BURSTING OF HEAVY GUNS. 
195 
The chamber is reported to be extended as if by an extraordinary 
pressure. This it is difficult to account for, except on the hypothesis 
that the character of the powder or the conditions under which it was 
fired were altogether different from what was intended. If so, it is 
absolutely necessary to trace the cause, and. guard against it for the 
future. The second question is best answered by comparing this gun 
with others made on the same system. That which most naturally 
occurs to me is the 80-ton gun, whose section is given in Fig. 2. This 
gun is built upon designs made in the Royal Gun Factories, and in 
some respects it differs from guns designed at Elswick. I instance it, 
however, because, though constructed on the Fraser coil system, it is 
at all events a gun founded on the original Armstrong system of coiled 
wrought-iron over a steel tube, though I should expect a great difference 
in strength longitudinally on the system of Mr. Fraser. My object 
is particularly to speak of the guns which chiefly concern this country, 
and in which confidence may be shaken by the recent accident. 
On referring to this figure, it will be seen that the trunnions are 
incorporated in one piece with a large C coil, which extends to the 
breech of the gun, hooking firmly over the coiled breech-piece. The 
manner in which this is effected is by forming the trunnions on a hoop 
encircling the gun of a form shown in the dotted line in Fig. 2, which 
is placed in position on the portions of the C coil, before and behind 
it, previous to their union, and the three are all firmly welded into one. 
Supposing, however, for the sake of argument, that the joint below the 
trunnion ring were imperfect, the pieces butt against the “IB coil” 
in front, which is hooked on the coiled breech-piece. In short, the 
entire mass formed by the C coil, having the trunnion hoops 
incorporated in it, the coiled breech-piece, and the “IB coil,” is so 
thoroughly united that it is almost inconceivable that it could be 
separated longitudinally. The 38-ton gun and others closely resemble 
this piece. Consequently, we may say boldly that the accident which 
happened at Spezia is not one to which our English built-up guns are 
generally liable. Hay more, I think it will be found, on examining 
other systems, that if there is a gun which is secure against such a 
contingency, that gun is our Woolwich 80-ton gun, and those which 
resemble it. Anyone who examines the section above will, I think, set 
his mind at rest on that score. Next, is there a defect in the construction 
of this particular gun ? If I am correct in my premises, it appears unjust 
to condemn the gun on this head. I believe that there exists abundant 
strength in the steel tube, and the resistance supplied by the shrinking 
on of the coils, to meet probably thrice the strain to which the gun 
was subjected, if all was right. Nevertheless, speaking as those who 
are wise after the event, and taught by it that all may not be right, it 
is impossible not to conclude that a slight modification might be made 
which would enable the gun to remain intact in defiance of any failure 
of the steel inner tube. But if we are all wise after the event, it is due 
to General Younghusband and the Gun Factories to point out the 
admirable provision made from the first in this way in the 80-ton gun. 
I do not say that sufficient provision is not to be found in Elswick 
guns, but not to the same extent. 
