THE EOYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
153 
entirely removed by these measures ; * * * 6 and it became evident therefore that 
the failures arose from other causes. 
The main causes that were assigned for these premature explosions were, 
either,—* 
1 st. That the fuze was driven out by the reaction of the bullets in the 
shell, thus enabling the flash of the discharge to communicate with the 
bursting charge; or, 
2nd. That the percussion, or friction of the bullets evolved sufficient heat 
to ignite the bursting powder. 7 
Erom a large number of experiments which were carried on it was 
incontestably proved that to the last cause the failures were almost wholly 
attributable. 8 Attempts were made to remedy this in one or two ways :— 
by coating the interior of the shell with a cement, to diminish the fric- 
9 “ It was proved beyond doubt, that, however perfect the fuze might be premature bursting 
would still happen.”— Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, p. 3. 
“ It further became evident that the shell was sufficiently strong, in itself, to withstand the shock 
received from the powder in the gun.”— Ibid, p. 3. 
7 Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, p. 3. Ibid. Appendix O. S. C. Report on Shrapnel 
Shell, pp. 84, 89. 
8 “ There cannot be a question that this is the principal cause of failure, for I have myself seen 
several shells which were filled with balls and the bursting powder, but without fuzes, (the hole 
being plugged with wood), explode on striking the butt, and in these cases the powder could only 
have been ignited by the action of the bullets in the interior.”— Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel 
Shell, p. 3. 8-in. 32-pr. and 24-pr. Shrapnel shells carefully selected were prepared as follows, and 
fired with charges of 10 lbs., 10 lbs. and 8 lbs. respectively :— 
(1) Filled with bullets and the bursting powder, and with a solid plug of wood firmly driven into 
the fuze hole. 
(2) Filled with bullets, but without the bursting powder, and with a solid piece of wood firmly 
driven into the fuze hole. 
(l Nearly the whole of the shells with the bursting powder exploded in the gun, but there was not 
ONE breakage with the shells without the bursting powder .These results led me to the 
following conclusions:.That by the shock which the projectile received at the ‘discharge/ 
sufficient heat was evolved in some part of the interior of the shell, by friction, or condensation, to 
ignite the bursting powder.”— Ibid, Appendix. 
“ If there be any fact in regard to artillery matters which has been thoroughly and completely 
established by actual experiments it is this,—that a separation is absolutely necessary in order to 
the efficiency of the Shrapnel shell.The results of a series of experiments in 1852, 3, 4, 
undertaken chiefly for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of this defect (premature explosion) left 
no doubt on the mind of all who witnessed the practice that it was mainly attributable to the mixture 
of the powder with the balls. ,, — Remarks upon Memorandum, p. 2 ; also Memorandum by O. S. C. on 
Diaphragm Shrapnel shell, p. 7, where these words also occur. See, also, table of practice carried on 
in 1853, with a view to “ discovering the real cause of failure” given at pp. 31, 32 of Colonel 
Boxer’s Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell. Also Synopsis of O. S. C. Reports, Sfc., pp. 89, 
191. <c It appears to the Committee that.the separation of the bursting powder has 
prevented premature bursts, a great point gained over the original Shrapnel .”— Report of 
G-eneral Brereton's Committee, Dec. 14, 1858. It is important to dwell upon this point, the 
main cause of failure of the Shrapnel shell, because, as will presently be seen, the value of Colonel 
Boxer’s improvements in this projectile as effected in the Diaphragm Shrapnel shell cannot be fully 
appreciated, nor, indeed, the necessity for introducing such improvements, or of superseding the 
original Shrapnel in any way, recognized, if this point be not first incontestably 'established. 
