MEPPEN EXPERIMENTS. 
287 
Admiral Hamilton, Director of Naval Ordnance, being invited by the President 
to speak, briefly said that Admiral Boys liad well expressed the views of the navy 
on the question, and he had no more to add. 
Major Sladen, B.A., Professor of Artillery at the Boyal Military Academy, 
said :—Under given conditions, there can be no doubt that there is safety in muzzle¬ 
loading guns which would be impossible in guns which open and close at the 
breech. Nevertheless, breech-loading is in the order of progress, for it facilitates 
an enlargement of the chamber to almost an indefinite extent, and it enables you 
to centre your shot with less trouble than in a muzzle-loader. It is also of 
advantage in the air-spacing of the cartridge, especially in field guns; for in the 
large guns the same thing can be accomplished by enlarging the chamber. Breech- 
closing guns, if they can be made so as to ensure safety—which Krupp has, I believe, 
so far succeeded in doing—are, on the whole, to be preferred. There will probably, 
however, be always more danger in a breech-loader than' in a muzzle-loader, but we 
must submit to this if we would get more power. Admitting that muzzle-loaders are 
the very best for safety, we must, if we would go on, take the risk, as we always 
do in the army. I think that the enlargement of the chamber and the better 
centring of the shot are of very great importance in promoting good shooting, and 
I do not doubt that some arrangement will be adopted for preventing the escape of 
the powder gases at the breech. However, it is a very large question when it 
comes to a change of our materiel , and I think that we ought to be convinced that 
the improvement is at least 10 per cent, better than the existing system before we 
adopt it. Still, it is undoubtedly in the order of progress, and we must not stay 
behind ; and, altogether, we may regard the case as one requiring very considerable 
and careful trial. We are much indebted to Captain Browne for introducing the 
subject, and this discussion cannot fail to have important results for the navy 
and the country. (Applause). 
Major P. S. Stoney, B.A., Assistant Director of Artillery Studies, said • 
Generally speaking, I come to nearly the same conclusions as Captain Orde Browne 
as to the advantages of breech-loading guns, but not because we have a model to 
follow in Germany. I notice also that Captain Browne has hauled down his flag; 
for this lecture, when first delivered at the United Service Institution, the other day, 
was entitled “ Lessons from Meppen,” and that now he has called it “ The recent 
Experiments at Meppen.” However, my contention is that it is not fair to 
institute a comparison between the work of a show gun, a show projectile, and a 
show powder, on a show occasion, in Germany, with the service gun, service 
projectile, and service powder which we have in constant use. Our 80-ton guns 
are immensely strong, and might, no donbt, be reduced to 70 tons without hazard, 
which would make the comparison rather more favourable. The whole question 
should be simply “ Is it desirable to change from muzzle-loading to breech-loading? ” 
I suppose we shall not be asked just yet to give up our wrought-iron for steel, and 
if the only argument is that we should try breech-loading with our own system of 
construction, I answer that we are doing so already—we are making the guns for 
the purpose at this moment. The question is not one which has hitherto escaped 
notice. In 1863, a very powerful Committee of Artillery, Engineer, and naval 
officers was appointed, and we spent £35,000 in two years on experiments between 
muzzle and breech-loaders. The biggest gun tried was a 70-pr., and the results 
of the experiments, as reported by the Committee, were that muzzle-loading guns 
could be fired with abundant ease and rapidity, and that guns satisfying all the 
conditions of safety could be made with steel barrels coiled round with wrought- 
iron, whereas guns entirely of steel were liable to burst explosively without the 
