264 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
diameter in inches; that the 3‘3-in. shrapnel shell would contain a 
greater number of larger bullets; and that the common shell (3‘3-in.) 
would hold half-an-ounce more bursting charge. 
The theoretical advantage of a small calibre is beyond dispute. 
That a 16-lb. shell of 3* * * § 24 ins. diameter might be expected, cmteris 
paribus, to experience less resistance from the air than a 16-lb. shell of 
3‘54ins. diameter, is self-evident. There are, however, other con¬ 
siderations that enter into the question, and that must be taken into 
account. The resistance of the enemy must be looked to, as well as the 
resistance of the air.* 
A small calibre for a field artillery shell gun may entail several 
disadvantages— 
(1) There are constructive objections to a long shell, particularly a 
long shrapnel shell. 
(2) The sharper pitch to the rifling*, which the long projectile is said 
to render necessary,f has a prejudicial effect on the cone of dispersion, 
in the case of shrapnel fire. 
(3) There is a difficulty in making efficient double shell for small 
calibres. 
Looking, however, to the theoretical advantages which the smaller 
bore undoubtedly possessed, and to the statements made with respect to 
the capacity of the projectiles,]: the Committee, on the 6th March, 1871, 
recommended the manufacture of a 16-pr. wrought-iron muzzle-loading 
gun of 3‘3-in. calibre, for the following reasons, viz :— 
(1) “ They believe that a 3‘3-in. calibre is theoretically the best for 
a 16-pr. gun, as giving a greater velocity at 1000 yds., and at all 
following ranges, over a gun of 3‘6-in. calibre. 
(2) “A shrapnel shell adapted to a 3‘3-in. calibre takes an equal 
number of bullets, and is lighter than that for a 3'6-in. calibre. 
(3) “ A common shell for the 3‘3-in. calibre, and of the same weight 
as that for the 3‘6-in. calibre, holds f oz. more charge.” § 
Perhaps it would have been better had the Committee stated that the 
conclusions drawn in (2) and (3) were the result of estimates. 
This recommendation was followed naturally by another, on the 
7th March, 1871, recommending the suspension of the manufacture of 
16-pr. guns, pending the contemplated experiments with the 3‘6-in. 
and 3‘3-in. guns. In referring to the proposed trial of a 3‘3-in. gun, 
the Committee say in their report— 
“ The attention of the Committee was drawn to the advantage of a 
3‘3-in. bore for a 16-pr. gun, for which bore it was contended a 
projectile might be constructed capable of sustaining velocity longer 
than any other projectile of the same weight. 
“ Comparing such a projectile with one for the 3’6-in. bore, it appeared 
* See p. 248, line 31. 
f “ Proceedings R.A. Institution,” Vol. VII. p. 285. 
t Ibid. 
§ “ Extracts,” Vol. IX. p. 116. 
