OKEHAMPTON EXPERIENCES, 1894. 11 
HiQUIPMENT, 
The sight graduations and clamps were as usual the cause of many 
errors. A sight marked in hundreds and fifties, from 1400 to 2000 ; 
and in twenty-five yards at longer ranges, was tried; the fifties being 
represented by a short line and the twenty-fives by a dot; although 
the figures are rather crowded owing to the short radius, they appeared 
better liked than the old one. 
The greater number of errors in the laying examination were caused 
by the sight slipping when putting it into the gun. Perhaps a ratchet 
sight, somewhat similar to that on the quick-firer, might be tried ; or, if 
this is considered too complicated, a better clamp. A plain nut that 
screwed up the sight in a somewhat similar manner to the nut on a 
hammer-vice might answer. 
It also seems desirable that the sight should be strong enough to 
stand being left in the gun when fired ; for even with the greatest care 
such a thing may happen, and a bent sight seems a heavy penalty. 
Some batteries had the clamp altered so as to use a Mark I. sight in 
a Mark II. carriage. This rather complicates matters, for although it 
makes the sight correct for the yard scale, it throws out the degree 
scale and makes the tangent sight and Scott’s sight disagree. Thus, a 
Battery Commander using the tangent scale employs a Mark I. range- 
table, whereas when he uses a Scott sight he must employ a Mark II. 
table. It would obviate all these difficulties if all sights were made 
like those for heavy guns, the yard scale being on a slip that can be 
changed should the carriage or charge be altered. 
The mekometer was again liked ; one Battery Commander considered 
it more reliable to accept the mekometer range than to determine it 
by T scale laying, and said he would have no hesitation in accept- 
ing its range when under 2000 yards and opening with time shrapnel 
at once, at longer ranges only using a very few ranging shots. 
Personally, I disagree with this, and think the results hardly justify 
it. Several series were spoilt owing to Battery Commanders dis- 
trusting their own observations and believing the range-finders. On 
service also the range-finders would probably be oftener wrong, even 
the mild excitement of the Competitive apparently upset them. In the 
first series there were six out of 15 cases in which the range-finder was 
not within 50 yards of the true gun range. In the second series eight 
out of 15, and in the third four out of 11: a total of 18 out of 41, equal 
to 43°9 per cent. ; applying the same test to the elevation fired at (i.e. 
range as found by observation) the figures are first series, three; second, 
two; third, one; or only 13°3 per cent. These figures so astonished 
me that I thought they must be wrong, and I therefore went through 
all the Service practice 1894 and Competitive 1893, the latter gave 87°5 
for range-finder and 5:7 for observation, whilst the Service practice, ex- 
cluding Competitive, gave 32°7 for range-finder and 24 for observation. 
Although, of course, these figures are by no means conclusive, they all 
point the same way. 
The results of observation would, I think, shew up even better if 
one could get over the dislike of calling rounds doubtful. In look- 
ing through almost any practice report one finds more wrong than 
