderate ranges, and would hardly 
be able effectively to return the fire of the Prussian canon de 6 at 
3000 yds., besides labouring under the great disadvantage of greater 
weight for the gun team. Indeed, Captain Nicaise,f of the Belgian War 
* Both these shell, i.e. shrapnel and common for 3-3in., might be reduced 25 in. m length, bringing 
their weights to about 16 lbs. 
f See L’Artilierie de Campagne.” Nicaise. 
