184 
BURSTING OR HEAVY GUNS. 
the two guns is as close as could be expected when such an agent as 
powder is employed. The absolute identification of the stud of the 
Palliser projectile., in the case of the first gun, in my mind alone settles 
the question, coupled with the fact that Sir W. Palliser wrote, on 
December 13th last, that he considered it improbable that the Palliser 
projectile would break in a case of double loading, whereas, when the 
second gun was fired, the Palliser projectile did so break up. 
This brings us to the consideration of the evidence obtained in the case 
of the second gun , which cannot be compared with anything in the first gun , 
because founded on data which depend on material lost in the first case . This 
evidence I consider explanatory of the behaviour of the second gun, and 
to a certain extent throwing light on features which exist alike in both 
guns which were held to militate against the conclusion of the Com¬ 
mittee that the first gun was double loaded, but which might equally 
have argued against double loading being the cause of bursting in the 
second gun, had the cause in that case been a matter of subsequent 
conjecture instead of observation. 
I have already spoken of the main ground for arguing against double 
loading—namely, the fracture of the gun in a position rather in advance 
of the supposed seat of maximum pressure. Captain Noble, in his 
evidence (Answer No. 496) stated that he considered that the most violent 
pressure had acted on the posterior half of the B coil, extending from 
about 6 ft. to 8 ft. from the bottom of the bore, which would be opposite 
the front part of the front charge—that is, the place of maximum 
pressure found by Sir W. Palliser in his double-loading experiments. 
Nevertheless the gun yielded, as may be seen in the figures, mainly at 
the ring fracture at 90 ins. from the bottom of the bore, which is only 
6 ins. from the front limit of the region defined by Captain Noble; and 
his drawing of the bursting apparently agrees with this better than 
with a more backward position. 
In the second gun this general line of fracture is certainly as far 
forward. (Vide Pigs. 2, 4, and 8). This would be rather in advance of 
the front of the front charge, which does not quite accord with Sir W. 
Palliser’s experiment, which in five rounds gave a maximum effect 
opposite the front portion of the front charge, but hardly up to the front 
edge of it, and a decreased effect beyond this limit. In cases of single 
loading, the maximum pressure is said to have occurred even beyond 
the front of the single charge; but the front charge in double loading 
is fired in a violent and exceptional manner, and Sir W. Palliser’s experi¬ 
ments being on double loading, seem the natural ones to refer to. 
Without, therefore, saying that there is any great discrepancy—certainly 
not one to shake my belief in the fact of both guns being double loaded, 
especially as this feature is common to both—it may be well to see if 
there is any evidence existing in the case of the second gun to account 
for a more forward action than might be expected. The materials at 
hand are the broken projectiles and gauges, and the front portions of 
the barrel. 
The condition of the projectiles speaks for itself.* The common shell 
* The fragments of the common shell were exhibited at the lecture* 
