THE ROYAL ARTILLERY INSTITUTION. 
155 
As, however, this arrangement was not applicable to the large existing 
stores of Shrapnel shell, the Committee recommended that these shells 
should be rendered secure against premature explosion, and so made avail¬ 
able for service, by separating the balls and powder by means of a socket and 
tin cylinder introduced at the fuze hole, 10 according to a former suggestion 
of Colonel Boxer's; * 11 the recommendation was approved, 13 and all the 
Shrapnel shell in store were converted in this way, and designated “ Improved 
Shrapnel Shells." 13 But no neiv shells were manufactured on this pattern, 
the arrangement being only applied to the Shrapnel shell in store as, 
admittedly, a makeshift, by means of which the one great defect of these 
shells—liability to premature explosion—would be overcome; 14 and the 
reason why the arrangement was not recommended for more general intro¬ 
duction was this: The construction was defective in one very important 
respect, “ the bursting powder to cause rupture in the shell must act through 
the balls, and thereby cause a very great spread in all directions," 15 an effect 
which, as Colonel Boxer observes, is “ contrary to the fundamental principle 
of Shrapnel shell. 16 
Moreover, the balls were liable, in spite of an admixture of antimony with 
the lead, to be much disfigured by being crushed against the sides of the 
shell at the moment of rupture, their velocity and striking force being in 
consequence greatly diminished. Bor these reasons the cylinder arrangement 
was applied only to the existing store of Shrapnel shell , which were 
“Improved" in this manner. 
When these shells had been converted into “ Improved Shrapnel" 
as above described, the service was supplied with shells constructed on 
the Diaphragm pattern, which as I have stated, had been approved in 
1853. In 1858 the details of construction were matured, and some of them 
were slightly altered, 17 and in that year the Diaphragm shell of the present 
pattern was provisionally approved. 
10 Synopsis of Ordnance Select Committee Reports on Shrapnel Shell, pp. 197,200, 201, &c. See 
Drawing of Shell, p. 198. 
11 “ My first idea was to place the powder in a cylinder in the continuation of the fuze hole.”— 
Colonel Boxer’s Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, p. 9. 
12 23rd March, 1854. See Synopsis of O. S. C. Beports on Shrapnel Shell, p. 200, but it was not 
until January, 1855, that the detailed instructions respecting the conversion of the existing store of 
Shrapnel shell were promulgated to the Royal Artillery. See Account of Alterations and Additions 
in Ordnance, Carriages, Sfc., Sfc., 31st January, 1855, par. 29. 
13 The necessity for converting the large store of Shrapnel shell into efficient projectiles became 
more imperative from the fact that at this time batteries were being equipped for despatch to the 
East, in anticipation of the war against Russia, which shortly afterwards broke out ; and the demand 
thus suddenly created was greater than could be met by a supply of the Diaphragm pattern. 
14 Colonel Boxer, in a letter dated 27 th September, 1853, says: “As there are a great number of 
Shrapnel shell now in store, I beg to say that having now for so long a time turned my attention 
to the subject, I can with confidence undertake to prepare these shells in such a manner as to 
prevent the defect of premature explosion, although it will be impracticable to make them as 
efficient as the Diaphragm Shell** — Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, p. 11. 
15 See Remarks on Diaphragm Shrapnel Shell, pp. 9, 10. 
16 Ibid. p. 10. “ The fundamental principle ” here referred to is the principle of preserving the 
balls as much as possible from the action of the bursting charge, and making their effect in¬ 
dependent of any such action, and dependent only upon their own communicated velocity. 
*7 Colonel Boxer explains the state of the case thus:—“ When the Diaphragm pattern was first 
