m ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
67 
years ago, when the process had been but lately discovered, was certainly 
unfit for adoption, bat since that time experience has taught precautions 
which must be observed in the process of manufacturing it and improve¬ 
ments which can be introduced in the mode of using it. There are grounds 
for supposing that the original objections are removed, and that the great 
advantages which gun-cotton has always possessed over gunpowder in some 
points are no longer neutralized by still greater drawbacks in others. 
But at the same time there are many reasons against our relying on the 
statements made to that effect without testing their trustworthiness by 
independent investigations. Even if all the points claimed in its favour are 
proved it will probably require some time to establish a general conviction 
of their truth. Only a few years have passed since the subject was generally 
discussed and the material generally condemned, and the recollection of its 
previous history will be apt to prevent its receiving fair consideration in the 
present stage of its development. Whether, however, gun-cotton is yet 
perfect or not, there is no doubt about its being so much improved as to 
have new claims upon our attention. And, even if the present inquiry 
should show that it is still unfit to supersede powder, the investigation 
might be the means of leading to such further improvements as would 
remove the existing defects. It will at any rate lead to a more thorough 
acquaintance with the compound, and the time has come when a new 
propelling substance is positively required, for the use of gunpowder entails 
many difficulties in the construction and management of large rifled guns, 
and thus impedes the further development of artillery fire. 
Qualifications of Gun-cotton for Military and Engineering "Purposes . 
The object of manufacturing gun-cotton being to provide a substitute for 
gunpowder, the first questions that present themselves will naturally relate 
to the comparative powers of the two materials, and the points of resemblance 
or difference between the results of using them. 
Some of these results are so obvious and so different that they attract 
immediate attention, others require careful observation and scientific de¬ 
duction, though the dissimilarity may be comparatively as great and the 
consequences equally important. 
To exemplify the former we will suppose a charge of gun-cotton (properly 
made up) and a charge of gunpowder to be fired out of any two similar 
pieces of ordnance. The first things that will be noticed will be that the 
gun-cotton produces only the most trifling amount of smoke, and leaves no 
appreciable residue, or “fouling” matter, in the bore. If the discharges 
are repeated a great many times it will also be noticed that the piece becomes 
less heated by firing cotton than by firing powder, so that three great 
advantages have already presented themselves. 
If we proceed next to observe the power of the cotton in throwing any 
kind of projectile we shall find that in order to throw the shot as far with 
the cotton as with the powder we need only use about 1 lb. of the former to 
3 lbs. of the latter; and when the ranges of the two shots are the same the 
recoil of the gun loaded with cotton is much less than that of the gun loaded 
with powder. 
