BURSTING OP HEAVY GUNS. 
183 
however, it is to be considered whether the difference may not be due 
to the accidental fact that the same force might find the line of least 
resistance, as we have said, in the C coil hook, in preference to that of 
the B coil; or whether the same cause—namely, the explosion caused 
by double loading—might not be sufficiently irregular in its development 
to account for such a variation in position of fracture. I adopt one 
of these alternative explanations in preference to that of Sir William 
Palliser, because the evidence on other points appears to me over¬ 
whelming ; but I wish to state the difference on which Sir William 
Palliser argues fully. In fact, in Fig. 4 I have rather drawn the longi¬ 
tudinal crack more distinct than the exact projection in such a position 
close over the trunnion would justify, in order to exhibit it distinctly. 
Next to pass on to the B coil. As I have just noticed, there is a ring 
fracture close to the edge of the C coil in the first gun (Figs. 1 and 3) 
which does not exist in the second (Figs. 2 and 4), because the yielding 
of the edge C coil in the latter gun left the B coil free to escape entire 
at that edge. 
In the first gun there is a ring fracture extending the greater part 
of the circumference at from 90 ins. to 92 ins. from the bottom of the 
bore. The interruptions are caused by the missing fragment [vide 
Fig. 1), and the No. 5 piece, extending for the entire length of the coil 
at the bottom [vide Fig. 3). 
In the second gun there is a ring fracture extending a great part of 
the way round, about 96 ins. to 100 ins. from the bottom of the bore 
broken by fragment 80, nearly corresponding to the missing fragment 
in the first gun, and by 75 and 42 [vide Fig. 4), nearly corresponding 
with fragment 5 in first gun (Fig. 3). 
Here is a marked similarity, a ring fracture broken in each case by 
an entire end-to-end fragment below; and while it is going too far to 
argue that the missing portion escaped in a single fragment—which 
might appear probable, or the hinder half might probably have been 
left on board—at. all events no want of similarity ought to be argued on 
the opposite assumption. Observe also that in this case the ring in 
the second gun is rather in advance instead of behind that in the 
first. 
In the B tube we are at once met with a very striking resemblance in 
the fact that a complete ring fracture is found at from 120 ins. to 
124 ins. from the bottom of the bore in both guns, strikingly similar in 
character, both fractures being’ very straight in the underneath half of 
the gun (vide Figs. 3 and 4), and more zigzag above (vide Figs. 1 
and 2). In front of this the first gun has no distinct ring fracture up to 
the edge of the portion lost overboard. The second gun is the same in 
the general character of its fragments up to the corresponding distance. 
There is much breaking up of the muzzle portion; but no comparison 
can be made in this respect with the other gun, because all the corres¬ 
ponding portions are lost. 
The steel tubes are shown on each side of the entire guns (vide Figs. 
5, 6, 7, and 8), and correspond obviously to a certain extent with the 
outer casing of the guns in their lines of fracture. 
The correspondence, on the whole, between the lines of fracture of 
