84 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
8 x 200 = 1600 f.s., whereas the velocity is about 1850 f.s. The extra 
weight does not give increased muzzle velocity in the same proportion. 
Another reason why 1200 f.s. is about the greatest velocity necessary 
to get the most out of our guns for a given weight of metal, is that below 
1200 f.s. the resistance of the air commences to diminish very rapidly, 
compared to what it is above that velocity; so that less work is taken 
out of the shell. This principle is well understood in practice, where 
results are seen. For instance, in an engine, a certain amount of fuel 
produces a definite pressure of steam in the boiler; by increasing the 
supply of fuel a greater pressure may be obtained, but perhaps not in 
proportion to the increased fuel burnt. The question is—Will it pay? 
The same thing occurs in guns. It is easy to get a higher muzzle 
velocity in guns, but it must be paid for in weight of metal. Does the 
extra weight of metal necessary to produce a higher velocity pay ? No; 
not under ordinary circumstances. We should increase the power of 
our heavy M.L. guns, if with the same charge of pebble powder a 
heavier shell were used, so as to reduce the muzzle velocity to about 
1200 f.s., provided there is sufficient twist in the guns to spin a longer 
shell. The same principle holds in the 9-pr. M.L. of 8 cwt. If a 12-lb. 
shell were fired with the same charge of 1 lb. 12 ozs., the muzzle velocity 
would be about 1200 f.s., and the gun would be more powerful, and 
greater useful effect would be obtained from the weight of metal in the 
gun at all ranges. 
In conclusion, when it is necessary to make a comparison between 
two different systems, where either the weight of shell, charge of 
powder, weight of gun and carriage, diameter of bore, or muzzle velocity 
may differ, the total weight of gun and carriage in each case should be 
approximately the same, and their relative power should be ascertained by 
the effects produced at the ordinary ranges of artillery fire, giving each gun 
its proper elevation for that range. For example, the weight of gun and 
carriage of the British 9-pr. M.L. horse artillery gun is about 19*5 cwt., 
that of the Prussian 15-pr. (heavy field battery) gun and carriage is about 
the same (19*5 cwt.) ; a comparison of the effects of these guns at fixed 
ranges on targets or earthworks would test the merits of either system 
— i.e.j whether it is best to fire a heavy shell with a low velocity, or a 
light shell with a high velocity, from a gun of the same weight. The 
weight of gun and carriage of the Prussian 9-pr. horse artillery gun is 
only 15 cwt., so that no just comparison can be made between it and 
the British 9-pr. M.L. The argument in favour of the comparison is, 
that this is the existing state of things; but it by no means follows that 
it must always be so. If the Prussians, with their recent experience, 
think it would be advantageous to construct a gun and carriage of 
greater weight, they can easily produce a more powerful gun. There¬ 
fore, if it is wished to give a decisive test to our present system of M.L. 
field artillery, it would be well to compare them with equal weights of 
other systems, and not to blind ourselves with the idea that we have 
more powerful guns than our neighbours because our 9-pr. of 8 cwt. 
is superior to their 9-pr. of 6 cwt., and because they have not yet 
attempted to construct so heavy a field gun as our 16-pr. The opinion 
of the Prussians is well expressed in their “ Officers^ Handbook— 
