154 
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF 
lion j * 1 2 by fixing the balls with pitch, sulphur, plaster of Paris, and other mate¬ 
rials; 3 and by reducing the charge of the guns; these attempts, however, 
were attended with unsatisfactory results ; 3 and in the meantime Colonel 
Boxer suggested the separation of the bursting charge from the bullets, “as 
the only means of securing success.” 4 This separation he proposed (in 
1852) to effect by means of a wrought-iron partition or diaphragm. 5 
The experiments which were carried on with shells constructed on this 
pattern were most satisfactory, 6 and in 1853, 7 the Committee recommended 
the manufacture of a large number of the shells “with a view to their 
introduction into the service.” 8 This recommendation was adopted, and 
the Diaphragm shell provisionally approved. 9 
It is more than probable that in some cases the premature explosions arose from other minor 
causes, such as the splitting of the fuze in ramming home, and the partial withdrawal of the shell 
by the rammer, the head of the fuze being nearly the same size as the hole in the head of the 
rammer. Respecting the occurrence of explosions from this latter cause, see Synopsis of Reports 
and Experiments by the O. S. C. Shrapnel Shells, p. 229, where the following passage occurs. “One, 
very serious defect I observed, hmwever, with regard to the rammer head, the hole in the centre is 
almost exactly the same size as the head of the fuze; the consequence was that the shell was 
withdrawn with the rammer head, until I filled up the hole. This may perhaps account for some of 
the failures.” That some of the premature explosions resulted from these minor causes is, as I have 
said, more than probable, but that the main cause of failure was the heat generated by the percussion 
or friction of the bullets seems conclusively established by the passages and experiments above quoted. 
1 “ Some shells so prepared were fired, but with the most unsatisfactory results.”— Remarks on 
Diaphragm Shrapnel Shells, Appendix. 
2 “ In some of the continental artilleries this has been effected by fixing the balls with sulphur, 
pitch, plaster of Paris, or other materials.”— Synopsis of Ordnance Select Committee Report on 
Shrapnel Shell, p. 289. 
3 Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, Appendix. The latter remedy even if it had proved 
successful, would have been objectionable from the reason that its adoption would have impaired the 
efficiency of the shell in direct proportion to the decrease in the initial velocity which would neces¬ 
sarily result from any reduction in the charge. 
4 Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell. Appendix. This was in 1849 (see Remarks on 
Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, p. 2), and in September of the same year an experiment was made 
“ with Shrapnel shell having the bursting charge enclosed in canvas bags, so as to separate it from 
the balls. This mode of preparation was suggested by Captain Boxer, to prevent liability to 
premature explosion by the friction of the balls within the shells.”— Report of the Committee , see 
Synopsis of Ordnance Select Committee Reports on Shrapnel Shell, p. 287. 
“This experiment appears to have been very successful”.— Ibid, p. 287. 
5 “I have the honor to propose.that.the powder be separated from the balls by 
means of a wrought-iron partition?' Letter from Colonel Boxer to Secretai*y of Master-General of 
Ordnance, dated 10th May, 1852.— Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, p. 2. Ibid. Appendix. 
“ In consequence of the favourable result of the experiment (referred to in preceding note) Captain 
Boxer, on the 10th May, 1852, proposed that Shrapnel shells, from the 24-pr. upwards, should be 
constructed with a wrought-iron plate for the purpose of separating the powder and the balls.” 
• —Synopsis of Ordnance Select Committee Reports on Shrapnel Shells, p. 287. 
6 “ The Committee consider that the result of this experiment is highly satisfactory.The 
Committee desire to congratulate Captain Boxer on the success which has attended his efforts to 
improve the Shrapnel shell.”— Ibid, p. 288. “ I am to remark that Colonel Abbott appears to 
have overlooked the numerous failures which occurred with the original Shrapnel shell, amounting 
to 17 per cent, in the extensive trials of 1819, and to 22 per cent, in the trials of 1852, whereas on 
the latter occasion those with Captain Boxer’s shells were under 6 per cent.”—W. O. Letter 1st 
April, 1858. See Supplement to O. S. C. Reports on Shrapnel Shell, p. 7. 
7 The 1st October, 1853.— Synopsis of O. S. C. Reports on Shrapnel Shell, p. 287, 8. 
3 Ibid, p. 288. 
9 Dated 11th October, 1853. See Master-General’s letter of that date.— Synopsis of O. S. C. 
Report on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, p. 289. 
