206 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
for tlie 3’3-in. gun “ till after the trial of the gun for initial velocity, 
range, and accuracy.” 
This trial appears to have been carried out with the least possible 
delay—namely, within four days of the receipt of the report with 
respect to the unsatisfactory behaviour of the shrapnel shells. 
The results, given in the foregoing tables (II. and Y.) must, I think, 
convince any unprejudiced mind that whatever theoretical advantages 
the smaller calibre might possess, the practical advantages were quite 
inappreciable. The case therefore, at this stage, stood as follows :—• 
On the one hand, it had been calculated that the remaining velocity of 
projectiles fired with 31b. charge from a 3'3-in. gun would exceed that of 
those fired with the same charge from the 3'6-in. gun—at 724 yds. by 
1 ft., at 1000 yds. by 11 ft., at 1500 yds. by 19 ft., and at 2000 yds. by 
25 ft.; these being artillery fighting ranges. 
On the other hand, experiment had shown that when fired under 
identical circumstances as to charge, weight of projectile, carriage, 
platform, weather, and elevation, there was no advantage as to accuracy 
with either gun, but the range of the 3'6-in. exceeded that of the 
3'3-in. by 130 yds. at 1100 yds., and by 56 yds. at 2200 yds.; these being 
artillery fighting ranges. 
Again, one of the main conditions under which the trial was 
authorised, was that the useful capacity of the shrapnel shell should 
not be materially affected by the decrease of diameter; but the officer 
responsible for the manufacture of the projectiles had stated that 
“ it is evident that with this long shell and more rapid spiral, greater 
thickness is necessary; this will reduce the capacity considerably.” 
Moreover, the whole manufacture of shell guns for field service had 
been at a stand-still for three months, pending the settlement of this 
controversy as to calibre. The case, therefore, might be argued some¬ 
what as follows:— 
Looking to the comparatively small theoretical advantage as to power 
possessed by the 3'3-in. calibre; to the fact that at equal elevations its 
range, at fighting distances, is less than that of the 3'6-in.; to the 
unfavourable opinion of the Superintendent Royal Laboratory as to 
projectiles; to the fact that even the theoretical advantages of the 
smaller calibre would disappear if the weight of the projectile for the 
3*6-in. calibre was increased to that originally contemplated by the 
Director of Artillery*—a course which it might hereafter be found ad¬ 
visable to adopt; and to the desirability of losing no further time in 
manufacturing shell guns for service—is it worth while to continue 
experiments in this direction ? 
The Committee appear to have answered this question in the negative ; 
and, under the circumstances, I, for one, cannot possibly see how, con¬ 
sistently with their duty and the merits of the case, they could have 
come to any other decision. 
February, 1873. 
See p. 262, line 27. 
