248 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
That he considers erroneous conclusions have been drawn from these 
experiments, the result being the recommendation and adoption of the 
less powerful of the above two guns. 
That the apparent results, as regards range, &c., given by one of 
the two guns (3*6-in.) do not agree with certain theoretical hypo¬ 
theses, and can therefore only be accounted for on the assumption that 
the recoil of this particular gun was checked, thus causing it to throw 
higher than the other; and that the employment of a different descrip¬ 
tion of powder—such, for instance, as L.G., of which we have a large 
store—might possibly have given better results in the rejected gun, 
and might thus have led to a reversal of the final award. 
I trust, however, that when the subject is considered in all its bearings, 
it will appear—that the method of experimenting followed in this 
instance was a fair and adequate means of determining the relative 
shooting powers of the respective guns at practical artillery ranges. 
That, all things considered, no other decision than the one arrived 
at, could have been come to. 
That the observed ranges must be accepted as the true ranges, and 
that relatively they are absolutely independent of, and uninfluenced by, 
the recoil. 
Lastly, that the employment of a different powder—such as L.G.— 
so far from being attended with beneficial results in the 3*3-in. gun, 
would in all probability have had the reverse effect. 
As the points first raised, to some extent, depend upon the conclusions 
arrived at with regard to those last stated, it will be convenient to 
discuss the several questions at issue in the inverse order. 
To commence, therefore, with the last— 
The following paragraph appears at page 82 .* 
“One thing the experiment does show—that 3 lbs. of B.L.G. powder 
are not so effectively consumed in a 3*3-in. as in a 3*6-in. bore of the 
same length ; but which is of the most importance—burning the powder, 
or destroying the enemy ? Besides, it has not been shown that L.G. 
powder, of which we have a large store, would not have given a better 
result as regards muzzle velocity in comparison with the 3*6-in., than the 
R.L.G. has done. A charge of 3 lbs. of L.G. powder has been fired in 
the 3*6-in. gun, and has given a muzzle velocity of only 1283 f.s. Service 
L.G. powder has a smaller grain than service B.L.G., and therefore 
might burn quicker—although it is unsafe to predict, with our present 
knowledge, what powder will do.” 
I confess I do not clearly understand the argument in the first part of 
this paragraph. It seems to infer that the powder might possibly 
have been more thoroughly consumed in the 3’3-in. gun had the bore 
been longer. But would not this have been handicapping the 3*6-in. 
gun ? Might not the consumption of the charge in the latter gun have 
also been benefited by an increase in length of bore ? Was it not 
* “ Proceedings R.A. Institution/’ Vol. VIII. 
