Gunnery in 1858: Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms
by William Greener · English · Gutenberg #43799 · 780,542 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Gunnery in 1858: Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Gunnery in 1858: Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms
Author: William Greener
Release date: September 23, 2013 [eBook #43799]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43799
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Harry Lamé, Google Print and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GUNNERY IN 1858: BEING A TREATISE ON RIFLES, CANNON, AND SPORTING ARMS ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
In this e-text, the following transcriptions are used: italics are
represented _between underscores_, bold face text is represented
=between equals symbols=, and small capitals have been changed to ALL
CAPITALS.
More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of the text.
[Illustration: _PLATE. 1._
ANGULARLY LAMINATED STEEL BARRELED GUN
LAMINATED STEEL BARRELED GUN]
GUNNERY IN 1858:
BEING A TREATISE ON
RIFLES, CANNON, AND SPORTING ARMS;
EXPLAINING THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENCE OF GUNNERY,
AND DESCRIBING THE
NEWEST IMPROVEMENTS IN FIRE-ARMS.
BY WILLIAM GREENER, C.E.,
INVENTOR OF THE EXPANSIVE PRINCIPLE AS APPLIED IN THE MINIE AND
ENFIELD RIFLES, AND AUTHOR OF “THE GUN,” ETC. ETC.
_WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS._
LONDON:
SMITH, ELDER AND CO., 56, CORNHILL.
1858.
(_The Right of Translation is reserved._)
PREFACE.
The urgent need for practical information on the important subject of
Gunnery is evinced by the numerous patents taken out during the last few
years, most of which have fallen still-born, through deficient practical
science on the part of the inventors. My aim in producing this book has
been to point out the errors into which many ingenious inventors have
fallen, and to show how similar failures may be avoided in future, by
indicating the only right road to improvement in Gunnery,--the strict
observance of scientific principles in every old process and in all new
inventions: for it is to the ignorance or neglect of the principles of
the science that failures in Gunnery are due.
The necessity for progress in the science of Gunnery is now rendered
more than ever imperative on our Government by the prodigious energy and
activity of foreign Governments in providing armaments for land and sea
service, the efficiency of which is ensured by adopting all the newest
improvements in fire-arms. But the obstinate reluctance which all our
previous Governments have shown to enter upon the, to them unwelcome,
duty of investigating and experimenting on warlike inventions,
necessitates strong “pressure from without;” for it may be truly said
that all great improvements in Gunnery in England have been forced upon
the authorities by absolute necessity, and it is still a question
whether we shall profit by our recent experiences, or, as before, allow
war to find us unprepared. We have, doubtless, armaments of gigantic
proportions, and mammoth vessels of war, capable of discharging an
ordinary ship’s cargo of shot and shell at a broadside; yet while
millions have been thus expended, the _improvement of the Gun_, without
which they would be mere masses of wood, and targets for more skilful
opponents, has been neglected.
The GUN and its PROJECTILE will decide the victory in future fights.
Indeed, we are even now waging war with our neighbours,--not on the
battle-field or the ocean wave, but in the foundry; engineers being our
generals, and founders our admirals. The present able ruler of France is
actively at work, while we are but looking on: he is casting cannon the
like of which have never been seen, while we are spending thousands in
experimenting on cast-iron and foundries; and by the time our officials
have discovered the best cast-iron for heavy guns, the French batteries
on sea and land will be bristling with RIFLED STEEL CANNON of tremendous
range and endless endurance.
Woe betide this country if at the commencement of a war we should find
ourselves just where we are.
The Emperor Napoleon, as is well known, is well versed, theoretically
and practically, in everything relating to Gunnery. Keenly alive to the
minutest points of progress he receives, investigates, and immediately
adopts all inventions of value; having the ability to perceive, the
sagacity to appreciate, and the liberality to reward merit wherever it
is shown.
Compare his system with ours, where men are placed in official
positions, and entrusted with power, not because of their ability to
fulfil the duties of their office, but for very inferior and often
unworthy reasons; where talent and fitness are not considered, and
consequently a long routine of forms is made to serve as “a buffer” to
resist the troublesome pertinacity of inventors, who are apt to disturb
the serenity of reluctant or indifferent officials. And when at last a
trial is granted, the invention is either rejected or approved by
incompetent or prejudiced judges. While this practice prevails, England
must ever be behindhand in Gunnery; for improvements in cannon and
projectiles cannot be carried out by private enterprise.
In thus strongly expressing my opinion of the way in which progress is
balked, I am not merely echoing a cry, but speaking from my own
knowledge and experience. I am actuated by no feeling of disappointment,
for my invention of “the expansive bullet” has been at last adopted
here, after it had been copied in France. My object is to induce public
investigation and inquiry, and to ventilate this important subject; and
I trust that my antecedents, and the fulfilment of my predictions in
matters of Gunnery, will give weight to this deliberate and
disinterested expression of opinion.
The great favour shown by lovers of shooting to my former efforts to
disseminate a better understanding of the principles of Gunnery, has
been an additional stimulus to the production of the present work; and I
have taken especial care that my observations should tend to the
improvement of sporting arms, and the increased safety of the sportsman.
Nor has the ingenious mechanic been overlooked, for perfection of
gun-manufacture must ever go hand in hand with scientific principle; and
the desire to promote their combination has prompted my endeavours to
elucidate the subject.
Leaving to the reader to determine how far I have succeeded in my
efforts, I merely wish to add that I make no pretension to literary
style, but have aimed to produce a practical work for practical men. I
have drawn upon my previous works for such portions of information as
were needful to give completeness to this view of the science of
Gunnery, its present state, and probable future.
WILLIAM GREENER.
_Aston New Town,
September 3rd, 1858._
ILLUSTRATIONS.
LIST OF PLATES.
Plate 1.--Laminated Steel Barrels--_To face Title_.
„ 2.--Damascus and Fancy Steel Barrels _To face Page 228_
„ 3.--Stub Twist and Stub Damascus Barrels „ _234_
„ 4.--Charcoal Iron and “Threepenny” Iron Barrels „ _241_
„ 5.--“Twopenny” Iron and “Sham Damn” Iron Barrels „ _240_
WOODCUTS.
PAGE
Cannon of 1390 6
Iron ship gun of 1540 10
Paixhan gun and traversing bed 64
Carronade 67
New plan of casting a hollow axle 95
Mallet’s monster mortar 100
Russian 56-pounder 114
Eight-inch British gun 114
Sixty-eight pound carronade 116
Monck’s 56-pounder 117
Ten-inch or 86-pounder 117
Thirteen-inch sea service mortar 119
Thirteen-inch land service mortar 119
Welding steel 155
Wire twist and Damascus iron 160
Steel and iron twist 173
Spirals of Damascus, &c. 187
Spirals of charcoal and skelp 188
Spirals of Wednesbury and “sham damn” iron 189
Barrel welding 191
Method of plating barrels 195
Boring barrels 198
Sections of conical breeches, double barrel 209
London and Birmingham proof marks 251
Mode of proving guns 254
Sections of nipples 283
Expansive plug bullet 343
Enfield barrel and bullet 377
Whitworth barrel and bullet 377
Swiss bullet 391
Greener’s model carbine 401
Poly-groove rifle 403
Tranter’s double trigger revolver 421
Tranter’s double action revolver 424
Webley’s revolver 425
Harpoon gun 432
Shot tower 435
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.--ANCIENT ARMS.
PAGE.
The bow--The sling--Crossbow--Field artillery of the Normans--
Artillery of the ancients--Range of the crossbow and longbow--The ram
of Vespasian--Guns first employed in 1327--Guns at the battle of
Cressy--Cannon of 1390--Skill of English archers--Defensive armour--
Portable firearms invented in 1430--Primitive hand-gun--Iron cannon
recovered from the _Mary Rose_, wrecked in 1545--“Chambers”--Match-
lock and wheel-lock--Fire-lock--Damascus gun-barrels--Birmingham
guns--Spanish pistol with magazine--Percussion lock--The revolving
pistol not a new invention--Colt’s revolver--Breech-loading guns 1
CHAPTER II.--ON GUNPOWDER.
Origin of its invention--Roger Bacon’s recipe--Accidental discovery
by a German monk--Gunpowder introduced by the Saracens--Its explosive
and propellant properties--Composition of gunpowder--Nitre its
essence--Properties of sulphur as an ingredient--Proportions and
constituents of French gunpowder--Sulphur not always indispensable--
Chemical principles of its composition--Component parts of different
gunpowders--Source of its explosive force--Explosion at Gateshead--
Variations in strength and quickness of fire--Granulation of sporting
gunpowder and of artillery gunpowder--Importance of suitable
granulation for different firearms--Large grain powder the more
effectual expellant--Fine powder dangerous--Principle of granulation--
Gun-cotton--Imperfect instrument for testing gunpowder--Charcoal--
Operation of making gunpowder described--“Glazing” detrimental--
Utility of granulation--Fine grain powder--Dr. Ure on the projectile
force of gunpowder--Dr. Hutton’s calculations and experiments--Mode
of controlling the destructive force of gunpowder--Experiments to test
the velocity of explosive force of different granulations--The grain
should be proportioned to the length and bore of the gun--Chlorate of
potassa used by the French in making gunpowder--Similar powder
proposed by Mr. Parr, and condemned by Sir William Congreve--Velocity
in projectile force must be gradual--Curious experiment--Operation of
blasting stone, &c., with gunpowder--English sporting gunpowder--
Military and naval gunpowder--Fame of English gunpowder makers 18
CHAPTER III.--ARTILLERY.
Definition of the term--Modern field gun--English artillery behind
the march of science--Official obstacles to improvement--Various kinds
of British artillery--Table of measurements, and range of iron
ordnance--Brass guns--Their peculiar property--Firing of brass and
iron guns compared--Range of brass ordnance--Paixhan guns--Traversing
beds for ship guns--Ranges of Paixhan guns and howitzers--Mortars--
Their uses and varieties--Monster mortar at siege of Antwerp--Table of
English mortar practice--Carronades--Table of weights of guns and shot
--Causes of Recoil--Guns of our ancestors--Metal required in rear of
the breech--Results of Hutton’s experiments--Weight in fore-part of
gun injurious--Firm base for a gun essential--Leaden bed for mortars
suggested--New materials desirable for projectiles--Mr. Monk’s gun
unequalled--Principle of its construction--Wilkinson’s opinion--Waste
of explosive force in ordnance--The propellant force should be
accelerative--This attainable by a proper granulation of powder--
Government powder--Gunnery only in its infancy--Compound shot--Lead
better than iron for cannon shot--Expenditure of shot at sieges of
Ciudad Rodrigo and Badajos--Hutton’s experiments--The shrapnell
shell--Improvements in gunnery--The Greenerian rifle--Dangerous
inefficiency of English artillery--Best metal for cannon--Increased
range destroys guns--Cause of mortars bursting--The Lancaster gun--
English cast-iron inferior--Mallet’s monster mortar--Wrought-iron
unsuited to large guns--Reason why--Shaft of the _Leviathan_--New
method of welding iron shafts--Railway carriage axles--Nasmyth’s
monster cannon--Light gun-barrels stronger than heavy ones--Brass guns
inferior to cast-iron--Defect of hoop and stave gun--Form and
dimensions of Mallet’s monster mortar (with engraving)--Cause of
deterioration of English cast-iron--Russian cast-iron more durable,
and why--Krupp’s steel gun--Laminated steel gun-barrels--Captain
Dalgren’s improvements in American ordnance--Russian guns--Reinforce
rings and trunnions objectionable, and why--Rifled cannon essential--
Range of steel rifled cannon--Best form of gun--Professor Barlow on
the strength of iron--Our artillery not constructed on scientific
principles--Russian 56-pounder, English 8-inch gun, English carronade,
Monck’s 56-pounder, and 10-inch gun (with cuts)--Land and sea service
mortars (with cuts)--Joseph Manton’s rifle cannon--Projectiles for
rifled cannon--Rifle rockets--Mr. Whitworth’s improvements in rifled
guns--His polygonal projectile--Experiments with Mr. Armstrong’s
field-piece--Increased range and accuracy of rifled cannon with
elongated projectiles--Table of comparative range of smooth-bored and
rifled cannon--Shells for rifled cannon--Spiral motion of projectiles
from smooth-bored guns--Breech-loading cannon useless and unsafe 58
CHAPTER IV.--MANUFACTURE OF IRON FOR GUN-BARRELS.
Improvement in gun barrels depends on the iron--Continental
manufacturers advance while English stand still--Cheap and inferior
guns of “Park-paling”--Scarcity of horse-nail stubs--Importance of
iron manufacture--Great value of steel in ancient times--Iron
originally made with wood charcoal--Coal coke unfit for making best
iron--British iron ore inferior--Mr. Mushet on steel-iron--English
workmen employed abroad--English gun-makers’ names forged in Belgium--
Indian Iron and Steel Company--Indian process of making steel--Hammer-
hardening recommended--Difference of “Silver steel” and “Twist steel”
--Method of making laminated steel--It is spoilt by over-twisting--
Watering of Damascus barrels--Proportions of carbon in steel and iron
--Damascus barrels often plated--Modern method of making Damascus iron
(with cuts)--Objection to wire-twist iron--Figured barrels--Damascus
barrels made in Belgium--Damascus iron inferior in strength--Use of
old horse-shoe nails for gun-barrels--Stub iron alone insufficient--
Prejudices of provincial gun-makers--Mixture of steel and stub iron--
Importance of welding on an air furnace--Proportions of steel and stub
iron--Efficacy of hammer-hardening and reworking iron--Improvements in
superior iron owing to gun-makers--Explosions of steam-boilers owing
to neglect or bad construction--Boiler iron improveable--Steel-
Damascus barrel iron--Manufacture of “charcoal iron”--Imitation of
“smoke brown”--Gains from using inferior iron--Frauds in barrel making
--Advice of Edward Davies in 1619--“Threepenny skelp iron”--
“Wednesbury skelp”--Test of a safe gun--“Sham damn skelp”--Base guns
made to sell--Their injurious effect on the gun-making trade--“Swaff-
iron forging.” 146
CHAPTER V.--GUN-MAKING.
Barrel welding--Birmingham welders--Different twists of metal
(illustrated with cuts)--Process of welding--Hammer-hardening--Belgium
welders--Mode of plating barrels--Belgium method (with cut)--Profits
of fraud--Qualifications of a good gun-barrel maker--Processes of
boring and grinding--Proper inclination of double barrels--Elevation
of barrels should be proportionate to charge and distance--Brazing of
barrels detrimental--Mr. Wilkinson’s opinion--Solid ribs requisite--
Advantage of the patent breech--Best shape of breech (with cut)--Gun
locks--Their scientific construction--The Barside lock--Messrs.
Braziers’ locks--The stock, fittings, &c.--Recipe for staining steel
barrels--Birmingham method of browning--Belgian method--Varieties of
iron for best barrels--Laminated steel barrels never known to burst--
Base imitations of laminated steel--Cost of laminated steel barrels--
Author’s method of laminating--Stub Damascus passed off for steel--
Birmingham guns--Practice of forging names of eminent makers--Author’s
offer--Improved metal for axles--Author’s imitation Damascus (with
plate)--Joseph Manton’s merits--Prize medals awarded to author--
Advantages of Birmingham for gun making--“London-made guns”--Foreign
imitations of English guns--Periodical exhibition of guns recommended
--Steel-twist and stub Damascus (with plate)--Barrels of charcoal
iron--Inferior guns--Cost of skelp-iron guns--Cost of “sham damn iron”
guns--Sham guns (with plate)--Cost of “park-paling” guns 185
CHAPTER VI.--THE PROOF OF GUN BARRELS.
Proof-house of Gun-maker’s Company--Proof Acts of 1813 and 1815--
Provisions of Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1855--Penal clauses--Schedule B
--Proof marks--Scale of charges for Proof--Mode of proving (with cut)
--Number of barrels proved in 1857 243
CHAPTER VII.--THE SCIENCE OF GUNNERY.
New principle--Improved rifles--Useless inventions--Scientific
principles of gunnery: 1. The explosive power and its velocity. 2. The
retarding agents. 3. Construction of the tube. 4. Form of projectile--
Robins’s theory--Hutton’s experiments--Suitable velocity the germ of
the science--Author’s experiments and their results--Penetrating power
of bullets--Resistance of the atmosphere--Friction detrimental--
Construction of the tube--The Cylindro-conoidal form best suited for
projectiles--Jacob’s and Whitworth’s bullets--Lengthened projectiles
tend to burst the barrel--Amount of heat needful to explode gunpowder
--Advantage of unglazed powder--Percussion powder--Best form of nipple
(with cuts)--Propellant velocity the grand desideratum--Why short guns
shoot better than long ones--True science of gunnery--Cause of guns
bursting--Mr. Blaine’s difference of opinion with the author on
explosive force--Shooting powers of different gun barrels--Tables of
strength and pressure--Colonel Hawker’s axiom--Mr. Daniel’s remarks on
shot--Duck and swivel guns--The wire cartridge--Bell-muzzle guns--Mr.
Blaine on long barrels--The just medium--Belgium guns will not stand
English proof--Cause of their inferiority--French gun-makers behind
the age--Author’s notes on the “Specimens by French Gun-makers at the
Paris Exhibition”--On recoil in shooting--Causes and experiments--Mode
of determining the size of shot suited to the bore of gun--Mr.
Prince’s double gun 257
CHAPTER VIII.--THE FRENCH “CRUTCH,” OR BREECH-LOADING SHOT GUN.
Breech-loading fire-arms unsafe and inferior--Objections specified--
Trial of breech-loading against muzzle-loading guns--Danger from using
breech-loaders--Excessive recoil 329
CHAPTER IX.--THE RIFLE.
Robins’s prediction verified--Barrels first rifled at Vienna in 1498--
Earliest elongated bullets--Captain Delvigne’s bullet--The author’s
expansive bullet--His memorial to the Board of Ordnance--Report of its
trial by the 60th Rifles in 1836--Decision of the Board of Ordnance--
Progress of the author’s invention--Captain Delvigne’s patent of 1842
--Captain Minié’s bullet of 1847--Unsuccessful attempts of author to
have his claim to the invention of the expansive bullet recognised by
Government--Secret report of Select Committee on his invention--His
priority admitted by the Emperor Napoleon--The British Government
award the author 1,000_l._ for his invention--Principle of the
expansive rifle bullet--Projectiles may be lengthened with increase of
range--Action of the expansive bullet--Defects of the Minié bullet--
Colonel Hay’s improvement--Author’s experiments, and their result--
Spiral curve of the rifle barrel--Failure of the “Pritchett bullet”--
Captain Tamissier’s theory--Minié and Greenerian bullet contrasted
(with cuts)--Author’s improvement of 1852 (with cut)--General Jacob’s
bullet (with cuts)--Remarks of Lieutenant Symons--The Whitworth rifle
--Its defects--Report of trial of the Whitworth and Enfield rifles--
Author’s comments thereon (with cuts)--Importance of safety from
accident--The expansive bullet can be made superior to the Whitworth--
Fallacy of experiments--Comparative cost of ammunition for the
Whitworth and Enfield rifles--Defective cartridges--Hints to obviate
defects--Vital principle of elongated projectiles--A hollow bullet
proposed, its defects--The Swiss bullet--Doubtful utility of the
deepening groove--Government rifle, with sword bayonet--Double rifles
--Hints on rifle shooting--Author’s expanding screw bands--Mr.
Prince’s breech-loading carbine--Revolving rifles--French school of
rifle practice--English school of rifle shooting at Hythe--Double
rifled carbines recommended--Revolvers costly and fragile--Lieutenant
Kerr’s opinion of the Enfield or Greener’s carbine--Government pistol
and carbine--Efficient arms of the Irregular Cavalry of India--First
use of greased cartridges in India--The three-grooved and poly-grooved
rifle (with cut)--Spherical bullets indispensable to smooth bored
muskets--Length and bore of military rifle--Elliptical bored rifle--
Mr. Lancaster’s bullet superseded by the Greenerian bullet--Report of
committee on Lancaster’s rifle--The oval bore not a new invention--
Inferiority of the two-grooved or Brunswick rifle--The Prussian needle
gun--Enfield rifles made for France, Russia, and other states of
Europe--Trials of Whitworth and Enfield rifles--Unsatisfactory results
of the Whitworth rifle 338
CHAPTER X.--REVOLVING PISTOLS.
Immense demand for them--Their value--Best manufacturers--Colonel
Colt’s repeating pistol described--Its double action discussed--
Machine-made pistols not equal to hand-made--Dean and Adams’s revolver
described--Its improvements on Colt’s--Tranter’s double trigger
revolver--His lubricating bullet and other improvements--Webley’s
revolver--Comparison of self-acting and cocking-lock pistols--
Tendency of revolvers to foul--Lieut. Symons’s opinion--Other defects
to be overcome--Author’s preference for double-barrelled fire-arms in
warfare 413
CHAPTER XI.--ENFIELD RIFLES.
The name explained, and weapon described--Its origin--Author’s share
in its construction--American machinery for gun-making--Extent and
products of the Enfield manufactory 429
CHAPTER XII.--THE HARPOON-GUN FOR WHALE-SHOOTING. 432
CHAPTER XIII.--SHOT, CAPS, AND WADDING. 435
RIFLES, CANNON,
AND
SPORTING ARMS.
CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT ARMS.
From the earliest ages of the world, the jealousies and bickerings of
mankind have been fruitful causes of war. Sometimes, perhaps, justified
by political reasons; at others, it may be, arising solely from a
desire, on the part of ambitious chiefs, to extend their territories by
multiplying their conquests; while, in too many cases, the struggle for
religious ascendancy has led to the most sanguinary and cruel battles.
War has been considered as a science from the most remote ages, and the
ingenuity of the talented has successively been taxed to render it as
perfect as possible. It is true--
“Man’s earliest arms were fingers, teeth, and nails,
And stones and fragments from the branching woods;”
but these soon gave place to others, more calculated to decide unequal,
and often protracted, conflicts.
Arms, in a general sense, include all kinds of weapons, both offensive
and defensive; and amongst the earliest may be classed the bow and
arrow, as it gave facilities to man to capture the wild animals for
food, probably before their use was required for the purposes of war.
The bow and the sling were the first means invented, and next only to
the human arm for projecting bodies with an offensive aim: the great
principle which, to the present day, reigns unrivalled, developing the
ruling passion of man to injure, while remaining himself in comparative
safety,--“self-preservation” being “the first law of nature.”
To the bow and sling were soon added spears, swords, axes, and javelins,
all of which appear to have been used by the Jews. David destroyed
Goliath with a stone from the brook. The invention of the sling is
attributed, by ancient writers, to the Phœnicians, or the inhabitants of
the Balearic Islands. The great fame that these islanders obtained arose
from their assiduity in its use; their children were not allowed to eat
until they struck their food from the top of a pole with a stone from a
sling. From the accounts left us (probably fabulous), it appears that
the immense force with which a stone could be projected, can only be
exceeded by modern gunnery. Even at that early age, leaden balls were in
use as projectiles; though we cannot put much faith in Seneca’s account
of the velocity being so great as frequently to melt the lead. The use
of the sling continued over a long period of time, even as late as the
Huguenot war in 1572.
The bow is of equal, if not greater, antiquity. The first account we
find of it is in Genesis, 21st chapter and 20th verse, where the
Lawgiver, speaking of Ishmael, says, “And God was with the lad, and he
grew and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer.” The arms of the
ancient Greeks and Persians were such as we have described, with the
addition of chariots armed with scythes, in which the chiefs sometimes
fought; though their main dependence was upon their heavy-armed
infantry. Elephants were afterwards used as adjuncts in their military
operations, but their use does not appear to have been very great or
very permanent.
The Romans were armed much in the same manner as the Greeks, with a
slight difference in the form of their weapons; and the arms of the
early Saxons were similar; those of the Normans were only altered in
their construction, except that to them appears to be awarded the
invention of the _cross-bow_, an instrument which afterwards became of
great repute in England and elsewhere. It has also been asserted, that
the Normans were the first to introduce a species of field artillery,
from which stones and darts were thrown, and arrows, headed with
combustible matter, for firing towns and shipping.
The artillery-proper of the ancients, as the engines for projecting
masses of stone and such like materials may be termed, reached to
wonderful perfection; and the velocity with which missiles of every
description could be thrown from them, attest the skill and ingenuity
exercised in their construction: indeed it is quite evident they are
only excelled by the _more portable_, and simply constructed, artillery
of our own day.
The great artillerist of the Sicilians, Archimedes, seems to have made
some of the most powerful engines; but he, considering any attention to
mechanics as beneath the philosopher, has not left us an account of any
one of them.
It is said of the cross-bow that a _quarrel_ could be projected from
them 200 yards, so that we may imagine the force with which one of these
lumps of iron would strike even the strongest armour,--as the velocity,
to range that distance, would not be far short of 900 or 1,000 feet per
second; nearly equal to the effect of a ball from one of our old
imperfectly constructed muskets.
We are told incredible stories of the abilities of some of our bygone
archers. Should it be true, as stated, that an arrow could be shot
nearly 700 yards, we can easily conceive the immense velocity with which
it must have left the bow; this range being quite equal, if not
superior, to that of the late unimproved rifles. Though we must bear in
mind, that the peculiar shape of the arrow fits it to cut the atmosphere
with less resistance then the half sphere of a bullet; and hence one
reason of its obtaining an extensive range. There is a story told of the
famous Robin Hood, and Little John, “who could shoot an arrow a measured
mile.” We suppose the mile was the reverse of an Irish one, or they had
the advantage of a precious stiff gale of wind. Historians sometimes
“draw the long-bow” as well as archers. Many statements have descended
to us of the power of the battering rams of old; but we have a much more
ready method of blowing open gates by a single bag of gunpowder; and a
68 lb. shot has all the force that could be given even to that famous
ram of Vespasian, “the length whereof was only fifty cubits, which came
not up to the size of many of the Grecian rams, had a head as thick as
ten men, and twenty-five horns, each of which was as thick as one man,
and placed a cubit distance from the rest; the weight, as was customary,
rested on the hinder part, and was no less than 1,500 talents; when it
was removed, without being taken to pieces, 150 yoke of oxen, or 300
pairs of horses and mules, laboured in drawing it, and 1,500 men
employed their utmost strength in forcing it against the walls.”
With these remarks we shall proceed to introduce the invention of
Gunnery.
Barbour, in his life of Bruce, informs us that guns were first employed
by the English at the battle of Werewater, which was fought in 1327,
about forty years after the death of Friar Bacon; and there is no doubt
that four guns were used at the battle of Cressy, fought in 1346, when
they were supposed to have been quite unknown to the French, and tended
to obtain for British arms the victory. Froissart gives an excellent
representation of a cannon and cannoneers, in 1390, a cut of which we
give in the following page.
The use of guns in warfare is, therefore, comparatively of modern date,
and the early specimens which are still extant, of which we have
drawings and descriptions, must have been of very little service
compared with those of the present day. The English musqueteer was
formerly a most encumbered soldier. “He had, besides the unwieldy weapon
itself, his coarse powder for loading in a flask, his fine powder for
priming in a touch-box, his bullets in a leathern bag, with strings to
draw to get at them, whilst in his hand were his musket-rest and his
burning match; and when he had discharged his piece, he had to draw his
sword in order to defend himself. Hence it became a question, and was so
for a long time, whether the bow did not deserve a preference over the
musket.”[1]
[1] Grose’s “Military Antiquities.”
[Illustration: Froisart’s Gun. 1390.]
The mention of the _long-bow_ is frequent in English history, and its
use contributed, in no mean degree, to many important victories. Perhaps
it might be that our forefathers were more skilful in the use of their
weapons than their adversaries.
In our wars in France, in the reign of Edward III., thousands suffered
by the English archery; and the brilliant success which attended them
was, at that time, attributed to their “superior skill, combined with
the valour of the Black Prince.” So highly was this practice esteemed,
that many statutes were enacted in successive reigns to encourage or
enforce it.
Archery furnished matter for oratorical display, both in the senate and
the pulpit; the palace and the cottage alike bore testimony to the great
importance which was attached to the art; and it was at once the study
and pastime of the whole nation. Thus, long after the introduction of
fire-arms, the long-bow was held in great esteem; and it is no wonder
that this favourite instrument should have been reluctantly
relinquished, after obtaining such universal popularity, and becoming so
intimately connected with many national and important events. It is now
superseded by the gun, a more potent and destructive engine. The bow, so
much valued, has vanished from our ranks by slow gradations, to make way
for the musket; and the quivers of cloth-yard shafts have been
supplanted by bristling bayonets. These things are now practically
unknown as military weapons, though they contended for superiority with
fire-arms during two centuries.
At this period, and for a long time previously, more attention was paid
to the fabrication of defensive armour, than to the invention of weapons
of an offensive character; hence the perfection that was attained in
the manufacture of mail, of every variety, during the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries. The splendid manner in which some of the chivalrous
knights of that age chose to have their armour constructed and
ornamented sometimes proved fatal to themselves. Froissart relates that
Raymond, nephew to Pope Clement, was taken prisoner, and put to death by
his captors, in order that they might become possessed of his
magnificent armour. Those gorgeous and costly fabrications were likewise
doomed to give place to the advancing knowledge and skill of succeeding
generations; being now only known as matters of history, and regarded as
valuable curiosities. So late, however, as the latter part of the
sixteenth century, armour formed part of the military equipment; and the
French cavalry, called _carabins_, are described as having the cuirass
sloped off the right shoulder, that they might the more readily couch
their cheeks to take aim, while their bridle arms were protected by an
elbow gauntlet.
The invention of portable fire-arms is awarded to the Italians by Sir
Samuel Meyrick, and, in a memoir in the Archæologia of the Society of
Antiquarians, he has named the year 1430 as the precise period of their
introduction.
We have already stated that cannon, or heavy ordnance, was in use in the
English army in 1327, more than a century before that time. It is not
improbable, however, that the Italians were the originators of small
fire-arms, for they had for many years been celebrated as skilful in
the art of making armour--Milanese armour being considered the most
valuable, and it is natural that their attention should be directed to
the construction of offensive weapons of a different description.
The invention of the portable fire-arm, in its primitive state, was one
of extreme simplicity; the gun consisting merely of a tube fixed to a
straight stock of wood, about three feet in length, furnished with
trunnions, cascable, and touch-hole: the latter was, in the first
instance, at the top, like a large cannon, but was afterwards altered to
the side where a small pan was placed to hold the priming, and lessen
the liability of its being blown away by the wind. This contrivance was
the first step to the gun-lock.
Before the adoption of the match-lock by the English, cannon, as I have
before shown, had been in use, though they were of a clumsy description.
[Illustration]
To the indefatigable exertions of Mr. Dean, we are indebted for the
recovery of several brass and iron guns, belonging to the “Mary
Rose,”--a vessel of war, wrecked in the reign of Henry VIII. of England,
and Francis I. of France, in 1545: “while standing along the coast,
during a distant firing from the French fleet, under Admiral Annebout,
she was overpowered by the weight of her ordnance, and sunk, together
with her commander and crew of 600 men.” One of these iron guns is in an
excellent state of preservation, considering it to have been immersed
above 300 years. The cut on next page will convey, together with the
following description, a faint idea of its unwieldy and inefficient
construction. It is composed of a tube of iron, whose joint or overlap
is as its length; upon this is a succession of iron hoops, composed of
iron three inches square, being in fact immense rings; these appear to
have been driven on while red hot, and thus, by their contraction,
forming a much stronger gun, when combined with the interior tube, than
the generality of accounts given of ancient guns would lead us to
expect. It will be perceived, that to describe it as “composed of iron
bars hooped together,” is not correct. We may also mention, that if
parties describing guns of this primitive manufacture will observe
accurately, they will find that this is the general method by which they
have been fabricated. They all appear to have been loaded by removing a
breech part, or chamber, inserting the charge, replacing the chamber,
and securing it by wedging it behind; as will be seen on a close
inspection. No means of raising or depressing the muzzle appear
available; the barrel or gun being sunk in a large block of timber, and
secured there by bolts, as a musket barrel is secured in its stock;
while a large piece of iron, or wood, was inserted perpendicularly into
the deck to prevent the recoil. The advantage of “chambers” was
perfectly understood even at this early period; they were apparently
slightly conical, with a spherical bottom. It is no mean evidence of
ancient skill, and knowledge of gunnery and mechanics combined, to
state, that only a few years ago, a gunmaker of some celebrity,
constructed a number of rifles and pistols to load at the breech, on the
very same principle adopted in this gun 312 years ago. Strange, evidence
from “the vasty deep” to show “there is nothing new under the sun.”
During the sixteenth century, fire-arms of every description then in use
underwent a variety of alterations and improvements; each change
bringing with it a change of name, which would neither be profitable or
interesting to enumerate here; our object being to trace out the
advances which have been made in the manufacture of fire-arms since
their general adoption as weapons of war, or auxiliaries to the sports
of the field.
When first introduced into England, the hand-gun, as it was termed, had
already received a slight improvement, in having a covering for the pan
which contained the priming, and a sight on the breech, to assist in
giving greater certainty to the aim; it remained thus until the trigger
of the cross-bow suggested a contrivance to convey, with equal
certainty and greater rapidity, the burning match to the pan.
The difficulty of using an instrument thus objectionably constructed,
was in some degree obviated by the Germans; who, together with the
Italians, were no doubt at this early period the principal
manufacturers; they effected this, to a certain degree, by giving the
stocks a crooked form, so that the breech could, with more ease, be
brought to the level of the eye; this was, however, only an alteration
of form, without involving any principle or leading feature of
mechanical invention. Succeeding the match-lock, in the progress of
improvement, came the “pyrites wheel-lock,” an invention then looked
upon as exceedingly curious and ingenious; this also is ascribed to the
Italians, and one of the first occasions of its being used, is said to
have been when Pope Leo X. and the Emperor Charles V. confederated
against France. Whether the Italians are fairly entitled to the merit of
this invention is, however, a matter of doubt, as it is well known that
wheel-locks were for a long period manufactured in Germany.
The “_snaphaunce_” or fire-lock, is distinctly stated by Grose to be of
Dutch origin,--hence the name. It was introduced into England in the
reign of Charles II., though its general adoption is stated not to have
taken place until the reign of William III., about 1692. Since that
period, until the present, their use has been general in all the armies
of Europe. How strange it seems that the Chinese and other Asiatics
should have only the match-lock to the present day, while there can be
no question that they used gunpowder some centuries before its
introduction into our portion of the habitable globe!
The Syrians were formerly celebrated for their skill in the working of
iron. Damascus gun-barrels were not to be obtained, at certain periods,
at a price less than their weight in silver. The elaborate mixtures in
their barrels, swords, and other weapons, entitle them justly to the
honour of being the best of iron workers, as we shall hereafter have
occasion to show; and the splendour displayed in their inlaying attests
their taste and ability: but as mechanicians, formers of complex
machinery, they never reached mediocrity. Turkey and Greece, as well as
other countries which were renowned as having been, in days of yore,
nurseries of the arts, but which have, in later times, degenerated into
a condition little better than semi-barbarous, were remarkable for the
great labour and pains which they bestowed upon the exterior ornaments
of their firearms; but they never succeeded in improving the machinery
of the lock in the slightest degree.
Although it was not until the latter part of the seventeenth, or the
beginning of the eighteenth century, that gun manufactories were
established in this kingdom, yet we have attained to a degree of
perfection and excellence unequalled by any other nation in the world.
Birmingham is the emporium of the world for guns, from the most
inferior--the “_park paling_,” so called, of the slave-trade, with which
ships might yet be freighted at the cost of eight shillings and sixpence
each--up to the elaborately-finished gun of the peer. Most of the
alterations which have been made in gun-locks in England, have been with
a view to simplify the machinery, and obtain the greatest quickness in
firing: much complication has been discarded; a thorough conviction
having seated itself in the minds of Englishmen, that to attain
perfection, simplicity must be combined.
Many splendid emanations of genius are left to us, consisting of complex
mechanism for gunnery. The most perfect we have ever seen, is a pistol
made in Spain about the end of the seventeenth century. By moving a
lever towards the butt-end, while the muzzle is depressed, the lock is
primed, half-cocked, and the hammer shut down; return the lever, the
powder is in the breech, and the ball before it. We have seen it fire
twenty-six shots without a failure, and with one supply of ammunition.
The magazine was in two tubes in the stock. The chance of blowing up was
thought remote; but it eventually blew up. In short, it would be
strictly advantageous to inventors in gunnery, to be sure that there has
been no previous invention combining their principle as well as their
arrangements.
The mine of complex inventions was exhausted during the last century;
and the greatest benefactor to the science of gunnery will be he, who,
blowing away the cobwebs of mystery, renders its principles as clear as
the silvered glass. Nothing now remains of the beautiful machinery of
the flint lock; the fancy cock and hammers have given place to a
“simple” hammer, striking on a copper thimble, covering a steel pivot.
What would the old lock-filers say to this, if they could return and
see their handiwork consigned to the scrap-box as old iron?
To those curious in the progress of invention as it relates to gunnery,
it would be highly interesting to visit the “Musée d’Artillerie” of
Paris, and there to study the classified selections in the possession of
the French Government. Among other specimens equally interesting, he
will find revolving pistols, revolving rifles, and swords and revolving
pistols combined in one; and these produced in the early part of the
seventeenth century. The revolving pistol did not therefore originate
with the present generation; and however universally we may use the
“Colt,” “Adams,” or “Tranter,” neither can lay the slightest claim to
originality. In that museum will be found four, five, and six charge
chambers; and though in all there is certainly an absence of movement in
the chamber, produced by the cocking of the lock, yet several present
the appearance of having formerly had some mechanical adjunct for
revolving the chamber: this, though well adapted to the present
percussion system, must certainly have been troublesome to manage in the
old flint lock; for when the first barrel was discharged, the priming of
the other barrels would be lost during the revolution of the chamber.
A great improvement was, however, soon introduced; a hammer and pan were
attached to each division of the chamber, and each being already primed,
presented itself in rotation in the face of the flint. The gun or pistol
was by these protuberances rendered clumsy and cumbersome, and thus
fell, no doubt, into disuse; but every real mechanic must see on
investigating the subject, that the principle was as perfect as that
which is now in use. Mr. Colt had considerable difficulty in securing a
patent for his revolver. The right of patent hinged on this simple
question: did he, or did he not, first introduce a crank or lever for
revolving the chambers during the cocking of the lock? After an
expensive trial it was decided that he _did_ introduce it; though doubts
are still entertained whether there is not now extant a pistol having
the same crank movement as that found in the “Colt” and other revolvers.
At all events the invention of revolving pistols originated with our
progenitors, more than 200 years ago, though their re-introduction is
unquestionably due to Mr. Colt; and the “old broth warmed up” has no
doubt proved more nutritious than the original concoction. In the Paris
museum, a number of breech-loading guns are to be seen; I think more
than sixty varieties. Many of them are highly ingenious, displaying
great mechanical knowledge and working skill, and the whole, kept in
splendid order, cannot fail to command attention.
Well had it been if the many hundred inventors in England and elsewhere
had studied, and made themselves intimately acquainted with the
productions there to be seen in such abundance. Monuments they are of
mis-spent skill and labour; samples of the almost hopeless task of
fabricating complicated machinery which shall resist the action of
explosive gases at high pressure. An experiment extending over two
hundred years, but unattended with success, notwithstanding all the
skill and ingenuity brought to bear upon it, is, we think, sufficient
to prove that breech-loading guns cannot be made sufficiently durable to
yield any reasonable return for the extra expense and trouble attending
their fabrication. Nevertheless, our “would-be mechanics hope against
hope;” and to such we would, in conclusion, tender a word of advice.
Before spending your money, make acquaintance (and an intimate one is
necessary) with all that has been done before, and if in your own
production you find principles which have been untouched by any previous
invention, and untainted by any of the previous causes of failure, then
patent your invention, and make a fortune--if you can.
Great mechanical skill, and even scientific principles, are to be found
in some of the earliest productions after the invention of fire-arms;
and thus is established the important fact, that want of experience was
the chief drawback under which they laboured: one elaborate machine
being unequal to their requirements was succeeded by another; and yet,
with all these examples patent to us, we still fruitlessly fall back on
exhausted principles.
A more intimate knowledge of what our predecessors have accomplished
would be a great boon to our race. Foreign nations, but especially
France, have provided for this by their museums; and we want here a
museum of progression, an epitome of the mind of the present age, and
which, continued to future generations, would leave to no man the
fruitless toil of hauling in an endless rope.
CHAPTER II.
ON GUNPOWDER.
Gunpowder being the base on which the superstructure of this treatise is
to be raised, the history, the use, and the nature of this explosive
compound, are here placed in the foreground; as it is essential to the
correct conception of the various matters hereafter to be explained,
that the reader be first acquainted with the one grand principle in
fire-arms, the propellant power of explosion.
Gunpowder, whether considered relatively to engines of war, or to those
arms used with so much success in the sporting field, has, since its
first _introduction_, been a source of much and frequent discussion. In
regard to its origin, we shall not much enlarge, nor repeat the many
suppositions and conjectures promulgated by the searchers after
antiquarian evidence.
The inhabitants of India were unquestionably acquainted with its
composition at an early date. Alexander is supposed to have avoided
attacking the Oxydracea, a people dwelling between the Hyphasis and
Ganges, from a report of their being possessed of supernatural means of
defence: “For,” it is said, “they come not out to fight those who attack
them, but those holy men, beloved by the gods, overthrow their enemies
with tempests and thunderbolts shot from their walls;” and, when the
Egyptian Hercules and Bacchus overran India, they attacked these people,
“but were repulsed with storms of thunderbolts and lightning hurled from
above.” This is, no doubt, evidence of the use of gunpowder; but as it
is unprofitable to investigate this subject further, we shall merely
confine ourselves to the European authorities.
Many ascribe the discovery of gunpowder to Roger Bacon, the monk, who
was born at Ilchester, in Somersetshire, in the year 1214, and is said
to have died in 1285. No doubt he was by far the most illustrious, the
best informed, and the most philosophical of all the alchemists. In the
6th chapter of his Epistles of the Secrets of Arts, the following
passage occurs--“For sounds like thunder, and flashes like lightning,
may be made in the air, and they may be rendered even more horrible than
those of nature herself. A small quantity of matter, properly
manufactured, and not larger than the human thumb, may be made to
produce a horrible noise; and this may be done many ways, by which a
_city_ or an _army_ may be destroyed, as was the case when Gideon and
his men broke their _pitchers_ and exhibited their lamps, fire issuing
out of them with great force and noise, destroying an infinite number of
the army of the _Midianites_.” And in the 11th chapter of the same
epistle occurs the following passage:--“Mix together saltpetre with
_luru mone cap ubre_, and sulphur, and you will make thunder and
lightning, if you know the method of mixing them.” Here all the
ingredients of gunpowder are mentioned, except charcoal; which is,
doubtless, concealed under the barbarous terms used; indeed, the
_anagram_ is easily converted into _carbonum pulvere_, with a little
attention.
This discovery has also been attributed to Schwartz, a German monk, and
the date of 1320 annexed to it; a date posterior to that which may be
justly claimed for Friar Bacon; and as accident is stated to have been
the means by which he discovered it, we have taken that incident as the
subject of an illustration.
[Illustration]
Mr. Hallam, referring to the authority of an Arabic author, infers that
there is no question that the knowledge of gunpowder was introduced into
Europe through the means of the Saracens, before the middle of the 13th
century; and no doubt its use then was more for fireworks, than as an
artillerist projectile force. There is good evidence, too, that the use
of gunpowder was introduced into Spain by the Moors, at least as early
as the year 1343. Now, as Roger Bacon is known to have been an Arabic
scholar, it is not at all unlikely that he might have become acquainted
with the mode of making the composition, and also with its most
remarkable properties, by perusing some Arabian writer with whom we are
at present unacquainted.
This invention, by which the personal barbarity of war has certainly
been diminished, is, when considered as a means of human destruction, by
far the most powerful that skill has ever devised, or accident
presented; acquiring, as experience shows us, a more sanguinary dominion
in every succeeding age, and subserving all the progressive resources of
science and civilization for the extermination of mankind: which, says
Mr. Hallam, “appals us at the future prospects of the species, and makes
us feel, perhaps, more than in any other instance, a difficulty in
reconciling the mysterious dispensation with the benevolent order of
Providence.”
The composition of gunpowder, as regards the proportions of the
ingredients, has not undergone any material alteration; the chemical
proportions of the ancients being nearly those of the present day.
Gunpowder is an explosive propellant compound, consisting of saltpetre
or nitre, charcoal, and sulphur. The terms, _explosive_ and
_propellant_, are not here used as synonymous--they are not convertible;
for a chemical mixture may possess the _explosive_ power in a much
higher degree than the _propellant_: fulminating gold, silver, and
mercury, are dreadfully explosive; but they have not the same
projectile force, nor can they be used as a substitute for it. Several
experiments have been made with compounds of this nature, but the result
is the reverse of what might be expected. Nothing can resist the
exceeding intensity of the action of fulminating powder; a shot, when
fired in this way, is not projected as by gunpowder, but is split into
fragments by the velocity of its explosion, as we shall hereafter have
occasion to show.
Nitre, or saltpetre, is strictly the essence of gunpowder. It is a
triple compound of oxygen, nitrogen, and potassium. The chemical action
of those elements on each other, and the play of affinities between them
at a high temperature, occasion the immense effect produced by gunpowder
on the application of fire or heat. By universal consent, sulphur is
included in the mixture, but it is not absolutely necessary for the
“propellant power;” for nitre and charcoal only will generate effects
similar to the compound with sulphur. Gunpowder made without sulphur
has, however, several bad qualities; it is not, on the whole, so
powerful, nor so regular in its action; it is also porous and friable,
possessing neither firmness nor solidity. It cannot bear the friction of
carriage, and in transport crumbles into dust. The use of sulphur,
therefore, appears to be not only to complete the mechanical combination
of the other ingredients, but being a perfectly combustible substance,
it increases the general effect, augments the propellant power, and is
thought to render the powder less susceptible of injury from atmospheric
influence.
“There is one good reason,” says the Edinburgh Encyclopædia, “for the
use of sulphur, although it does not contribute to the production of any
elastic fluid. The carbonic acid which is generated would doubtless
combine with the potash, if it were not for the presence of the sulphur,
and thus so much elastic fluid would be lost. That this is the case we
know to be true, from the fact that carbonate of potash is always formed
when nitre is decomposed by charcoal alone, which I shall almost
immediately show.” This certainly would be the case, to a certain
extent, with gunpowder without sulphur--some carbonate of potash would
be formed.
The sulphur, we have no doubt, from experiments we have made on this
subject, is, in part, engaged during the explosion of gunpowder in
expelling the sixth proportion of oxygen from the potash, so as to
combine with the potassium, to form a true sulphuret of that metal. This
fact is easily ascertained, from the circumstance that no sulphuretted
hydrogen can be detected, by the most delicate tests, coming from the
residuum left after firing gunpowder, until moisture has gained access
to it. The bad smell which arises sometime after the burning of
gunpowder, is occasioned by the decomposition of the moisture which the
sulphuret of potassium attracts from the atmosphere; giving rise, by
this decomposition and liberation, to the fœtid foul gas, called
sulphuretted hydrogen, and the production of potassa, or the oxide of
potassium.
A commission of French chemists and artillerists was appointed by the
Government, in the year 1794, to experiment upon the best proportions
and constituents of gunpowder for the use of the French service. The
following were the proportions of five different kinds prepared at the
Essonne works:--
---+------+---------+--------+----------------------
No.|Nitre.|Charcoal.|Sulphur.| ----
---+------+---------+--------+----------------------
1 |76·00 | 14·00 | 10·00 |Powder of Bâe.
2 |76·00 | 12·00 | 12·00 | „ Grenelle.
3 |76·00 | 15·00 | 9·00 | „ M. Morveau.
4 |77·32 | 13·44 | 9·24 | „ Ditto.
5 |77·50 | 15·00 | 7·50 | „ M. Keffault.
---+------+---------+--------+----------------------
The first and third, after 200 discharges with the proof mortar, were
declared the strongest, and the third proportions were adopted at the
recommendation of the commissioners. Some few years elapsed, and the
first, owing to its better keeping quality, was substituted, as it
contained less charcoal, and a little more sulphur. The French
Government having always been extremely impressed with the value of
durability in gunpowder, they have since returned to their ancient
proportions: 75 nitre, 12-1/2 charcoal, 12-1/2 sulphur. The charcoal,
the absorbent of moisture, being further reduced, and the sulphur, the
preserving ingredient, being increased in the same ratio.
“Mr. Napier tried a small quantity made of nitre and charcoal only, and
was much surprised to find it project a shot as far as the best powder
made in the usual manner. It is found that, in small charges, sulphur is
advantageous; but, in charges of several ounces, the projecting force is
as great without as with it. Therefore, under certain circumstances,
sulphur may be dispensed with; but to make a good gunpowder, nitre and
charcoal are indispensable.”
Amongst the brilliant discoveries of modern chemistry may be classed the
development of the fact, that a chemical combination, to constitute the
same compound, always takes place in definite and unalterable ratios. To
select one example out of a multitude: one atom of carbon combining with
two atoms of oxygen produces the gas; because more would answer no
useful end. So, with reference to the sulphur, if it enter into
combination only with the potassium--the base of the nitre--the sulphur
should be in that proportion to form the sulphuret of that metal; and in
this case there would be no superfluity, for that would only add to the
weight of the charge of powder, and diminish its absolute and effective
energy. The view of the case which we have taken supposes only two
combinations, viz. carbon with oxygen, and sulphur with potassium.
Should there be a more diversified play of affinities, and the several
elements of the powder enter into more complicated action, accurate
analysis would conduct us through all difficulties, and point out what
the proportions of the ingredients ought to be in order to sustain that
action, and to produce a perfect ultimate result.
We thus perceive how analysis bears upon the case. We can see by such
reasoning on the subject, that, theoretically, there can be but _one set
of proportions calculated to produce the best and strongest gunpowder_,
and that those proportions must depend upon the established and unerring
laws of nature. The proportions, then, for gunpowder, by these
considerations, will be those in which the carbon will just consume the
oxygen of the nitre, and combine with the sulphur as much as will
exactly saturate the potassium. This will be effected by an atom each of
nitre and sulphur, and three atoms of carbon; or nitre 75·5, charcoal
18·8, and of sulphur 11·8.
In the present improved state of chemical science, when the nature of
the bodies comprising gunpowder is so well known, as well as the
compounds resulting from their action on each other, the proportions we
have named may be taken as the best for practice.
The charcoal should, in particular, not be less than the nitre, as the
smallest portion less than the whole atom would be the same as to leave
out the whole atom, in which case there would be no carbonic oxide
formed. If, for example, instead of the proportions of nitre 75·5,
charcoal 16·2, sulphur 15, the carbon were 16, then there would be 4·2
of carbon left in the residuum, and no carbonic oxide would be formed,
since bodies cannot unite but in definite proportions.
From these considerations we can perceive the reason why a small
proportion of carbonic oxide is always formed during the decomposition
of nitre by charcoal; for it will be evident, that as the nitric acid
contains five atoms of oxygen, four of these must combine with two atoms
of carbon to form two atoms of carbonic acid, while the _odd atom of
oxygen_ is compelled to take another atom to form carbonic oxide. But
this is not the case in the combustion of gunpowder, as carbonic acid
and nitrogen are the principal gases generated.
These proportions differ from any other formula yet prescribed; and,
though different in a great degree from the proportions laid down by
various writers on the subject, the reasons which are here given, as has
been seen, are such as carry with them a conviction of their truth: for
there cannot possibly be any benefit arising from a greater quantity of
any of these materials than is absolutely necessary to form the
composition in question; and if the smallest quantity be above what is
requisite to consume the whole, that, however small it may be, is highly
detrimental to the effective energy of the mass. What we may here call
clean gunpowder, such as may be used with confidence for repeated
discharges of fire-arms of any description, is of the greatest
importance; therefore, it does not appear to us, that any given
proportions are so likely to accomplish that object as those before
specified.
TABLE OF COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT GUNPOWDERS.
---------------------------------+------+---------+--------
Mills. |Nitre.|Charcoal.|Sulphur.
---------------------------------+------+---------+--------
Royal Waltham Abbey |75·00 | 15·00 | 10·00
France, National Mills |75·00 | 12·50 | 12·50
French Sporting |78·00 | 12·00 | 10·00
French Mining |65·00 | 15·00 | 20·00
U. S. of America |75·00 | 12·50 | 12·50
Prussia |75·00 | 13·50 | 11·50
Russia |73·78 | 13·59 | 12·63
Austria (Musket) |72·00 | 17·00 | 16·00
Spain |76·47 | 10·78 | 12·75
Sweden |76·00 | 15·00 | 9·00
Switzerland (Round Powder) |76·00 | 14·00 | 10·00
Chinese |75·00 | 14·40 | 9·90
Theoretical proportions as above |75·00 | 13·23 | 11·77
---------------------------------+------+---------+--------
Gunpowder consists of a very intricate mixture of sulphur, carbon
(charcoal), and nitrate of potash (nitre).
The proportions in which they exist are one equivalent of nitre, one of
sulphur, and three of carbon. The great explosive power of gunpowder is
due to the sudden development from its solid constituents of a large
quantity of gases; these gases are nitrogen and carbonic acid.
At the ordinary temperature of the atmosphere these gases would occupy a
space three hundred times greater than the bulk of the gunpowder used;
but owing to the intense heat developed at the moment of explosion, the
gases occupy at least 1,500 times the bulk of the original gunpowder.
The mixture, consisting of one equivalent of nitre, one of sulphur, and
three of carbon, would yield three equivalents of carbonic acid, one of
nitrogen, and one of sulphuret of potassium. The change may be
represented thus,--
S + C₃ + KONO₅ = 3 CO₂ + N + KS.
The only solid residue, therefore, is the sulphuret of potassium, and
this is the compound which produces the sulphurous odour on washing out
a gun barrel; water is decomposed, sulphuretted hydrogen and potash
being the result of the decomposition.
Now supposing the elements of gunpowder to exist in these proportions,
it is essential, in order to secure their perfect combination, and thus
to produce the largest possible volume of gas, that the elements should
be in the most minute state of subdivision. Chemical action is a force
exerted at insensible distances only, and chemical substances having the
greatest affinity for each other will not combine, unless their elements
are brought into immediate contact: thus oxygen and hydrogen may be
mixed together in the exact proportions to form water; but no chemical
combination will occur, simply because the ultimate particles of the two
gases are not sufficiently near to each other for their chemical
affinities to be brought into play; if, however, these gases are
subjected to very strong pressure, so as to bring their particles into
immediate contact, combination occurs, and the production of water is
the result.
In order to insure the perfect combination of the elements of gunpowder
the same conditions are necessary; that is to say, the ultimate
particles of the nitre, charcoal, and sulphur, must be brought into the
most direct contact, or the explosive power of the gunpowder will be
comparatively trifling. If, for instance, the nitre, charcoal, and
sulphur be pounded in a mortar, no explosion but a slow combustion will
occur when the mixture is ignited; so that unless this intimate mixture
of the elements is carefully attended to in the manufacture of
gunpowder, it is easy to see that the article produced will be of
comparatively little value.
It is evident then that if tons of the elements of gunpowder were stored
in a warehouse which accidentally caught fire, no explosion would occur
from the formation of gunpowder; though its ingredients would greatly
increase the rapidity of combustion.
This remark is elicited by the recollection of a fearful explosion which
took place at Gateshead in 1854.
It may be remembered that a warehouse caught fire from an adjoining
mill, and the explosion was supposed to have been produced by the
ignition of the elements of gunpowder stored in the warehouse in a crude
state. The upper story of the building contained a large quantity of
crude sulphur, and the basement story about the same quantity of nitre,
whilst chemicals of various kinds were stored in other parts of the
building; but according to the accounts published there was no large
quantity of carbon in the warehouse; nevertheless, a terrific explosion
took place, and after a lengthened investigation, the conclusion arrived
at was this: the sulphur melting, mixed with the nitre, gunpowder was
thus formed, and igniting, exploded, producing the terrible effects.
But gunpowder may be made without sulphur, whereas gunpowder without
carbon is an impossibility; and though the elements of gunpowder had all
been present, no explosion could have occurred, unless they had become
mixed in the intimate manner already described.
It is true some of the chemical substances in the warehouse might have
produced a fearful explosion: but a more plausible explanation is to be
found in the fact, that gunpowder was at that time much more valuable
abroad than at home; and it is quite possible that some kegs of
gunpowder might have been stored away in this warehouse, until a
convenient opportunity presented itself for their removal.
The foregoing remarks will serve to explain how it is that powder varies
so much in strength and quickness of fire. If the elements are
imperfectly incorporated, the powder can never be equal to that which is
properly made; and the manufacturer, having ascertained the best
proportions in which to mix the elements, had better improve his
machinery for incorporating them, rather than his knowledge of the
chemistry of gunpowder. These observations will also serve to explain
the apparent anomaly, that the French, and some of our other continental
brethren, are held to produce a much inferior sporting gunpowder to that
which is manufactured in old England.
Gunpowder is now made by all the sporting gunpowder manufacturers from
No. 1 to No. 5 grain; and it appears certain that a further increase in
the size of the grain would be advantageous; for many years of patient
and laborious experiment clearly show, that the old notion of gunpowder
being blown out of an ordinary sized gun in an unburnt state, is one of
the “purest of vulgar errors:” such a thing indeed cannot possibly
happen unless the powder be bad, or the gun _imperfectly made_, or
injudiciously charged.
I am satisfied that I am under rather than over estimate, when I assert
that six drams of ordinary sporting gunpowder may be beneficially and
completely exploded in a barrel of 14 bore, 2 feet 6 inches long, with a
resisting projectile one ounce in weight above it. This, however, being
more than a double charge for such a gun, cannot be pleasantly
practised; and it is only asserted by way of argument.
Assuming, then, for argument’s sake, that six drams of gunpowder are
exactly consumed in passing from the breech to the muzzle of a gun 2
feet 6 inches long, and that the shot, therefore, acquires its greatest
velocity as it leaves the muzzle, it follows that the ordinary charge of
2-1/2 drams will be wholly consumed before it has traversed half the
length of the barrel, and consequently the charge of shot must here
acquire its greatest velocity. It is certain, then, that the shot must
travel the latter half of the barrel at a diminished velocity, and its
velocity must continue to diminish as it passes up the barrel; for two
obvious reasons--1st, The column of air in front of the charge is more
condensed, and thus offers a greater resistance to the exit of the
charge; 2nd, The velocity is continually diminished by the increased
friction of the charge against the barrel.
The perfection of projectile science is to make the projectile acquire
its greatest velocity at the instant of leaving the muzzle; and if, by
increasing the size of the grain of gunpowder, we can diminish the
rapidity of its explosion--thus causing it to burn and generate fresh
gas up to the muzzle of the gun--the projectile will then acquire its
greatest velocity, and leave the gun to the best advantage: this is the
important point which has hitherto been overlooked, not only in
fowling-pieces, but in the expansive principle of rifles.
For artillery practice of every kind, whatever the weight of the
projectile, gunpowder of a granulation suited to the weight of that
projectile is essential, if we would produce the greatest possible
effect by the least expenditure of means.
In artillery, at this most important time in war’s history, no attention
whatever is paid to this essential principle. A long 10-inch gun, a
68-pounder, and a short 6-pounder are all charged with powder of the
same granulation; whilst by a more judicious use of gunpowder of
suitable granulation, the range might be extended, just as it is in
sporting arms, to nearly 20 per cent.
Artillerists seek to effect great range by doubling the weight of the
gun, and projectile monsters meet us at all points, to become in every
case “monster failures.”
I fear that the most important points have been entirely lost sight of.
Instead of ascertaining whether we have suited the projectile power to
the 8-inch or 56-pounder, so as to get work from it which is now done by
the 10-inch, we have, in our anxiety to get range, looked only to the
form or material of the gun; vital principles being totally excluded.
The construction of the gun being perfect, the question is, can the
expellant force be brought to an equal state of perfection?
In order to obtain the best results from a gun, the gun itself must be
perfect in construction, and the expellant force must be brought to bear
in the best possible manner upon the projectile; and this is to be done
by attending to the granulation of the powder, which must be suited to
the length of the gun, to its bore, and to the weight of the projectile.
Common-sense, engineering skill, will demonstrate, that according to the
weight of matter to be projected must be the nature of the expellant;
_accumulative_--until it has overcome the inertia of that matter,
_accelerative_--until it has communicated to it the highest state of
velocity its power is capable of effecting. If, on the other hand, it is
inferior to this, science has not extracted from it the full
_horse-power_ it contains; and we are uselessly expending force and
destroying our engines by undue pressure being exerted on one part, and
inferior pressure on another; whilst by a proper distribution of that
force, durability of the cannon is insured, and from twenty-five to
thirty per cent. more work may be obtained from an equal quantity of
powder, provided its granulation be judiciously selected according to
the area of the gun.
There is abundant proof that on this engineering question we have
hitherto worked by the “rule of thumb;” prejudice having been a
stumbling-block, which nothing but stern necessity will remove. The
authorities have but just discovered this, although their attention was
directed to it several years ago. In the year 1852, I produced before
the Small Arms Committee, at Enfield, a portion of gunpowder suited to
the expansive rifle; it was tried to a limited extent, and dismissed
with the remark, “We don’t think there is much in it.” Experience,
however, has demonstrated the truth of my observations, for, in all
extreme range shooting with the expansive or “Greenerian”-principled
rifles, not only is considerably greater _accuracy_ obtained with it,
but an _increase_ of range equivalent to fifteen or twenty per cent.
Another advantage of using gunpowder of a suitable granulation is the
absence of sharp recoil; and thus greater accuracy of range is
obtained--accuracy of range and steadiness of weapon being inseparable.
Large-grain gunpowder is not only a more effectual expellant than the
fine grain, but is much more safe to use, for by using it the risk of
bursting the barrel is much lessened; as a very simple illustration will
show. If we estimate the force generated by the usual charge of 2-1/2
drachms (I confine the question to the 14-bore gun, for uniformity) to
be 5,000 lbs., whether the powder be fine or coarse grain, it follows
that the fine powder, igniting so rapidly, will exert all its force on
the breech end of the gun; whereas the coarse powder, igniting less
rapidly, distributes this force over the whole length of the barrel:
hence the greater risk of a gun bursting with fine powder than with
coarse. If we suppose the fine powder to be entirely ignited when it
reaches half way up the barrel, then the force of 5,000 lbs. is exerted
on the lower half of the barrel; but if the coarser grain is not
entirely ignited until it reaches the muzzle, then the force of 5,000
lbs. will be distributed over the whole length of the gun.
But this is not all. The fine powder, igniting almost instantaneously,
exerts its force in all directions at once, and the barrel may burst at
the side before the charge has time to move; whereas the coarse powder,
igniting as it does more slowly, first lifts the charge, and then the
volume of gas behind it increasing as the powder becomes more thoroughly
ignited, sweeps the charge out of the barrel with a velocity increasing
towards the muzzle.
If time is not given for the charge to receive the full advantage of the
expansive force of the generated air, the force is exerted, not upon the
charge, but upon the barrel of the gun itself; and that time is
necessary for the full development of this force, is proved by the fact
that miners mix their gunpowder with sawdust, in order to diminish the
rapidity of its explosion and thus get the advantage of its force in the
distance: from the miners, then, let us learn how to obtain the greatest
benefit from this force, and waste it not.
There can be no doubt of the importance of this principle; little
progress has, however, been effected from want of scientific
illustration; let it be defined like that of steam power, and its
adoption will follow as a natural consequence.
For several years I have had gunpowder manufactured of various sizes, at
the sight of which most sportsmen would express their astonishment.
One objection held by sportsmen to the large grained gunpowder is that
it does not come up the nipple of the gun; now although I do not
consider this at all important, still if the specific gravity of the
gunpowder were increased by compressing 1-1/2, 2, or 3 grains of
gunpowder into the space of 1 grain, by means of hydraulic pressure,
this objection would at once be obviated; whilst at the same time, the
powder would be less liable to absorb moisture, or to become friable
with age: either of which conditions is incompatible with good shooting.
The granulating of gunpowder, to be of the greatest benefit, should be
on a uniform principle; the manipulation should be alike in all
particulars, but especially in that part of the process which determines
the specific gravity. The hydraulic pressure on the cake should be alike
in all cases: in fact, the various sizes of grain might be produced from
the same cake, and the desired object be thus obtained. But so long as
the practice is followed of producing large grain from less condensed
cake, the article produced will give unsatisfactory results; and the
advantages which might be attained, as my experience denotes, and which
would be of the greatest service, alike in sporting, rifle, and
artillery powder, will be nullified.
Great improvements are yet to be made, especially in the powder used for
artillery; whilst range, accuracy, and lessened recoils are points which
may be determined with almost mathematical precision.
Great fame is in prospect for any one who can grasp and handle well this
granulation principle; especially if he can define the sizes to be used
for different varieties of guns. Artillerists who contend that a medium
size grain, to suit all sizes of gun, is advantageous, might as well
contend that cannon of a medium size would be preferable to so many
different sizes, because, though we lose in range, accuracy, and recoil,
it would be more convenient to have but one sized gun.
In making large grained gunpowder, the manufacturers defeat one of the
main objects to be gained by granulation, from not subjecting it to the
same amount of pressure which is necessary for the granulation of the
very fine grain. In granulating very fine powder, it is necessary to
subject the cake to such an amount of hydraulic pressure as shall give
the mass a marble-like structure, or during the process of granulation,
the whole of it crumbles into dust; but the coarser gunpowder may be
granulated without subjecting it to this high degree of pressure, hence
each grain is more porous and of lesser specific gravity: a difference
which it is most important to avoid. It is clear, therefore, that
according to the present mode of manufacturing gunpowder, the large and
the fine grain are of very different kinds; the main difference being in
their specific gravities. Gunpowder of less density burns with greater
rapidity, because it is more open and porous; and if uniform density was
observed, the diversity in the size of the grain need not be so great;
whilst, at the same time, this anomaly might be avoided--that the same
measure of fine and large-grained gunpowder contains a difference of the
expansive element amounting to fifteen or twenty per cent. As gunpowder
is now manufactured, it is highly necessary in all comparative trials to
_weigh_, and not to _measure_ the charge, or the results will be
deceptive and worthless. The granulation question struggles with
undeserved difficulty. Gunmakers, either not understanding the question,
or constructing the chambers of their guns improperly, and not using
suitable nipples, decry the adoption of large-grained gunpowder; but
they forget the increased range obtained in the killing from their guns,
and the _éclât_ a long shot produces. In trials of guns at thirty or
forty yards, the difference in the shooting with fine and large-grained
gunpowder is not so apparent, and the maker exclaims, “Oh! the fine
powder shoots stronger, and as close as the coarse.” I admit this to be
the case, at short distances; but the great advantage of using the large
grain is sufficiently evident when shooting at forty-five, fifty, and
sixty yards, for then the fine grain entirely fails: simply from the
oft-repeated fact, that the fine powder is more of a propulsive, while
the large grain is an expellant force; so that according to the law of
resistance in aëriform fluids, the one is sooner reduced to medium
velocity than the other, which exerts its action more evenly. Powder of
larger grain is thus more suitable for the larger sizes of shot, and
would give an increased range in usual shooting, for the shot is kept
better together, and is projected to greater distances. A common way of
testing the quality of gunpowder is, to rub it between the hands, and
observe the darkness of the stain; the darker the stain the more
inferior the gunpowder is held to be. This test is, however, decidedly
fallacious, because the gunpowder may be of low specific gravity, or it
may have become friable from age and other causes.
Whales are shot with gunpowder proportioned to the weight of the harpoon
required to kill them. Duck guns of the largest calibre are
comparatively useless unless the gunpowder used is granulated according
to the weight of the projectile; and the same law holds in regard to the
most “mammoth” engine yet to be devised by the mind of man.
Gun-cotton has been before the world for some years, but, except as a
curiosity, it has attracted little public attention; neither has it
gained any reputation as a projectile force. It may be prepared by
steeping cotton wool for a few minutes in a mixture of nitric and
sulphuric acids, thoroughly washing, and then drying at a very gentle
heat. It consists chemically of the essential elements of gunpowder:
viz. carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen; but, in addition, it contains another
highly elastic gas, hydrogen. The carbon in the fibres of the wool
presents to the action of flame a most extended surface in a small
space, and the result is an explosion approaching as nearly as possible
to the instantaneous: in consequence of its rapid ignition it produces a
violent kick; sufficient time is not given to put heavy bodies in
motion, hence it cannot be usefully employed as a projectile agent. No
one who values his limbs should trifle with it, for fearful accidents
have resulted from its exposure to the heat of the sun, and other very
simple causes.
There is an instrument used by some sportsmen, and strongly recommended
by many gunmakers, for testing the strength of different kinds of
gunpowder. It consists of a chamber closed by a spring, and fired like
an ordinary pistol. When the powder explodes the spring is forced
forward, and moves an index round a graduated circle; the more quickly
the powder explodes the farther does it lift the spring; hence this is a
measure of quickness of fire, but not of expellant force; and from the
observations which have been made on gunpowder, it must be evident to
any one who has paid the least attention to the subject, that this
instrument is utterly useless.
An instrument to test the comparative strength of different kinds of
gunpowder is yet a desideratum in projectile science; and we cannot
doubt that such an instrument will be produced, when the importance of
the granulation of gunpowder is more generally known and appreciated.
The charcoal formerly used was made in the common way, by pits, which
must have been seen by almost every one. The method is now to _distil_
the wood in cast-iron cylinders, extracting the pyroligneous acid, &c.,
by heating them red hot, and allowing all other volatile matter to
evaporate, the charcoal only being retained in the cylinder or retorts;
hence arises the name _cylinder gunpowder_. The best charcoal for
sporting powders is the black dog wood; Government use willow and alder.
Any charcoal does for common powders. Charcoal is ground in the same way
as the nitre. Sulphur is purified simply by fusing, and when in that
state, skimming off the impurities: it is cooled and pulverised in the
same way as the other two ingredients. The three ingredients, after
being carefully weighed in their due proportions, are sifted into a
large trough, and well mixed together by the hands. They are then
conveyed to the powder mill. This is a large circular trough, having a
smooth iron bed, in which two millstones, secured to a horizontal axis,
revolve, traversing each other, and making nine or ten revolutions in a
minute. The powder is mixed with a small quantity of water put on the
bed of the mill, and there kept subject to the pressure of the stones;
and if we calculate the weight of the two millstones at six tons, it
follows that in four or five hours’ incorporation on this bed, it
subjects the ingredients to the action of full 10,000 tons. It is this
long-continued grinding, compounding, and blending together of the
mixture, that alone renders it useful and good. After this intimate
mixing, it is conveyed away in the shape of mill-cake, and firmly
pressed between plates of copper. Bramah’s press has been introduced of
late years--we should say with a good deal of improvement to the powder,
as will be shown hereafter--and by its means the mass is more compressed
and in thinner cakes. It is then broken into small pieces with wooden
mallets, and taken to the corning-house, where it is granulated, “by
putting it into sieves, the bottoms of which are made of bullocks’
hides, prepared like parchment, and perforated with holes about
two-tenths of an inch in diameter; from twenty to thirty of these
sieves are secured to a large frame, moving on an _eccentric_ axis, or
crank, of six inches throw; two pieces of lignum vitæ, six inches in
diameter, and two inches or more in thickness, are placed on the broken
_press-cakes_ in each sieve. The machinery being then put in rapid
motion, the discs of lignum vitæ (called balls) pressing upon the
powder, and striking against the sides of the sieves, force it through
the apertures, in grains of various sizes, on to the floor, from whence
it is removed, and again sifted through finer sieves of wire, to
separate the dust and classify the grain. One man works two sieves at a
time, by turning a handle and eccentric crank; the sieves being fixed to
a frame, which is suspended over a bin by four ropes from the ceiling.”
The grains afterwards undergo a process of _glazing_, by friction
against each other, in barrels containing nearly 200 lbs., making forty
revolutions in a minute, and lasting several hours, according to the
fancy of the purchaser. This part of the business we entirely disagree
with, as injurious to the quick and _certain ignition_. Gunpowder is
finally dried by an artificial temperature of 140° Fahrenheit, which is
suffered gradually to decline. The last process is sifting it clear of
dust, and then packing it in canisters or otherwise.
The utility of the process of granulation results from the impossibility
of firing mealed powder sufficiently simultaneously to effect an
explosion; and also from the fact that gunpowder, in a mass, does not
explode. Fire a solid piece of mill-cake, and it does not flash off like
unto granulated powder, but burns gradually, though with an extreme
fury, until the whole is consumed. This arises from its density, the
compression in the press; it also teaches us one fact, that to be of the
greatest service, the time each grain should occupy in burning should be
proportioned to the size of the gun for which it is required; since it
is clear that the explosion of a heap of gunpowder is but the rapid
combustion of all its parts. This action, as is well known, is so rapid,
even in a large quantity of powder, that it appears to be a sudden and
simultaneous burst of flame; though philosophically and actually it is
not so.
Fine grain, when unconfined, explodes quicker than large, or is sooner
burnt out, and consequently generates more force in the same period of
time; but when it comes to large quantities, its very quickness is
detrimental to its force, by condensing the air around the exterior of
the mass of fluid which thus constrains its bound. In small quantities,
the proportion of condensation is not so apparent, and hence the reason
why greater velocities can be obtained with small arms than with cannon.
There exists a diversity of opinion in regard to the strength or
projectile force of gunpowder. Dr. Ure remarks--“If we inquire how the
maximum gaseous volume is to be produced from the chemical reaction of
the elements of nitre on charcoal and sulphur, we shall find it to be by
the generation of carbonic oxide and sulphurous acid, with the
disengagement of nitrogen. This will lead us to the following
proportions of these constituents:
Hydrogen 1. Per Cent.
1 prime equivalent of nitre 102 75·00
1 „ „ sulphur 16 11·77
3 „ „ charcoal 18 13·23
--- ------
136 100·00
“The nitre contains five primes of oxygen, of which three combining with
the three of charcoal, will furnish three of carbonic oxide gas, while
the remaining two will convert the one prime of sulphur into sulphurous
acid gas. The single prime of nitrogen is therefore, in this view,
disengaged alone.
“The gaseous volume, in this supposition, evolved from 136 grains of
gunpowder, equivalent in bulk to 75-1/2 grains of water, or to
three-tenths of a cubic inch, will be, at the atmospheric temperature,
as follows:--
Grains. Cubic Inches.
Carbonic oxide 42 141·6
Sulphurous acid 32 47·2
Nitrogen 14 47·4
-----
236·2
being an expansion of one volume into 787·3. But as the temperature of
the gases, at the instant of their combustive formation, must be
incandescent, this volume may be safely estimated at three times the
above amount, or considerably upwards of 2,000 times the bulk of the
explosive solid.
“It is obvious that the more sulphur, the more sulphurous acid will be
generated, and the less forcibly explosive will be the gunpowder. This
was confirmed by the experiments at Essonne, where the gunpowder that
contained twelve of sulphur, twelve of charcoal, in 100 parts, did not
throw the proof shell so far as that which contained only nine of
sulphur and fifteen of charcoal. The conservative property is, however,
of so much importance for humid climates and our remote colonies, that
it justifies a slight sacrifice of strength.
“When in a state of explosion, the volume,” Dr. Hutton calculates, “is
at least increased eight times, and hence its immense power. The
pressure exerted, if in a state of confinement, will depend on the
dimensions of the vessel containing it; so that it would be no difficult
undertaking to obtain any pressure above that of the atmosphere, up, we
may fearlessly say, to the enormous amount of 4,000 lbs. per square
inch.”
The same quantity of gunpowder subjected to a variety of experimental
tests, differs materially in its results; at the same time it is only by
such a method that we can arrive at the relative strength or power which
it possesses. Dr. Hutton, whose authority in all mathematical
calculations is very high, and whose opinions and judgment in matters of
this nature ought not to be unthinkingly controverted, states 2,000 feet
per second (with cannon) as the highest velocity which any projectile
had attained, at the time of his writing, which had gunpowder for its
propellant power. A much greater velocity is now given in all guns
fired at high elevations. “Monks’” gun attained a velocity of 2,400 feet
in the first second of its flight, and this is now exceeded by rifled
cannon.
This advantage does not arise, in our opinion, so much from the superior
quality of the gunpowder, as from the improvements which have taken
place in the manner of applying it. For instance, where experiments are
conducted, as was the case with Dr. Hutton, with moving _eprouvettes_, a
certain loss is sustained, in the same degree as the instrument is made
to recoil from its original position; therefore, by restraining the
recoil, an increase of momentum is given to the projectile, to the same
extent as had been exerted upon the _eprouvette_, or cannon, in driving
it several feet backward; and instead of dividing the force thus
acquired between the shot and the gun, by having the latter firmly fixed
and the recoil destroyed, the whole power is exerted upon the former,
and its velocity accelerated in the same proportion.
Gunpowder, though astonishing in its effect, and tremendous in power,
may nevertheless be controlled within a limited sphere, and bounds put
upon its destructive energy. The following curious experiment, first
tried at Woolwich on a small scale, has since been carried out to a
great extent. Screw into each end of the breech part of a gun-barrel a
well-fitted plug; drill a communication, and put in a nipple; having
filled the barrel with powder, screw in the breech, and fire a cap on
it, and the explosive fluid will escape by the small orifice like steam
from a pipe. If the barrel be good, it may safely be held in the hand,
merely using a towel to protect the hand from the heat the barrel
absorbs. We have done it repeatedly with no inconvenience, and even
carried this experiment much further; firing two ounces of the best
powder in a barrel of good quality (though not in the hand) yet the
barrel did not receive any violent motion by which it could be inferred
that it might not be done with safety.
We have before observed, that, with very short guns, fine gunpowder
produces the greatest result, inasmuch as there is no greater column of
air in the barrel than the explosive fluid is equal to _displace_; or,
in other words, the charge leaving the muzzle of the gun at the very
moment when the explosive force is strongest, all the power is thus
obtained of which it is capable; but if used in a longer barrel, and the
fluid has obtained its greatest power when the charge has twelve inches
of the barrel still to travel, the column of compressed air yet
remaining in the muzzle of the barrel, exerts a resisting influence, in
proportion to its density, upon the charge, and creates a dangerous and
unpleasant recoil.
If a cartridge be placed in the centre of an open barrel eight feet in
length, having a bullet abutting at each end large enough to fill the
barrel, and a touch-hole is drilled as near the centre of the cartridge
as possible, when it is fired, the balls will certainly be discharged
from the barrel, but with a very small degree of force: in fact, merely
driven out. With the same instrument, vary the experiment: place in it a
cartridge charged with one ball, three feet from the muzzle, leaving a
column of air five feet in length to act against the explosive force of
the gunpowder, and the ball will be driven one hundred yards with
considerable force. Again, let a third cartridge be introduced similar
to the last, two feet from the muzzle, increasing the column of air to
six feet; and the result, in distance and velocity, will nearly double
what has been obtained by the last experiment; tending to prove that air
thus forced back upon itself obtains a density, and consequent resisting
influence, nearly equal to a well-screwed breech. In order to test this
principle further, I put into the same tube a double charge of
gunpowder, merely backed by a wadding, two feet from the muzzle, and
then rammed down four balls as tight as possible into the short portion;
in discharging it, the tube was burst immediately in rear of the charge.
In another experiment, I took a common musket barrel, having a plug of
iron firmly fixed into the muzzle; the breech being unscrewed, and a
ball introduced one-tenth of an inch less in diameter than the bore of
the barrel, together with one drachm of gunpowder, I then fired the
gunpowder, and the explosive matter escaped by the touch-hole. On
examination, it was found that the ball was flattened to the extent of
one-third of its sphere. The charge for the next experiment was
increased to two drachms; when the ball in the discharge struck the
muzzle very slightly, altering its shape in the least conceivable
degree. The charge was next increased to three drachms, and the ball
was extracted without any perceptible defect. In the fourth trial,
another drachm was added, with which the effect was greater than the
tube was able to resist; it was in consequence burst, about three inches
from the muzzle.
From this I infer that, in the first trial, the velocity of the ball was
not so great, but that the air escaped past it, by what is technically
called the windage, allowing it to strike the plug at the end of the
barrel with sufficient force to alter the shape of the lead in the
manner described. The second trial gave an increased velocity; the
opposing forces being so nearly balanced that the ball scarcely reached
the end of the barrel, and was very little injured. In the third trial
the velocity became so great, and the air was condensed to such an
extent, that the ball struck upon a cushion-like surface so highly
elastic that it was extracted without the least injury to its shape. The
last charge was too powerful, inasmuch as the lateral pressure of
compressed air rent the tube asunder.
The one great cause of this and other barrels bursting, arises from the
velocity becoming too great, and thus driving back the air upon itself,
until the mutual repulsion of the particles forms an almost impenetrable
barrier, exerting a lateral pressure on the barrel, and resisting the
passage of the elastic fluid. To make the explanation plain; supposing
that the charge had condensed the air for the distance of three or four
inches immediately preceding it, and then come to rest, the waves of
vibration, travelling at the rate of 1,300 feet per second, would
communicate to the remainder of the column the same pressure, and an
equilibrium would take place. But this not being the case, and the air
becoming still more highly compressed by the velocity not decreasing but
increasing, the lateral pressure becomes greater than the fibres of the
iron are able to withstand, and consequently the barrel is burst. Many
accidents arise from this cause solely, and without any blame being
attached to either the maker or user of the gun. While on this subject,
we may remark that this is the more likely, inasmuch as the powder with
which barrels are proved is not the strongest, and is also of a large
grain; so that it is quite within the range of probability that a barrel
may, and it does often, stand proof, and yet burst when it comes to be
used with extremely fine-grained strong powder; as it is quite clear
that a high velocity must create danger.
To pursue the subject still further: in order to procure conclusive
evidence in support of this argument, I had a tube of iron manufactured,
sufficiently good in quality to bear an enormous pressure; it was three
feet in length, with a bore large enough to admit an ounce ball, and the
sides of the arch were full a quarter of an inch in thickness. A piece
of steel, one inch in length, was then turned of a size to fit the bore
well, but not so tight as to prevent its free action: this I called a
piston. From the centre of the tube to the muzzle, were drilled, on all
sides, a number of small holes, a quarter of an inch distant from each
other, in all amounting to sixty-eight; these were fitted with small
pieces of steel needles, hardened, projecting into the interior of the
tube a quarter of an inch, so that the piston, in its upward movement,
should strike these pins, and thus enable me to judge how far it was
driven by each experiment. Each end of the tube was then fitted with a
breech, firmly screwed in; the upper one having a flat internal surface,
the lower one, where ignition was to be communicated, being a conical or
patent breech. This machine I termed an explosion metre; and it answered
its purpose. With two drachms of the best canister gunpowder, the piston
was propelled nineteen inches along the tube; breaking eight pins. The
same quantity of the fine diamond grain reached only eighteen inches, or
four pins. No. 3 grain, of both Laurence’s and Pigou and Wilks’
manufacture, reached twenty-four inches, or twenty-eight pins. A very
superior powder, containing in one grain five of diamond, four of
canister, and two of the above makers’ No. 2, reached twenty-seven
inches, and broke forty pins. In each of these experiments the greatest
accuracy was observed, in preparing the metre as well as in weighing the
charge.
These facts go far to prove that, in all uses of gunpowder, the grain
should be of a size proportioned to the length and bore of the gun; for
if we have not an accelerating force to overcome the increasing
resistance of the compressed column of air in the barrel, there is great
danger that the gun may be burst, and probably be productive of great
mischief; whilst a judicious application of the extraordinary power thus
placed at our disposal, may be alike conducive to our safety and our
pleasure. A musket ball can be driven through an half-inch boiler plate;
but this can only be accomplished by using as much powder as will
generate a gradually, though rapidly, increasing power, until the ball
has passed the limits of the tube.
Nitre is not the only salt which has been employed in the manufacture of
gunpowder. Its quantity or proportion in the mixture has been lessened,
and the deficiency supplied by another elementary combination; namely,
by the chlorate of potassa.
The French succeeded in making powder of which potassa forms one of the
component parts, and they say it ranges the projectile double the
distance; but this is doubtful. The proportions of the mixture are
nitrate of potash twenty-five parts, chlorate of potassa forty-five,
sulphur fifteen, charcoal seven and a half, and lycopodium seven and a
half parts. In the year 1809, a similar kind of powder was proposed to
the English Government, by a person of the name of Parr; but its
introduction was very properly opposed by Sir William Congreve, on
account of the danger attending its use, and also from the fact that
there was no piece of ordnance in the service able to withstand its
effects. The proportions were, chlorate of potassa six parts, fine
charcoal one part, sulphur one part. These ingredients to be _carefully_
mixed together and granulated. The above mixture was laid aside, not
only from the want of power to restrain its effects, but because it was
useless, from the very extreme rapidity of its explosion: it forms the
atmospheric air into a wall of adamant, by the condensation confining it
to a comparatively small space; it becomes lightning--an electric fluid,
which, from its very intensity, cannot displace any great mass of air.
Neither can any advantage arise from any greater velocity in projectile
force, except we can obtain that by a graduated scale; for masses
cannot, from a state of rest, be put in extreme motion instantaneously:
philosophy teaches us, and experience makes it evident, that a portion
of time must be occupied, however short that may be. All motion is
gradual, and cannot be obtained otherwise; and hence the fact, that
lightning conveyed into a tube filled with projectiles would not drive
them out: it would not project them, but the blow would break them in
pieces. So is it with this mixture; it is useless from its very rapidity
of ignition. We have shown that even fine grain gunpowder is too quick,
and that its quickness destroys its power; how much more so is the
other: and what would it avail us, with these disadvantages.
A writer mentions what he conceives to be a curious fact: he says, “If a
train of gunpowder be crossed at right angles by a train of fulminating
mercury, laid on a sheet of paper on a table, and the gunpowder lighted
by a red hot wire, the flame will run on until it meets the cross train
of fulminating mercury, when the inflammation of the latter will be so
instantaneous as to cut off the connection with the continuous train of
gunpowder, leaving one half of the train unignited:” and again, “If the
fulminating powder be lighted first, it will go straight on, and pass
through the train of gunpowder so rapidly as not to inflame it at all.”
True; and the cause is quite apparent: the rapidity of combustion
condenses the air so quickly, as to remove the grains of gunpowder
liable to come in contact with the flame, and to form the condensed air
into a line of demarcation: for heat cannot be taken up by the air
quicker than the atmosphere will convey sound; and before the heat can
evaporate the explosion is over, and is consequently noiseless.
In all mining operations: in the quarrying of stone, the destruction of
sunken rocks, or in any other operations where it is desirable to detach
large masses, the use of gunpowder is indispensable; not only because it
decreases manual exertion but also because it can be used under
circumstances and in situations unapproachable by other means. It
becomes, therefore, a consideration for the miner what kind is best
suited for the purpose; the finest grained powder is useless as is well
known: it is also more expensive; but its principal defect arises from
its quickness of combustion. Masses cannot be detached without first
putting the whole in motion; and as this cannot be done in a very short
time, it is necessary to prolong the explosion, so that the wave of
vibration may have time to travel throughout the whole of the mass acted
upon; and a repetition of these waves is necessary before any mass can
move. Now, to obtain this, it is necessary that matter be so
incorporated with the powder as to prolong that explosion; bituminous
substances might be applied with effect, for their slow burning would
keep the heat necessary to hold the permanent gases at their utmost
stretch of expansion.
It is obvious, from the extremely high character English sporting
gunpowder has obtained all over the world, that considerable improvement
must have been effected by the private manufacturers, either in the
purification or manipulation of ingredients; indeed the unwearied care
bestowed on this point by several of our best makers is beyond all
praise. To explain the various methods, or otherwise enlarge upon this
point, would be injurious to individual skill and enterprise, and be the
means of imparting knowledge to those who have not ability to invent,
but who gather from the brains of others. The French set great value on
the “Poudre de Chasse” of England. It is rather singular that we should
excel those who pride themselves so much on their chemical knowledge;
but, as before remarked, it is certain that the intimate incorporation
of the ingredients is of more importance than the chemical proportions.
All military and naval gunpowder is not manufactured of the greatest
strength that can be acquired “_at the Government mills_;” a sample is
furnished to each contractor with each contract, and to this strength he
is limited.
The fame of our English gunpowder makers is patent to all the world,
and, where skill is equal, to name one rather than another would be
invidious; though we must not lose sight of the facts herein
established. “Granulation,” properly understood, is an equivalent point
to either chemical or mechanical knowledge and manipulation in gunpowder
manufacture. Great anxiety to meet the wishes of the sporting world on
this point, and to advance with the age, has been aroused; and specimens
have been kindly furnished to me, not by one, but by all the following
celebrated makers: Messrs. Pigou and Wilks, Curtis and Harvey, Lawrence
and Son, John Hall and Son; and I have received also a very excellent
specimen from the Scotch mills.
Gunpowder of five sizes of granulation, on the basis before alluded to:
namely, No. 2, containing two quantities of No. 1, and No. 3, three, and
so on in progression; but it is imperative that all the various sizes be
produced from the same mill cake, or be otherwise of the same
condensation or specific gravity, and in all experiments of comparison,
equal weights are a “sine quâ non,” otherwise the comparison will be
futile; as measure is, for these very obvious reasons, inapplicable in
comparative tests. When these points are carefully attained, increased
power of killing, “decreased recoil,” and much greater safety, will be
the important benefits which the gunpowder manufacturers will confer on
every one using a gun.
CHAPTER III.
ARTILLERY.
Arcualia, from “arcus, a bow,” appears to have been the original name,
and included all sorts of “missiles,” as well as the engines by which
they were propelled. The sling, still in common use by the Arabs on the
banks of the upper Euphrates, being most probably the first kind of
artillery, and the bow and arrow a succeeding stage of improvement.
Artillery, now in the general acceptance of the term, includes all and
every description of gun, of greater power and dimensions than muskets
and other shoulder guns.
Modern civilization, with its giant strides of improvement, has rejected
the cumbrous and unsightly complication of springs, levers and wheels;
and given to us, in their stead, the light and handsome six-pounder
cannon; which is so easy of transit that it can accomplish the most
complex and difficult movements, while the horses are at their fullest
gallop. A single minute now suffices to stop when at the greatest speed,
unlimber, load, fire a couple of rounds, and remount; the gun is
speedily at a distance--while the eye can scarcely follow, or the mind
imagine, the destruction that must follow when the “deep-tongued gun”
is fired in attack.
I shall now proceed to notice the comparative effects of guns of various
calibre and power, and attempt to convey to the reader a distinct idea
of their respective defects and advantages. The artillery of England
comprises an immense variety of weapons of war, suited for various
purposes and situations, as experience has dictated, or necessity
required. The present state of our artillery requires _an advance to the
front_, to be in a line with the march of science, as regards the
knowledge of gunpowder and projectiles; I may, therefore, be permitted
to animadvert on what appears to me to need improvement.
The profession may think it presumptuous in me to offer a suggestion or
give an opinion; for it too frequently happens that individuals, who
have employed their whole time and study on one especial subject, think
they alone can understand it, and consider any opposition to their
opinions, or any doubt of the soundness of their conclusions, little
short of a positive offence.
Having given considerable attention to the subject, I would now beg to
offer some remarks on the Government arrangements of gunnery, which are
not yet so perfect as they might be.
The authorities of the Ordnance Department are, I am sorry to state, too
remiss in considering, and too unwilling to avail themselves of valuable
improvements and discoveries; clinging too much to prejudice in favour
of whatever has been heretofore in use. To such an extent is this habit
carried, that many improvements become familiar to half the kingdom,
aye, and are adopted by other countries, before our guides take
advantage of them: for truly talent and ingenuity are but scantily
patronized by them. My wish is to aid in sweeping away the cobwebs which
still hang on the science of great gunnery; and to push the spur of
conviction deep, that instead of Britain following, she may, in a time
of peace, lead the way in improvements; so that whenever war returns,
she may not be unprepared to wage it on equal terms.
I have in this chapter endeavoured to divest the subject of all
extraneous matter, and impart as much information as will enable the
reader to form an opinion for himself, and understand something of a
science hitherto considered abstract, and which is, no doubt, abstruse.
This I have sought to effect in plain language, avoiding, wherever it
was possible, all technicalities.
The guns of the British nation may be divided into four classes--Park,
or Field artillery, Siege guns, or battering train, garrison guns, and
marine artillery. The numbers of different descriptions of rates, or
weight of guns, vary in all the different classes of the service. There
are light, medium, and heavy six-pounders; long and short twenty-four
pounders; and two or more weights in all the varieties, even up to the
ten-inch gun and thirteen-inch mortar. We have iron ordnance and brass,
for long and short ranges, for small or great velocity. The rate,
weight, length, charges, point blank, extreme range, &c., of iron guns,
will be found in the annexed table, by which will be seen, at a glance,
the various matters referred to.
IRON ORDNANCE.
---------+-------+-------+------------+------+-------+----------
Nature | | | Charge |Point |Extreme|
of |Weight.|Length.| of |Blank |at | Windage
Gun. | | | Powder. |Range.|5 deg. |decreased.
---------+-------+-------+------------+------+-------+----------
Pounders.| cwts. |ft. in.|lbs. ozs. |yards.| yards.|
32 | 63 | 9 7 | 10 10-1/2| 380 | 1950 | --
32 | 56 | 9 6 | 10 10-1/2| 380 | 1950 | --
32 | 48 | 8 0 | 8 0 | 330 | 1740 | --
32 | 40 | 7 6 | 6 0 | 340 | 1700 | ·06
32 | 32 | 6 6 | 5 0 | 330 | 1640 | ·11
32 | 25 | 6 0 | 4 0 | 225 | 1500 | ·11
32 | 25 | 5 4 | 4 0 | 225 | 1500 | ·11
24 | 50 | 9 6 | 8 0 | 360 | 1850 | --
24 | 48 | 9 0 | 8 0 | 360 | 1850 | --
24 | 40 | 7 6 | 8 0 | 340 | 1800 | --
24 | 33 | 6 6 | 6 0 | 260 | 1560 | --
18 | 42 | 9 0 | 6 0 | 360 | 1780 | --
18 | 38 | 8 0 | 6 0 | 340 | 1730 | --
12 | 34 | 9 0 | 4 0 | 360 | 1700 | --
12 | 29 | 7 6 | 4 0 | 340 | 1650 | --
9 | 26 | 7 6 | 3 0 | 330 | 1600 | --
6 | 17 | 6 0 | 2 0 | 320 | 1520 | --
Carronades. | | | | |
68 | 36 | 5 4 | 5 10-1/2| 270 | 1420 | --
42 | 22 | 4 6 | 3 8 | 240 | 1350 | --
32 | 17 | 4 0 | 2 10-1/2| 235 | 1260 | --
24 | 13 | 3 9 | 2 0 | 225 | 1150 | --
18 | 10 | 3 4 | 1 8 | 220 | 1100 | --
12 | 6 | 2 8 | 1 0 | 205 | 1000 | --
---------+-------+-------+------------+------+-------+----------
Brass guns are invariably lighter, and considered less likely to burst.
Gun metal, technically so called, is a compound of copper and tin, in
the proportion of five, eight, and ten pounds of the latter to 100
pounds of the former. The peculiar property of the tin is to give
hardness and solidity to the mass. The greater proportions are used
principally for mortars, as they require a greater degree of hardness
than other guns. A peculiar property attaches to the using of brass
guns. If a considerable number of rounds be fired in rapid succession,
the bore of the gun becomes to a certain extent elliptical. This
peculiarity arises entirely from the extreme windage allowed by the
present established rules of British gunnery; and is produced by the
tendency of the shot, when propelled by the explosive force, to strike
upwards from the breech, and then rebound downwards, and so on till it
reaches the muzzle. Iron guns are not liable to this (although the same
cause exists) from the unductile nature of the cast iron.
Brass guns are, after certain use, recast: this is done solid, with the
cascable of the gun downwards, to give a greater density to the metal at
the breech. The boring and turning are performed simultaneously by a
very simple arrangement. At the siege of Badajos, the firing continued
for 104 hours, and the number of rounds that each gun fired averaged
1,249; and at the siege of Sebastian, the quantity fired by each gun was
about 350 rounds, in 15-1/2 hours. These guns being of iron, none of
them were rendered unserviceable; though three times the number of brass
guns would not have been equal to such long and rapid firing. All brass
guns are bouched with a bolt of copper at the vent, on the same
principle as flint guns for sporting were formerly with gold or platina;
copper withstanding the rapid escape of the flame better than the
gun-metal. The charges, ranges, &c., are as follows:--
EXTREME AND POINT BLANK RANGE OF BRASS ORDNANCE, CHARGE, &C.
-----------------+-------+------+-------+------+----------------------
|Charge.|Point |Extreme|Eleva-|
---- | |Blank | Range.| tion.| ----
| |Range.| | |
-----------------+-------+------+-------+------+----------------------
|lb. oz.|yards.| yards.| deg. |
Medium 12-pounder| 4 0 | 300 | 1,200 | 3 |}
Light 12-pounder | 4 0 | 200 | 1,000 | 3 |}
9-pounder | 3 0 | 300 | 1,200 | 3 |}With round solid
Long 6-pounder | 2 0 | 300 | 1,200 | 3 |}Shot.
Light 6-pounder | 2 0 | 200 | 1,000 | 3 |}
Heavy 3-pounder | 1 0 | 200 | 1,000 | 3 |}
24-pounder | | | | | }
howitzer | 2 8 | 250 | 950 | 3-1/2| }
12-pounder | | | | | }With common Shells.
howitzer | 1 4 | 200 | 950 | 3-3/4| }When Shot is fired,
Heavy 5-1/2-inch | | | | | }they increase the
howitzer | 2 0 | 250 | 1,750 | 12 | }elevation 1/2 a deg.
Light 5-1/2-inch | | | | | }
howitzer | 2 0 | 100 | 1,350 | 2 | }
-----------------+-------+------+-------+------+----------------------
The twelve, ten, and eight-inch guns, almost form a class of themselves,
known as the “Paixhan Gun.” They are intended for throwing both hollow
and solid shot. The larger are the description of ordnance with which we
at present arm our steam frigates.
These are unquestionably part of the many doubtful descriptions of
artillery which have been adopted of late years, with a view to
_fracture_ more than to secure a range of projectile. They are enormous
machines, as will be seen on reference to their weights, as given in the
following table; and their splintering powers are certainly very
extensive indeed. But their range is contemptibly small, if we take into
consideration their great weight. The effect of the explosion of the
charge of one of these guns must be sensibly felt even by the strongest
built steamer in the world. They are used with traversing beds. The gun
carriage, when recoiling, in a backward direction, being driven up an
inclined railway, with from 3° to 4° of elevation, from the cascable of
the gun. This greatly tends to lessen the distance which the gun would
be driven back, and facilitates the running out of the piece to the
point of discharge. The woodcut gives a representation of the traversing
beds; and the following table displays the ranges, &c., of this class of
heavy artillery.
[Illustration]
RANGE AND ELEVATION, &C., OF 12, 10, AND 8-INCH GUNS, AT POINT BLANK AND
EXTREME, AND 10 AND 8-INCH HOWITZERS.
-------------------+---------+--------+---------+------+-------+------
| | | Charge |Point |Extreme|Eleva-
Nature of Ordnance.| Length. | Weight.| Powder. |Blank | Range.|tion.
| | | |Range.| |
-------------------+---------+--------+---------+------+-------+------
|ft. in. |cwt. qr.|lbs. ozs.|yards.|yards. |deg.
12-inch gun, with }| | | | | |
hollow shot, }| 8 4 | 90 3 | 12 0 | 240 | 1,550 | 6
weight 112 lbs. }| | | | | |
10-inch, with } | | | | | |
ditto, weight 86 } | 7 6 | 57 3 | 7 0 | 210 | 1,500 | 6
lbs. } | | | | | |
Ditto | 8 4 | 62 1 | 8 0 | 250 | 1,400 | 5
Ditto | 9 4 | 84 0 | 12 0 | 325 | 1,700 | 5
8-inch gun, with }| | | | | |
hollow shot, 48 }| 6 8-1/2| 50 0 | 7 0 | 210 | 1,300 | 5
lbs. }| | | | | |
8-inch ditto, } | | | | | |
solid shot, 68 } | 8 6 | 60 0 | 9 7 | 340 | 1,500 | 5
lbs. } | | | | | |
Ditto | 9 0 | 65 0 | 10 0 | 300 | 3,250 |15
Ditto, hollow shot | 9 0 | 65 0 | 12 0 | 370 | 2,920 |15
10-inch iron | | | | | |
howitzers | 5 0 | 40 0 | 7 0 |2 deg.| 2,078 |12
| | | | 600 | |
8-inch ditto | 4 0 | 21 0 | 4 0 |3 deg.| 1,725 |12
| | | | 730 | |
-------------------+---------+--------+---------+------+-------+------
[2] Length of time occupied in flight, 14 seconds, and 15-1/4
seconds.
Mortars are intended for three purposes; firstly, to bombard a town, or
injure the defenders’ artillery; secondly, to fire or overthrow the
works, and to spread havoc and slaughter among the troops; thirdly, to
break through the vaulted roofs of barracks and magazines which are not
bomb-proof, or, in other terms, are not strong enough to resist the
fire.
They consist, as will be seen, of five descriptions, but the 10-inch is
considered, on the score of economy, as equal to all useful purposes.
The French have, at various times, constructed mortars of enormously
large dimensions, but certainly with no useful result. The monster
mortar, used at the siege of Antwerp, fired only ten or twelve shots,
and with comparatively little effect. It burst some time after, while
under a course of experiment, with a considerably less charge than it
had formerly withstood; thus affording one very conclusive and
illustrative fact in the theory of vibrations in metals: for there can
be no question but that the shell, from the smallness of the charge, was
too long detained in the mortar; the waves of vibration caused by the
explosive force moving so rapidly through the mass that the metal at
last lost its cohesive nature from their very rapid succession.
It will be perceived, on reference to the adjoining tables, that ranges
are obtained by the modifications of charges.
ENGLISH MORTAR PRACTICE.[3]
[3] Artillerist’s Manual.
--------------------------------++--------------------------------+
13-INCH IRON. || 10-INCH IRON. |
Weight, 16 cwts. || 16 cwts. 2 qrs. |
Shell filled, 200 lbs.[4] || 92 lbs. |
Bursting powder, 6 lbs. 2 ozs. || 2 lbs. 10 ozs. |
Blowing powder, 2 ozs. || 1-1/2 ozs. |
-------+-----------+-----+------++-------+-----------+-----+------+
Ele- | Charge. |Fuse.|Range.|| Ele- | Charge. |Fuse.|Range.|
vation.| | | ||vation.| | | |
-------+-----------+-----+------+--------+-----------+-----+------+
deg. |lbs. ozs. |inch.|yards.|| deg. |lbs. ozs. |inch.|yards.|
45 | 2 1-1/2| 1·90| 450|| 45 | 1 0-1/2| 1·90| 450|
| 2 3 | 2·00| 500|| | 1 2 | 2·00| 500|
| 2 4-3/4| 2·10| 550|| | 1 3-1/4| 2·10| 550|
| 2 6 | 2·20| 600|| | 1 4-3/4| 2·20| 600|
| 2 7-3/4| 2·30| 650|| | 1 6 | 2·30| 650|
| 2 9-1/2| 2·40| 700|| | 1 7-1/2| 2·40| 700|
| 2 11-3/4| 2·45| 750|| | 1 9 | 2·45| 750|
| 2 14 | 2·50| 800|| | 1 10 | 2·50| 800|
| 3 0-1/2| 2·55| 850|| | 1 11 | 2·55| 850|
| 3 3 | 2·60| 900|| | 1 12 | 2·60| 900|
| 3 5-1/2| 2·65| 950|| | 1 13 | 2·65| 950|
| 3 8 | 2·70| 1,000|| | 1 14 | 2·70| 1,000|
| 3 10 | 2·75| 1,050|| | 1 15-1/4| 2·75| 1,050|
| 3 12 | 2·80| 1,100|| | 2 0-1/2| 2·80| 1,100|
| 3 14 | 2·85| 1,150|| | 2 1-3/4| 2·85| 1,150|
| 4 0 | 2·90| 1,200|| | 2 3 | 2·90| 1,200|
-------+-----------+-----+------++-------+-----------+-----+------+
+------------------------------------+
| 8-INCH IRON. |
| 8 cwts. 1 qr. |
| 46 lbs. |
| 1 lb. 14 ozs. |
| 1 oz. |
+----------+------------+-----+------+
|Elevation.| Charge. |Fuse.|Range.|
+----------+------------+-----+------+
| deg. |lbs. ozs. |inch.|yards.|
| 15 | 0 14 | 0·80| 500|
| | 1 0 | 1·00| 550|
| | 1 2 | 1·10| 600|
| 45 | 0 9-1/2| 1·90| 450|
| | 0 10-3/4| 2·00| 500|
| | 0 12-1/2| 2·10| 550|
| | 0 13-3/4| 2·20| 600|
| | 0 14-1/2| 2·30| 650|
| | 0 15-1/2| 2·40| 700|
| | 1 0 | 2·45| 750|
| | 1 0-1/2| 2·50| 800|
| | 1 1-1/4| 2·55| 850|
| | 1 2 | 2·60| 900|
| | 1 2-3/4| 2·65| 950|
| | 1 3-1/2| 2·70| 1,000|
| | 1 4 | 2·75| 1,050|
| | 1 4-3/4| 2·80| 1,100|
| | 1 5-1/4| 2·85| 1,150|
| | 1 6 | 2·90| 1,200|
+----------+------------+-----+------+
+--------------------------------++--------------------------------
| 5-1/2-INCH BRASS. || 4 2-5th-INCH BRASS.
| Weight, 1 cwt. 1 qr. 10 lbs. || 3 qrs. 19 lbs.
| Shell filled, 16 lbs.[5] || 8 lbs.
| Bursting powder, 10 ozs. || 5 ozs.
| Blowing powder, 1/2 oz. || 1/2 oz.
+----------+--------+-----+------++----------+--------+-----+------
|Elevation.|Charge. |Fuse.|Range.||Elevation.| Charge.|Fuse.|Range.
+----------+--------+-----+------++----------+--------+-----+------
| deg. |ozs. dr.|inch.|yards.|| deg. |ozs. dr.|inch.|yards.
| 15 | 6 0 | 0·73| 350 || 15 | 4 8 | 0·80| 450
| | 7 0 | 0·75| 400 || | 4 12 | 0·85| 500
| | 7 8 | 0·80| 450 || 25 | 4 0 | 1·10| 540
| | 8 0 | 0·85| 500 || | | |
| 25 | 5 8 | 1·10| 480 || | | |
| 45 | 4 8 | | 300 || 45 | 2 6 | 1·65| 300
| | 4 12 | | 350 || | 2 9 | 1·70| 350
| | 5 0 | 1·75| 400 || | 2 12 | 1·75| 400
| | 5 4 | 1·80| 450 || | 3 0 | 1·80| 450
| | 5 8 | 1·85| 500 || | 3 4 | 1·85| 500
| | 5 12 | 1·90| 550 || | 3 8 | 1·90| 550
| | 6 0 | 1·95| 600 || | 3 12 | 1·95| 600
+----------+--------+-----+------++----------+--------+-----+------
[4] Shells filled with sand, which will account for the weight.
[5] Shells filled with sand, which will account for the weight.
13-INCH LAND SERVICE. 10-INCH DITTO. 8-INCH DITTO.
Greatest charge, 8 pounds powder. 4-1/2 pounds. 1 pound.
Greatest range, 2,706 yards. 2,536 yards. 1,720 yards.
WEIGHT OF LAND AND SEA SERVICE MORTAR.
Inches. cwts. qrs. lbs. Inches.
13 Land service, Weight, 36 2 0 Length, 36·563
10 do. „ 16 2 0 „ 28·125
8 do. „ 8 2 14 „ 22·500
5-1/2 do. brass, „ 1 1 15 „ 15·104
4-2/3 do. do. „ 0 3 20 „ 12·713
13 Sea service, „ 100 1 14 „ 52·810
10 do. „ 52 0 0 „ 45·620
[Illustration]
Carronades are a short description of ordnance without trunnions, but
fastened by a loop under the reinforce. Their construction is materially
different from that of guns. They have a chamber like a mortar, a part
scooped out inside the muzzle, forming a cup, and they have also a patch
on the reinforce. The name arises from the Carron Foundry in Scotland,
the first of them having been cast there in 1779. The construction is
considerably lighter than that of guns of similar calibre. Their
principal use is on board ship; but they are sometimes used in
casemates, or retired flanks of fortresses.
The proportions of all guns to shot, will be found below; and in looking
at this table, it will scarce be conceivable how such light guns can
project such heavy shot.
COMPARATIVE WEIGHTS OF GUNS AND SHOT.
-------------------+-------+-----------
|Weight |Comparative
---- | of | Weight.
| Guns. |
-------------------+-------+-----------
| cwts. |
12-inch Gun | 90 | 1 to 112
10 do. | 84 | 1 „ 82
8 do. | 65 | 1 „ 107
8 do. | 60 | 1 „ 96
8 do. | 50 | 1 „ 82
32-pounder | 64 | 1 „ 224
Do. | 56 | 1 „ 196
Do. | 48 | 1 „ 168
Do. | 40 | 1 „ 140
Do. | 32 | 1 „ 112
Do. | 25 | 1 „ 84
24-pounder | 50 | 1 „ 233
Do. | 48 | 1 „ 219
Do. | 42 | 1 „ 186
18-pounder | 42 | 1 „ 261
Do. | 37-1/2| 1 „ 233
12-pounder | 34 | 1 „ 318
Do. | 29 | 1 „ 270
Do. | 21 | 1 „ 196
9-pounder | 31 | 1 „ 285
Do. | 26 | 1 „ 323
Do. | 17 | 1 „ 211
6-pounder | 23 | 1 „ 429
Do. | 17 | 1 „ 327
68-pound Carronades| 30 | 1 „ 59
42 do. | 22-1/4| 1 „ 58
32 do. | 17 | 1 „ 62
32 do. | 25 | 1 „ 96
24 do. | 13 | 1 „ 55
18 do. | 10 | 1 „ 56
12 do. | 6 | 1 „ 56
-------------------+-------+-----------
The recoil, which in all the before-mentioned guns is very great, arises
from the blow communicated to the iron in immediate contact with the
explosive fluid. The granulatory system of the metal transmits to those
grains, or crystals, immediately behind them, the blow or concussion
they are subjected to, and these again to others, and so on, until the
vibration has passed through the metal, from the interior of the breech
to the exterior of the gun.
I am satisfied that in all small guns, from their slight substance,
recoil is communicated a great deal quicker than in larger ones; hence
arises the well-known fact that in shooting you receive a knock nearly
simultaneous with the explosion. The greater and heavier the gun (even
carry it up to General Miller’s gun of 84 cwt.) if the proportion which
the shot bears to it be not too great, the less will be the velocity of
recoil. But in carronades, as will be seen, the proportions are as high
as 1 to 55, while in long guns, it is 1 to 429; a very considerable
degree of difference.
Our ancestors had but a limited knowledge of the laws of projecting
bodies by gunpowder. Their explosive power was not good; for there is
clear proof, even since the time of Robins, that the purification of the
ingredients has nearly doubled the explosive force. The mechanical
construction and outer mould of their guns, were calculated to resist
and limit the effects of recoil to a great extent.
Accumulation of metal in the rear of the breech-end of a gun is true
science, and of so easy an attainment, that wonder arises in the mind
why it has not been effected. The extent to which this principle is
worked upon in our gunnery is very trifling; though recoil can by this
simple arrangement be nearly destroyed, or so lessened as to add
considerable percentage of range to the projectile. Add no considerable
weight to the gun, but add it judiciously, behind the end of the chamber
and vent, and immediately surrounding the breech. I have tried this to a
great extent, on a small scale, “with fowling-piece barrels,” and find
that the greatest advantage arises from an additional inch of metal to
the extreme end of the barrel, as the recoil is thereby lessened; while,
on the contrary, by reducing the exterior end of the breech, until it
becomes of less thickness than the sides of the barrel, the recoil is
doubled. Guns will some day be constructed as mortars are, with the
axles, or trunnions, in rear of the tube and of the vent; for by this
arrangement recoil would act less on the mass of metal forming the gun,
and more on the base from which it is fired. We are quite aware that an
arrangement of this nature could only be applied to certain descriptions
of ordnance, and in certain situations; but on forts, or batteries
commanding rivers and bays, and even in the bows of steam vessels, they
may be placed with great advantage. But this objection may be started:
“You could not use guns fitted in this manner horizontally, or nearly
so.” Why not? The muzzle could be as easily raised or depressed as the
breech, by mechanical means. I should much like to see the principle
tried, and I hope to do so.
The following results of experiments prove, that if a true basis is not
laid down, all the fabric raised upon it is but one of sand, which will
crumble away from under us. Hutton says,--“Varying the weight of the
gun, produced no change in the velocity of the ball. The guns were
suspended in the same manner as the pendulous blocks, and additional
weights were attached to the pieces, so as to restrain the recoil; but
although the arcs of the recoil were thus shortened, yet the velocity of
the ball was not altered by it. The recoil was then entirely prevented,
but the initial velocity of the ball remained the same.” No doubt this
was the result of his experiments by the pendulous suspension of the
gun: but here he erred; for had he suspended a thousand tons to it,
without incorporating it in the gun, the result would still have been
the same. All the improvements effected, or yet to be accomplished, will
be obtained by a concentration of metal.
An excess of weight in the fore part of a gun is very injurious, by
inducing and lengthening the tremulous vibration created by the
explosion. The only necessity for strength forward in a cannon, arises
from the necessity of resisting the lateral pressure from the
condensation of the column of air in the tube. The pressure of the
explosive gases is, by the velocity obtained before reaching the fore
part, of very little amount, from the short period it is exerted on the
interior. Therefore weight, in the fore part of a gun, be it ever so
great, will not prevent recoil if there is not a proportionate quantity
behind. It will retard or lessen the distance to which the recoil will
drive the gun and carriage, but the evil is then over.
If the slightest movement occurs in the gun, the shot is projected from
an unsound base or foundation. It is precisely similar to a man who, in
the act of throwing a stone, slips his foot backwards: the effect is at
once apparent on the stone. If the trunnion of a gun breaks in the
discharge, or a quoin flies out, the shot is materially affected; never
ranging, under such circumstances, the accustomed distance, nor with its
usual accuracy. Practice with mortars proves beyond dispute the
necessity of a firm base for the gun, for with a much less charge they
project a greater mass farther. A mortar discharged on land, exceeds in
range the same description of gun on board of ship, or on the
best-constructed platform. In truth, this is but another illustration of
a law of nature: if you have not a solid fulcrum, it matters little what
the power of your lever may be. Gunpowder is a powerful lever if
exploded on a solid base; if not, its effects become limited in
proportion. Unquestionably, much may yet be gained by an economical
arrangement of our projectile force. Great and rapid as have been the
acquisitions of knowledge in everything relating to gunnery in modern
times, there still remains, I have no doubt, an unexplored mine of
valuable treasure to be added to the science.
It would effect a great improvement in the mortars used by the navy,
destroying the tremendous vibration and shake given to the ship,
increasing their efficiency and aiding the projecting power, to place
them on beds of the softest lead, not less than twelve inches in
thickness. Though this suggestion is only theoretical, experience would
soon determine the least degree of substance available. Advantage would
arise, in the first place, from the non-conducting tendency of the lead;
in the second, from its density, and, of course, incompressibility. The
one protecting the ship, the other being the most solid bed for the
mortar that can by possibility be obtained.
The weight of a hollow 13-inch shell is 190 lbs.; the bursting powder 6
lbs. 8 oz.; the weight, if cast solid, would be 290 lbs.: thus the
action of so large a body on the atmosphere must be immense of itself.
There seems to be much difficulty in projecting masses of great
diameter, from this cause; and this should lead us to seek, as indeed it
points to, another material for fabricating projectiles. As weight is
less in substance, and, of course, less in space, much less resistance,
in proportion, will exist in a bore of six inches than in one of twelve;
and a greater projectile force will be generated with fewer
countervailing disadvantages.
The first step in the vast improvements about to be effected in gunnery,
has been successfully taken by Mr. Monk, of Woolwich arsenal, who has
induced the authorities to allow a gun to be made from drawings and
calculations of his own. The dimensions of the gun are as follows:
length from cascable to muzzle, 11 feet; weight, 97 cwt. 3 qrs.; bore,
7-7/10 inches; weight of solid shot, 55 lbs.; shell, 42 lbs.; windage,
0·175; charge, 16 lbs. of powder; giving a range, at 32° of elevation,
of 5,327 yards. _A compound shot_, (a shell filled with lead), was
projected 5,720 yards, or _three miles and a quarter_, at a velocity,
during the first second of time, of 2,400 feet per second, and occupying
during the whole flight only 29-1/2 seconds. The comparative weight of
gun and shot is 1 to 220.
A course of experiments, extending over seventeen years, has firmly
established this gun as the best ever yet constructed. Many attempts
have been made to excel it, but all have failed. Guns have been made on
drawings varying not more than three-tenths of an inch in their
dimensions from those of his gun, and, with extreme _modesty_, the
individuals have claimed a right to compete with Mr. Monk; and have
even obtained competing trials, without any claim whatever to the
discovery of the principle of it; coming into competition by no just
claim or merit, but solely from the tendency to supersede any
improvement emanating from a _civilian_. Eighteen, twenty-four, and
thirty-two pounders are now, however, constructed on this model;--indeed
the improvement is so great and so apparent, as to overcome every
obstacle as yet thrown in its way.
With no wish to detract from the merit of Mr. Monk’s invention (upon
which I congratulate him and the country) but, in justice to myself, I
may remind some of my readers, that in “The Gun,” published early in
1835, I clearly laid down the principle in _projectile force_, on which
this gun is constructed; and as he has since so successfully
accomplished this great improvement, he must permit me to say, that the
principle is the same which I have striven for, for many years.
Wilkinson says, “Guns cast on this principle, although several
hundredweight lighter altogether, recoil less than those on the old
plan, with equal charges of powder and ball, in consequence of the
weight being _properly_ distributed.” He adds, “One remarkable fact
attended these experiments, namely, that by increasing the windage a
little, the range was increased also, contrary to the received opinion;
but this may be explained by the circumstance, that with very great
velocities, and long guns, the column of air to be displaced before the
ball quits the gun is considerable, and is condensed so rapidly, that
it offers immense resistance to the passage of the bullet, if it fit the
bore closely; but, by reducing the size of the ball, and thus increasing
the windage, the air has more space to rush round it, and the ball
escapes with greater facility.”
If the condensed air prevented the velocity being greater, it argues
most clearly, that there was an insufficiency of explosive matter to
keep up the velocity until the ball of less windage left the muzzle; and
the result with the ball of greater windage establishes this assumption.
For if the condensed air was allowed to pass the ball by the windage
into the tube, it proves beyond doubt that there was a deficiency of
matter there, or that the pressure without was greater than that within.
How otherwise could such a result occur? It is a clearly established
fact, that with the generality of ordnance, a full waste of one-fourth
of explosive force, if not more, occurs by the _elastic fluid_ escaping
past the ball by the windage, instead of the reverse. Neither could the
condensed air rush into the gun by the windage if there are any
_permanent gases_ generated; which Mr. Wilkinson himself says there are,
to the extent of “250 times the bulk of the powder in grain.” These
would offer a sufficient resistance to prevent the condensed air rushing
in. I have found, by an experiment before described, that a ball driven
against a column of air which has no escape, if the velocity be
trifling, say 800 feet per second, the air will escape by the windage;
but double this even, and it is so condensed as to form a cushion for
the ball to strike against. Then how much less will the chance be of its
escaping, if the velocity become two thousand four hundred feet per
second. No, the cause is remote from that of Mr. Wilkinson’s
supposition. There is a want of force--an accelerative propellant
force--which should continue to the end of the tube, be that length ever
so great; and on this point, for one, turns the whole future improvement
of gunnery.
The result wished for can be obtained by a systematical arrangement of
the granulation of powder. That a much greater velocity than is obtained
in this gun--at present the greatest in any piece of ordnance in use,
and possessing a longer range than has been obtained by any power in
Europe--may and will be attained, I fearlessly assert. I have obtained a
velocity with an ounce ball nearly doubling this; and though, as it will
be argued, this may be too limited an experiment, yet let us not forget
that great results most frequently spring from little causes. Large
rivers owe their origin to small springs, and if the same principle by
which we can penetrate a plate of iron half an inch thick with an ounce
of lead, be fearlessly and judiciously carried through, we may (and no
doubt we shall) live to see projectiles thrown 5-1/4 miles. That this
will be difficult to accomplish I deny: no difficulty attends it,
provided the principles before explained are duly carried out.
The great principle in a propellant force is so to arrange it that you
do not obtain too great a velocity at the first move of the projectile;
as no mass can be forced from a state of rest to a rapid state of
motion, without communicating to the gun a corresponding motion, which
will create a recoil: and the greater the motion, the greater the
recoil. If the explosive matter merely expands for a brief period, and
is burnt out before the shot has reached midway the length of the gun,
the velocity there acquired will be reduced, by the condensed column of
air in the other half of the barrel, to the velocity it possessed when
only one fourth the length of the whole from the breech; consequently it
would be advantageous to cut the gun in two at the middle, as a greater
force would be then generated advantageously, than by the whole. But if
you so arrange the granulation of your powder that it shall proceed into
motion more gradually, a rapidly increasing force of elastic fluid will
continue to be generated, until it reaches its greatest maximum of
velocity (which it should do just as the ball leaves the muzzle) then
you obtain with your means the greatest result possible.
We believe that the generality of gunpowder used by our Government is
vastly inferior in strength to some made by private makers; yet it is
not advisable to jump from one extreme to another. What is wanted is the
proper blending of the qualities; an addition of a quantity of Harvey’s
quick powder to a charge, when it has driven the ball up three-fourths
of the tube of a gun, and probably had acquired a velocity of 2,000 feet
per second, might so aid it, that it would leave the muzzle with a
velocity of 3,000.
You cannot put a locomotive train in motion at once: if it were
attempted, you would break all the carriages; but if you gradually add
your force, you gain in time the greatest possible velocity. I have
drawn a parallel case: it is the same with gunpowder; only the
velocities are widely different. Therefore, I may be pardoned, if I say
gunnery is like steam, but in its infancy. Let us but clearly see and
understand aright the principle--knowing that the greater momentum the
less the action of the atmosphere--and if 3-1/4 miles can be obtained
with a ball 60 lbs. weight, 5-1/4 may be easily accomplished by a ball
of 120 lbs. Powder is made, and can be had, that will do this.
The use of compound-shot has of late years become quite common in
experiments: why lead, with its alloys, has not been more extensively
used as a projectile for large guns, has always appeared to me
extraordinary. Its weight and density peculiarly fit it for this
purpose, and its non-conducting principle is its greatest
recommendation. How is it? In no instance, except as compound-shot, do
we find any record of the use of leaden bullets on a large scale, save
in Sir Howard Douglas’s “Naval Gunnery,” where, in a note, he says, “A
very distinguished naval commander mentioned to me, that he knew a
person who had served in an American privateer, which, being out of
shot, and unable to procure a supply of iron balls, used leaden shot as
substitutes. This person always mentioned with great surprise the
superior effect of leaden balls.” Well he might; for the reader need not
be told that its greater specific gravity would add to its momentum, and
a longer medium velocity be retained during its flight. But it
possesses another recommendation, superior to all these, in warfare:
that of communicating all its force, all its velocity, be they ever so
great, to the body struck. Iron does not possess this quality; except to
a certain extent, and that at low velocities. Hence the cause of its
being found in naval warfare, that balls at low velocities damage and
destroy ships’ sides more than at higher velocities, even when passing
quite through. Lead, in the act of striking hard substances, iron or
stone for instance, is partially flattened, until the flat surface is
nearly equal to the diameter of the sphere of the ball; thus parting
with all the force it struck the object with, and in most instances
falling motionless at the base of the object struck; while in the stone,
the surrounding crystals or grains are, by their abrasion on each other,
pounded into dust, in proportion to the size and force of the body of
lead striking them: in many instances to many times the shot’s bulk, and
only flattening the lead, less or more, in proportion to the capability
of the stone to resist. Iron striking stone retains its shape: the
grains are driven back upon each other, and each offering its proportion
of elasticity, the ball is enabled to rebound back; which it does in
many instances to a considerable percentage of the whole distance it had
been projected. The greater the velocity with which an iron ball is
projected the greater the rebound back from a hard substance such as
stone. Reversely, the greater the velocity of lead, the greater its
effect on the object struck. Walls or fortifications struck by leaden
balls at the same velocities (waiving the advantage to lead by its
greater specific gravity) would be pounded into sand by less than
two-thirds the same number of lead as of iron shot. Any unprejudiced
person may soon satisfy himself of this, by trying it with a musket or
fowling piece. A leaden ball will pound itself a hole many times its own
bulk, while an iron ball will not make a hole half its size.
I have tried many experiments to ascertain the penetrating powers of
iron and lead relatively, by striking various objects, from a boiler
plate of half an inch thickness down to fir deals. The same size of lead
will, under certain circumstances, punch a perfect hole in a plate of
half-inch thickness, as I shall have occasion to show; while, under
precisely the same arrangement, the iron ball would rebound back with
very little diminution of force; and if the plate of iron be at a
perfect right angle, the iron ball would nearly return into the muzzle,
of the gun. In truth, I had a narrow escape seventeen years ago, from a
bullet actually cutting the rim of my hat: so that it will be well, when
experimenting in this way, to be sure that the person is well esconced,
for fear of unpleasant results.
Lead, therefore, for destroying ships, as well as stone walls, is
unquestionably highly advantageous; even if projected with the same
velocities as at present adopted for iron. The additional weight would
not decrease the destructive effects; it would augment them. I perfectly
agree with the American _privateer_, that the wonderfully destructive
power of leaden cannon balls will create surprise, whenever they shall
come generally into use. Imagine the effect from a gun of the
dimensions of a 10-inch bore. It is dreadful to contemplate.
The effect of lead will be easily understood when explained in the
following way. If a 36 lb. shot have a velocity of 2,000 feet per
second, the force is equal to the velocity multiplied by the weight, or
72,000 lbs. The whole of this force would strike a wall, and be left
there, if communicated by soft lead; if by iron, at the same velocity,
it would be minus the amount of force required to make it rebound to the
great distance to which iron invariably returns. Though created by the
elasticity of the iron itself, this must be deducted from the effect
produced, and hence arises the great advantage the lead possesses. We
are aware that iron driven with a slight velocity rebounds less; true,
and less is its real effect; for under the very same circumstances would
the great advantages of the lead predominate. It may be objected, that
lead is too easily misshaped; “pure it is, but with alloys not so.” At
low velocities it might, but the greater velocities diminish that
chance, as it is a well known fact that all dense incompressible bodies
are least affected by an extremely sharp motion. All our arrangements in
warlike preparations, at present, involve great weight of projectile for
fracturing, not perforating. During the siege of Ciudad Rodrigo, 2,159
rounds, of twenty-four and eighteen pounders, were requisite to form the
small breach of thirty feet wide, and 6,478 rounds for the larger of 100
feet. At Badajos there was expended, to form three breaches of 40, 90,
and 150 feet respectively, the enormous amount of 31,861 rounds of the
same sized iron shot. We may be pardoned if we presume to say, one-half
the number of lead shot would have done more, and done it better.
If we bear in mind, that the whole round of experiments from which
Hutton drew his deductions, were conducted with iron projectiles, the
inconsistency of taking his data as the standard will be apparent. The
dissimilitude of specific gravities being great, namely, 7,425 and
11,327--or one-third difference--it clearly shows, without any effort of
the imagination, that the range must be in the same proportion, with the
addition of greater momentum. For it will scarcely be denied, that a
ball of gold or platina, from the same cause, will maintain a velocity
longer, and consequently range further, than even lead. Hutton’s theory
only establishes the principle, that the lighter the body projected, the
sooner it is acted upon by atmospheric resistance, and a medium velocity
induced. We cannot attribute his preferring iron to arise from an
opinion of its penetrating to greater depths; for a man of his extensive
knowledge and research could scarcely be guilty of such an error. But
even in our enlightened times we are told that elephants cannot be
killed with any projectile but steel: leaden balls cannot do it. I
should like to try, and receive the _tusks_ in return.
The shrapnell shell (invented by General Shrapnell), or spherical case
shot, introduced into the British service of late years, is probably the
most destructive of any missile in use. It was intended to
supersede--which it has done--canister and grape shot; effecting the
same results at treble the range. The construction and principle are
very simple, being merely a shell of an unusually light description; in
fact, little more than a light cast-iron hollow ball, with a fuse hole.
A certain quantity of leaden, or iron bullets is put into it, and the
interstices around the ball shaken full of powder; a fuse of the length
required is inserted, and explodes the shell during its flight: the
peculiarity being, that the body of small balls retain their medium
velocity and travel on, merely diverging, latterly, like an immense
charge of bird shot. They are usually fired from howitzers, carronades,
and other wide bored-guns, at or near horizontal ranges. A considerable
delay occurred before they were successfully perfected. It was found
that when the small balls did not pack perfectly tight, or were packed
overtight, the case frequently exploded in the gun: occasioned, no
doubt, by the friction creating a spark at the moment of the howitzer
being fired, and thus exploding the shell before its time; but we
believe such an occurrence rarely happens now, from other improvements
since adopted.
The preceding pages appeared in my last work published in 1846. They are
still so much in keeping with the state of gunnery at the present day,
and so prophetic of what has, and is about to occur, that they will be
regarded, I trust, as bearing the stamp of authority.
Progress, in its rapid advance, has made many English guns objects for
the furnace or the museum; and many guns, which formerly ranked high as
useful and important weapons, have become things of the past.
Monsters are now all the rage, with a range of three miles, and
artillerists contemplate extending the range to double that distance;
whilst the projectiles used are not “pounders,” but approximating to
tons. So much for improvement. In political economy we are told that
improvement to be good must be gradual; but only effect some slight
improvement in gunnery, make but one step in advance, and the desire for
further improvement then ranges at will, and impossibilities are craved
for and sought to be attained.
Twelve years ago the success of Mr. Monck (certainly the first modern
improver of ordnance,) led to the unlimited production of undigested
plans for changes in gunnery; but, unfortunately for the science, no
progress was made on the one great improvement of Mr. Monck.
War found us ill prepared in the field, and out-weighted “afloat,” so
that almost as many men were killed by the bursting of mortars, and
other ill-constructed guns, as by the fire of the enemy: so critical was
our situation, indeed, that but for the general adoption in England’s
army of my great invention, the rifle on the expansive or “Greenerian”
principle, and its skilful use by our brave soldiers, the war had gone
against us. Our rifles were equal in range to our artillery, and this
saved us; whilst the enemy, astonished at the effects produced by our
bullets, and conscious of their inferiority both in the construction
and use of small arms, abandoned the contest: but no doubt with a firm
determination to profit by their dear-bought experience.
It is generally admitted that our artillery was never so effective as
that of the enemy, and that more is due to the patient and enduring
bravery of the British soldier than to our field-pieces and heavy
ordnance. That England’s artillery was at this time most disgracefully
inefficient, it would be folly to deny. The larger guns were destroyed
in an inconceivably short space of time. After five, ten, or fifteen
rounds were fired the guns burst, killing the gunners in great numbers.
The readers of my works are already familiar with my opinions on this
subject, and their value will now be enhanced by the fact that they have
been proved to be the opinions of a “practical man.” Success in the
improvement of small arms is a sure encouragement to those anxious for
the advancement of projectile science, and it is a coat of mail in which
to fight against the prejudices and incompetency of official management.
Who, on reading my work of 1841, believed the prediction I therein made,
that small arms would be produced which would render field guns useless?
The fact is, however, firmly established, that the best rifles on my
principle will out-range by several hundred yards the best “six-pounder”
in her Majesty’s service; and that, too, with a repetition of fire
wonderfully quick and effective: as the Russians in the Crimea can
testify, on more than one occasion.
To endeavour to point out that an improvement may be effected in
artillery equal to that which has been effected in small arms, is the
object of the following pages.
The author asks a dispassionate perusal and careful study of his work,
in justice to himself and to the importance of the subject. Judging of
future probabilities by what has already been accomplished, the reader
will be prepared for what follows. That great and important changes must
take place in artillery cannot be doubted, and should England refuse to
avail herself of the improvements to be effected, other nations, and
amongst them our late opponent, will be the first to seize and adopt
them. In former works I have asked the indulgence of my military readers
on account of my scanty military knowledge; but professional men appear
to be equally in the dark with the uninitiated: indeed, the lamentable
shortcomings of the English artillerists have placed them in the rank of
mere “waiters upon providence” for the next step towards improvement.
The present time is decidedly propitious; let improvements now be made,
and we may surely hope that they will be appreciated by the public, if
not by the Government authorities.
What is the best metal for cannon? is a question which has often been
asked, and the answers have been very conflicting. Some have advocated
mixtures of copper and tin; others have advocated cast iron, and more
recently wrought iron; still more recently steel, and, lastly, cast
steel, have had their advocates. Arguments as plentiful as summer
flowers have been advanced in favour of each, and the argument has been
carried on with a vast amount of prejudice and warmth, according to the
degree of acquaintance with or attachment to the favourite metal of each
individual. It is rare to meet with a mind free from bias, equally well
acquainted with the merits of the several metals, and their application
to the purposes intended. Still more rare is it to meet with a mind
possessing all this metallurgic knowledge, and combining with it an
intimate acquaintance with the principles of projectiles, as well as a
scientific knowledge of the construction of the engine (the perfection
of which consists in its having no points which are weak or
unnecessarily strong); and yet it is by such a combination of knowledge
and the application of these principles that we must be guided, if we
would be successful in the accumulation of projectile power. In the
present age we are really alive to the advantage of “playing at long
bowls;” and the question now to be determined is, what is the greatest
weight of shot and shell we can throw, and how many miles can we project
it. The Americans were undoubtedly the first to discover the great
advantage of this question with their lesser frigates; the late war has
developed it still more; and it now remains to be ascertained how much
further can we go. For on this important point the superior efficacy of
artillery depends.
At St. Sebastian, in 1813, cast-iron guns threw tons of shot at a range
of 1,500 yards; some particular guns firing as many as 3,000 rounds, and
yet it is more than probable that had the same guns been used in the
Crimea, they would have burst with one-fourth the number of rounds.
Experience proves that it is not the great number of rounds fired which
strains and destroys the gun, but the high elevation at which these guns
are placed, in order to get range; this it is which shakes and
disintegrates the crystalline structure of the metal, and thus extreme
range is obtained at extreme cost. A gun which at 6° of elevation could
stand without a strain 200 rounds, would be likely at an elevation of
30° to burst before 50 rounds were fired. The explanation of this is
sufficiently simple. A gun fired at 6° recoils as the projectile is
projected forward, in proportion to its relative weight and friction;
but when brought up to an elevation above 30° the gun is entirely out of
the horizontal, and cannot recoil as it does at an elevation of 6°: the
force is now exerted downward, and the gun impinges on its support--_i.
e._, either upon its bed on the deck of the ship, or on the solid earth
of the battery, which is comparatively immovable; thus the force which
displaced the gun in the first instance is now exerted on the sides of
the gun, and the projectile receiving additional force is projected
further. But this increased range is obtained at the expense of the gun,
which is rapidly destroyed: 50 rounds being sufficient to render it
unfit for service. To obviate this rapid destruction of cannon, the
metal has been changed from the molecular to the fibrous; that is from
cast iron to wrought iron. One object of this chapter is to point out
the difficulties which arise in determining what the best metal for
cannon really is, and to show the advantages to be gained by attending
to the proper construction of projectile engines, without attaching
undue importance to the _material_ of which they are made.
Before rejecting cast iron as useless for the construction of large
guns, it would be well to assure ourselves that no better quality of
metal can be produced than that which is at present manufactured. We
must also satisfy ourselves that we have clearly understood the proper
shape and form of cannon to resist concussions. These concussions, be it
remembered, were more violent in the late than in any previous war; and
it is an undoubted fact that we had many more fractures then than on any
previous occasion: first, on account of the strain produced by the great
elevation required to get increased range; and, secondly, on account of
the imperfect shape of the gun. The average number of rounds fired from
the 13-inch mortars which burst at the bombardment of Sweaborg was 120,
and the fracture in all was peculiarly alike; being at right angles to
the supports. Now, that this is due to the form of the gun cannot be
doubted; and it will be shown more fully in a subsequent page.
But there is another cause to which I wish now to direct attention,
viz., the jamming of the Lancaster shell, which takes place in the
increasing spiral of the oval gun at the very point where the projectile
acquires a proportional increase of velocity. The effect of this may be
illustrated by running a locomotive at its maximum of speed over an
increasing curve in the railroad, with the certainty of landing it in an
adjoining ditch. The principle which determines the result is quite
immutable: viz., that matter in rapid motion cannot be materially
affected by any force inferior to the primary force: the tendency of the
body being to go straight forward; whereas a slow train goes round a
curve with the greatest ease. Two motions can easily be given to matter
in a lower velocity; but not so easily when the velocity is much
increased. Hence I fear that the inventor of the Lancaster gun must have
had a misconception of the true laws of motion; for by increasing the
degree of spiral at the muzzle, instead of at the breech of the gun, he
has rendered nearly useless what would otherwise have proved a most
formidable engine of war.
From these observations it may, I think, fairly be doubted whether the
bursting of cannon is owing entirely to the inferior quality of the cast
iron used in their formation; though there can, I think, be no doubt
that English cast iron is not only much inferior to what it formerly
was, but that it is also inferior to that which is now manufactured in
Russia. Why it is so will be subsequently explained.
These defects in cast iron have naturally led to many attempts to
substitute for it a more durable metal; and in most cases the metal
selected has been wrought iron. Wrought iron has been used, not only in
solid cannon, but in the original “hoop and stave:” “staves outside,”
and “staves inside,” as in Mr. Mallet’s monster mortar. Forms of gun as
numerous as can be conceived have been constructed, only to prove
themselves in every case most complete failures. Our friends at the
Mersey Works, Liverpool, will, no doubt, demur to this assertion; as
“all creations of the mind appear most perfect to the father of the
thought.”
Great credit is, however, due to the enterprise and energy displayed by
the inventors, forgers, and finishers of this great gun; which has been
the wonder of many minds in this age of wonders: and it is a highly
important invention, as showing what we, as a people, are capable of
producing by our mechanical and engineering skill. But here, in my
estimation, the wonder ceases; for so sure as there is any truth in the
Scotch proverb, “A silk purse cannot be made out of a sow’s lug,” so
surely is it true that no man, however great his genius and working
powers, can make a good cannon of wrought iron. When the hardness and
ductility of silver can be imparted to and held by lead, then will it be
possible to make wrought iron accomplish all the purposes required of a
good cannon.
In vain may Mr. Horsfall urge that his gun has never been burst. Why?
Simply because it has not yet been subjected to the same amount of
pressure on the square inch; neither has it been tested at the same
elevation as some other 10-inch guns, which, in proportion to their size
have stood a more severe test. It is a fact, which may be clearly
demonstrated, that if a 10-inch gun of 95 cwt. be fired at an elevation
of 40° with 17 lbs. of gunpowder, then a gun of more than six times that
weight would not be overloaded if its due proportion of powder were
about 100 lbs. Has this gun been fired with one half of this? Until it
has been satisfactorily proved to this extent, we feel sure that the
authorities are justified in not considering Mr. Horsfall’s a successful
achievement.
Whatever may be Mr. Horsfall’s impression with regard to the advantages
of wrought iron for making cannon, I am satisfied, after a long and
careful study of the results of all its varieties, from the
most ordinary to the most perfect combination that has been
manufactured--either for tenacity, tenuity, or resistance of lateral
pressures--that it cannot answer in large guns.
This I think any one will admit, after considering the two following
facts; which apply equally to all varieties and mixtures of wrought
iron.
1. The strength of iron is at its maximum in the smallest mechanical
structures.
2. The quality of the metal is improved as it is subjected to greater
pressure and condensation.
The extent to which this improvement may be carried has never yet been
ascertained; every fresh manipulation improves its quality. The tenacity
of wrought iron is best displayed in a wire, drawn out until it is not
thicker than a human hair. Large masses of wrought iron are weak and
spongy in geometrical progression with the mass, and the crystalline or
molecular form increases with the mass. If large forgings are carefully
examined, crystals will be found whose facets would produce inches of
surface; as was clearly demonstrated by the bursting of a 10-inch gun at
Woolwich: made, if we mistake not, by Mr. Nasmyth.
Another very important cause which renders large masses of wrought iron
unsound (and which was fatal in Mr. Nasmyth’s gun) is the impossibility
of condensing tons of wrought iron equally all through the mass. No one
has yet been able to overcome this difficulty.
When the force of a blow, however great, is exerted on the surface of a
mass of metal, its effect is neutralized within a few inches of the
surface; condensation takes place in inverse ratio from the point of
impact, and thus the effect is limited. The force which produces this
condensation tends also to elongate the fibres of the metal. This
elongation is greatest in the immediate vicinity of the force; the
fibres in the interior of the mass are less elongated therefore than on
the exterior; and the fibres in the interior of the mass being less
ductile (from the cause already explained) than those on the exterior,
the interior of the mass elongates, by disintegration of its fibres or
crystals, and a porous open mass is thus produced, surrounded by a
fibrous case. Instances of this are to be seen in broken engine-shafts
and anchors; and, indeed, in all large masses of wrought iron, whether
fractured by design or accident.
Another cause of this defect in large masses of wrought iron, is the
long continued heat to which it is necessary to expose such large
forgings. The iron expands as it is heated, but it does not expand
equally all through the mass; and the result of this is that the
interior becomes porous and spongy: an appearance which must have been
observed by every one who has operated upon large masses.
The shaft of the _Leviathan_ weighs 26 tons; but, instead of resisting
twenty-six times the pressure of a shaft one ton in weight, it will,
from the causes already mentioned, be found unequal to half that amount.
We have watched with much interest the forging of these immense shafts;
and the difficulties attending the forging of this structure prove the
accuracy of our reasoning on the strength of large masses of wrought
iron. The weight of the shaft when finished is 26 tons, and the waste
during the process of welding amounts to 74 or 75 tons.
The present shaft is the third which has been manufactured; the two
first having proved notorious failures: thus 200 tons of iron have been
wasted; which we think is sufficient proof either of the unfitness of
the material, or of imperfection in the method of construction.
Moreover, I fear that when the vessel encounters a rolling sea, the
sudden check and strain produced by the total immersion of one
paddle-wheel and the freedom of the other, will subject the present
shaft to a strain which will affect its duration; and a vessel costing
nearly a million of money may thus be left to reach her port with
crippled powers of propulsion.
Where, it may be asked, is the skill in devising engines more powerful
than the ingenuity of man can beneficially work out? This has indeed
been done in the case of the _Leviathan_; a monster vessel has been
built, but all the engineering skill expended upon it has as yet been
insufficient to bring it to perfection.
The skill hitherto displayed in welding large forgings of wrought iron
into shafts, or other large masses, has been of a very low order; much
more may be done than has yet been accomplished, if men will only set
about it in a scientific manner. The present mode of proceeding is to
build a structure of iron much as a builder would raise a structure of
bricks; large and small pieces being mixed together until the requisite
mass is obtained.
Now, a much simpler method, and one which we have tried on several
occasions, is first to construct several segments of iron of the
requisite length, and of dimensions equivalent to the intended object;
each segment being fitted to fill its place amongst a given number of
other segments (whether twenty, forty, or fifty segments be required,)
so as to form a complete cylinder; as the wood-cut will fully
explain:--
[Illustration]
In welding this structure, the heat is equally diffused all through the
mass; and thus the great evil of unequal expansion and contraction is
avoided. When the steam hammer is brought into play, its face is a
“swage” of circular form, calculated to clasp a large portion of the
upper part, whilst a corresponding space is formed in the anvil; and by
gradually turning the shaft, the whole is forged into a perfect round.
The peculiar advantage gained by this mode of proceeding, is not only
the facility with which heat is diffused through the mass, but that each
segment is made to act like a wedge on its neighbour; thus producing the
most solid forging that has yet been attained. This is rendered still
more perfect, both as regards strength and durability, from the fact
that a hollow axle has been produced; the great advantages of which it
would be out of place to dilate upon in this work.
We trust that these anticipated misfortunes may be avoided by the
construction of a more perfect shaft; and that, not only for the sake of
the shareholders, but for the credit of the engineer who devised this
great vessel--deservedly one of the wonders of the world. A spare shaft
would be profitable ballast, if of no more value to the _Leviathan_.
Rolled railway-carriage axles were constructed for me with perfect
success on this principle nearly twenty years ago, at the Walker Iron
Works, near Newcastle-on-Tyne. The idea has, however, been in a measure
“shelved;” but necessity will bring it into use again.
The only engineer who has, by practical experience, satisfied himself
that large masses of wrought iron are totally useless for making heavy
ordnance is Mr. Nasmyth; whose monster cannon, which was to astonish the
whole world, proved, when heated, to have so little cohesion that it
would scarcely hold together whilst being lifted from the furnace to the
anvil. And, to his credit be it said, Mr. Nasmyth, seeing that wrought
iron would not answer the purpose, manfully gave up his hopeless task.
Similar experience would probably make some of our present engineers
wiser men.
My experience in manufacturing the largest wrought iron guns which it is
prudent to construct, sufficiently proves the truth of these assertions.
Harpoon gun-barrels, one inch and a half in the bore, having the metal
at the breech end an inch and a quarter thick, will stand a proof which
invariably bursts a thicker barrel; in fact, all experience tends to
show that light wrought iron or steel barrels are stronger than
unusually heavy ones. As all depends on the principle of condensing the
fibres of the iron, _ceteris paribus_, the greater the condensation the
greater the strength, and the less the condensation the greater the
weakness.
That this argument applies principally to solid forged guns I am ready
to admit; and that guns forged of hoops, rings, and bars, in smaller
sections, are free from this objection, I am also ready to admit. These
guns are, however, liable to objections equally fatal, both as regards
their enduring and projective powers, as I shall presently show.
Experience proves that brass guns are inferior, both in sharpness of
shooting and in range, to cast-iron guns: this is undoubtedly
attributable to the greater softness of brass than of cast iron; and for
the same reason a wrought-iron gun, though made as sound as one of cast
iron, would be inferior in these two important points. But when a
wrought-iron gun is composed of many particles imperfectly secured (and
no mechanical force is sufficient to secure perfect cohesion in large
masses), the wrought becomes doubly inferior to the cast gun: a shot
projected from such a gun starts from an unsound base; a large portion
of the explosive force is absorbed by the variety of sections composing
the gun, to the injury both of the accuracy and length of range of the
projectile. The softer metals cannot be beneficially used in the
construction of large guns, because they destroy the force of the
expellant without making any equivalent return; and the softer the metal
and the greater its substance, the more clearly is this important fact
demonstrated. Thus, in experiments made with large cannon for increasing
the weight of the gun beyond a certain proportion to that of the
projectile, a gun of ten tons weight and ten inch bore would not exceed
in range a gun of five tons, if the charge of powder were the same; on
account of the indisputable fact that much more force of the expellant
is destroyed, whilst more than double the force is absorbed for the
recoil of the ten ton than of the five ton gun; and the loss from these
two causes must materially affect the flight of the projectile, though
fired at exactly the same elevation.
The great defect which experiment shows to exist in the hoop-and-stave
wrought iron gun, and which renders the gun self-destroying, is
separation at points between the trunnions and cascable of the gun. The
force acting first upon the breech, it yields, and the force is then
brought to bear upon the longitudinal portion of the gun behind the
trunnions; the staves have thus to bear the first strain, and, after a
few shots, become elongated. An opening of the hoops at their junction
with each other (most frequently between the breech and trunnions)
begins, after a very few shots, to be distinctly visible, and increases
at every discharge, until further proceeding amounts to madness, or
recklessness of human life.
That enormous engine, Mallet’s monster mortar, of which I give an
engraving on page 100, clearly proves this to be the case. It will be
observed to be constructed with a solid cast iron breech end, the
dimensions of which will be seen by referring to the engraving. Abutting
upon this are a succession of wrought iron hoops, ingeniously inserted
into each other, and more firmly secured by six outside staves of great
dimensions, which, at the muzzle ring, pass through openings in the
muzzle ring, with heads like enormous rivets. The binding power is given
by “quoin-like” wedges, driven through the opposite end of the stave,
beneath the projection of the cast breech, giving power to tighten the
longitudinal binders by a blow when required.
[Illustration: Mallet’s Mortar.]
DIMENSIONS.
Tons. cwt. qrs. lbs.
Cast iron base with wrought iron breech shrunk
into bore 21 19 0 2
Wood carriage complete, with wrought iron screw
and spanner for elevating mortar 8 8 0 14
Bottom part of mortar to fit on top of the breech 7 5 3 23
Part of mortar (a ring) to fit on the top of the
above 5 8 3 23
Do. do. do. 3 0 2 13
Muzzle ring 1 2 3 12
Wood ring 0 0 1 0
Wrought iron ring 0 4 3 4
Wrought iron conical ring to fix on top of muzzle
ring 0 3 3 25
T-headed bolts, with gibs and keys for fixing
mortar to base: may be called outer staves 1 16 2 0
Wood-wedges, &c., for elevating 0 13 3 22
Outer pin, with cross for turning mortar round 0 8 3 14
------------------
Total weight 50 13 2 21
Weight of shell unfilled, 26 cwt. 2 qrs.; diameter, 36 inches.
This is notorious as a monster failure, even with a charge of powder
amounting to only one half what the projector fondly hoped would be
perfectly harmless in its effects. This Brobdignagian toy has proved to
be fearfully expensive, the cost having been estimated at eight thousand
pounds. It has, I believe, been the largest and most expensive
experiment indulged in by the noble “projector,”[6] and I sincerely hope
it will be the last.
[6] Lord Palmerston.
The preceding pages will have done much to remove from an unbiassed mind
any favourable impression of the advantages expected to result from the
use of wrought-iron cannon. The knowledge of this subject, even among
talented and scientific men, appears to be at a very low ebb, as is
evinced by the multitude of failures that have taken place; not one
success of any moment has as yet been attained, and not a discovery has
been made worthy of being chronicled.
* * * * *
Having enlarged thus much on the qualities of a metal which it is
certain can never supersede the use of cast-iron, even though it be
freed from the defects found practically to exist in our present
constructed iron artillery; and having also alluded to the fact that the
_form_ has much influence on the durability of cast-iron guns, I now
proceed to the more important point of the qualities of cast-iron
itself.
Little doubt exists that guns cast a hundred years ago were more durable
than those of more recent formation; it is evident, therefore, that
apart from mere form, some material depreciation must have taken place
in the quality of the metal. The use of hot blast-furnaces, better
fluxes, and improved chemical knowledge in the reduction of metallic
ores, though highly profitable in a commercial point of view, doubling
the products of our mines, and enriching their proprietors, has,
unfortunately rendered English cast-iron perfectly unfit for the
formation of cannon, if increased range and greater strain by high
elevation are to be the order of the day.
The durability of Russian cast-iron is unquestionably greater than that
manufactured in England. Some cause must exist for this; and the
question arises, is the ore superior to ours, or does the superiority of
Russian iron depend on their method of smelting? The latter is, we
believe, the cause of the superiority of Russian iron; for experiments
show that Russian ore, smelted in an English furnace, yields the same
kind of cast-iron as is produced from the ore found in England. The
inference, therefore, is plain, that the difference in the process of
smelting makes all the difference in the quality of the iron.
Two thousand years ago the Romans, or their dependents, smelted iron in
the county of Durham: vast accumulations of slag exist there at the
present time; and thousands of tons have been beneficially re-smelted by
two adjoining iron-works, and a percentage of iron obtained sufficient
to prove that the Romans were little indebted to fluxes or hot blasts
for the quality of iron they obtained. The Russians cannot boast of
these adjuncts any more than the Romans: the old agents, wood and
energy, are alone employed in the smelting of their ores; and in the
absence of scientific aids, though they obtain a much smaller aggregate
quantity of metal, yet it is undoubtedly of a much superior quality.
With the Romans, also, the yield was meagre, but the quality was good;
now, however, circumstances are reversed, quantity, not quality, being
the order of the day.
The use of coals instead of wood in the process of smelting has
introduced a mixture which is very prejudicial. Most of the coal, even
from our very best mines, contains a large quantity of pyrites, or
bisulphuret of iron, which, combining with the cast-iron, injures it to
an incalculable extent.
These facts fully explain why our cast-iron guns are not so good now as
formerly. Select the most suitable mine in the kingdom, erect a furnace
on the most improved principles, employ wood fuel only, avoid fluxes and
hot and cold blasts, and be content with the small amount of metal
produced, and beyond all doubt the quality will be all that the most
sanguine founder or artillerist could wish.
Thus the inferiority of our cast-iron guns has been accounted for, and a
method suggested, which, if efficiently carried out, would effect the
desired improvement.
* * * * *
We are indebted to Krupp for the first suggestion of, as well as the
first attempt to introduce, a cast steel gun of greater durability and
power than the best cast-iron gun which has yet been manufactured.
Steel, possessing, as it does, hardness to any desired extent, ductility
in an equal degree, tenacity unrivalled, and all the other requisites,
is destined to take the place of all other metals in the construction of
artillery. This metal waits only to be tested; and the greater the
extent to which the trial is carried, the more confident we are that it
will answer every purpose.
Krupp, like many other men with valuable ideas, has been peculiarly
unfortunate in his attempts to carry them out. With a vast amount of
knowledge of the science of metallurgy, he wants more knowledge in the
not inferior science of projectiles; the most important point being to
ascertain the form of gun calculated to be suitable for new metal, of
the use of which, for cannon, the world possesses no antecedent
knowledge.
The only failures Mr. Krupp has made (if they can, strictly speaking,
be so called), have arisen from mal-construction, imperfect form, and
unscientific combinations; defects which might be expected from a mere
novice, though not from experienced artillerists or founders of
artillery. The trial of the only steel gun sent by Mr. Krupp to this
country, was conducted in the most absurd manner, and on wholly
unscientific principles. I will endeavour to convey some idea of this
most extraordinary of experiments. Whether Mr. Krupp was unacquainted
with the durability of his metal, or was persuaded, against his will, to
conduct the experiment as he did, I know not, but the following is what
took place:--
In 1851 Mr. Krupp brought to Woolwich a specimen steel gun of ten-inch
bore, weighing about four tons. He was induced (but why, I am at a loss
to conceive,) to construct a cast-iron jacket, or outer gun, into which
his steel gun was inserted up to the trunnions. The steel gun was
separated from its cast-iron jacket by a space of half an inch in its
whole length, except at each end, where the jacket was fitted to the gun
with a moderate degree of tightness; thus the gun and jacket consisted
of two tubes, one within the other, fastened only at their extremities,
and that by a very slight force. The result, as might have been
expected, was the bursting both of the gun and its case; but that the
steel gun or its jacket would have stood the test, if subjected to it
singly, cannot be doubted. The difference of expansion between the steel
gun and its jacket would be quite enough to account for its bursting.
Had the contact of the two been perfect throughout the whole length,
but allowing half an inch all around for the expansion of the steel gun
in that part which was subjected to the greatest pressure, the very act
of restraining it in other parts so as to prevent equal expansion, would
be perfectly certain to produce a fracture. Mr. Krupp’s friends have
complained loudly of unfair treatment, whether justly or not, no opinion
need now be given; but it is much to be regretted that his experiment
was not carried out on scientific principles. The introduction of cast
steel guns will be the most essential improvement in artillery: and an
extensive series of experiments, extending over many years, during which
time I have manufactured gun-barrels of steel alone, ought to give my
opinion some weight on this subject.
Laminated steel gun-barrels were well known in 1851; but the English
bugbear, prejudice, raised a clamour against them, which was echoed by
interest and ignorance, and thus their general adoption was for a long
time prevented. However, in the short space of seven years, they have
become universally adopted, with the most beneficial results; better
shooting, less annoyance from recoil, less weight to carry, and greater
safety to the sportsman, being the principal. And so it will be with
steel cannon; as a short time will suffice to enable scientific
investigation to remove all prejudices against them.
The external form of cannon is a question of vital importance, but one
which is little understood by artillerists of the present day. Whilst it
is a demonstrable fact that all excessive bulk of cast-iron causes
weakness in proportion to the excess, no effectual steps have as yet
been taken by the Government to ascertain what is the due proportion of
metal which ought to exist in different parts of the gun. The American
authority on naval gunnery, Captain Dhalgren, has paid considerable
attention to this subject; and if the reports on the durability of
American heavy ordnance can be relied on (and there is no reason why
they should not) his investigations have been attended with much
success.
Captain Dhalgren has extended the principle acted upon many years ago by
Mr. Monck; his great improvement consisting in lessening the weight of
iron in front of the trunnions, and adding to that of the breech. In
cannon, as in fowling-pieces, weight in the fore part is useless;
conducing neither to the safety of the gun, nor to the smartness of its
shooting. For endurance, it is necessary that the expansion should be
equal in every part of the gun; rigidity in one part increasing the
strain on the immediately adjacent parts, which, if much reduced, are
thus rendered liable to fracture. The breech has to endure the
lengthened explosion produced by the burning of the gunpowder; and, as
this continues until it has overcome the inertia of the projectile, it
is necessary in all cases that the maximum of strength should be in the
breech of the gun. When the projectile is once in motion the strength of
the tube may be rapidly decreased; the only strain it has to bear is
exerted whilst the projectile is passing over it; and this strain, in
properly constructed guns, becomes of shorter and shorter duration as
the projectile attains its highest velocity at the muzzle of the gun.
The greatest strain a gun has to bear near the muzzle is that produced
by the condensation of the column of air in front of the charge; and in
almost every form of English ordnance the weight of metal here is
greater than is necessary.
The Russian guns which have been brought to this country present the
same superabundance of metal at the muzzle, whilst at the breech there
appears to be a deficiency; and when we take into consideration the
extraordinary reports of their endurance, we must ascribe it to some
other cause than the proper distribution of metal. Their endurance is no
doubt owing in part to the goodness of the metal, in part also to the
form of the breech, to the uniformity of thickness in the sides of the
arch, and, lastly, to the absence of those protuberances called
“reinforce rings.” These rings might with propriety be termed “rings of
destruction;” for wherever irregularities exist in the substance of the
metal, there the waves of vibration are interrupted, and the weak point
then becomes fractured. The science of spring-making in all its
varieties demonstrates the truth of this statement. Leave on a
coach-spring an abutment of metal like a “reinforce ring,” and a few
motions will be sufficient to break it, however well the spring may be
constructed in every other part. The rigidity of this protuberance, by
interrupting the waves of vibration, causes additional vibration in the
adjacent and more yielding part, and thus produces fracture. The same
thing occurs in all ill-constructed artillery: where the vibrations are
checked, there is always a danger of some weaker part giving way. But
the laws which regulate the distribution of vibrations in metal
substances are not yet understood by artillerists, or cannon would be
differently constructed. Those unscientific protuberances called
“trunnions,” which are to be seen in almost every description of gun,
prove the accuracy of my assertions. These protuberances, if
scientifically considered, would soon be discarded, since they tend not
only to the rapid destruction of the cannon, but also exert a most
injurious influence on the direction of the projectile. The most
wonderful shooting ever heard of (and which has been before alluded to)
is partly to be attributed to the absence of trunnions. Trunnions act as
the fulcrum of a scale-beam; they allow the breech and muzzle of the gun
to oscillate, but in an opposite direction to a scale beam. Rifled
cannon can never be correctly constructed whilst any weight impinges on
the gun in front of the first starting point of the projectile; they
must have the fulcrum behind the point of discharge, and the more nearly
in a direct line the better.
Rifled cannon will in some few years be perfectly constructed of cast
steel; the projectile being made of gun metal, _i. e._, ninety-five
parts of copper to five parts of tin, or of lead and its alloys, and at
a probable cost of ten times that of a cast-iron projectile of equal
weight.
Rifled cannon must be elevated by raising the muzzle; no depression of
the breech must occur as by the usual elevating screw; and the recoil
must be received and borne by fastenings and axle in rear of the breech
only. Trunnions and all impinging influences are incompatible with
correctness of fire. The muzzle must be raised in a similar manner to
the raising of a hand rifle, the recoil being thrown backwards, in as
direct a line as possible with that of the shot.
It is only on account of the difficulty of experimenting with rifled
cannon that they are at all behind rifled muskets in point of
perfection. The ardent lover of science is appalled when an experiment
costs hundreds of pounds. We have not a General Jacob everywhere who can
afford to spend a thousand or two in experiments; but, nevertheless, the
lover of science, could he experiment, might attain such extraordinary
accuracy of range, as to blow up a smaller magazine than that of
Kurrachee at four times the distance; and that, too, with a more certain
effect, though with a projectile heavier than several of Jacob’s rifles
tied together. Correct direction is certain in proportion to the
increase of weight; deflection being in the minimum with the heavier
weight, from the well known law of momentum. That astute and energetic
sovereign, the Emperor Napoleon, is pursuing experiments with rifled
cannon; with what result there can be little doubt.
It must be by the use of rifled cannon that our artillery will regain
the place it has lost. A short time will suffice to make the disparity
between our artillery and small arms as great as when we were content
with the six-pounder field gun and old “Brown Bess.” Ranges will only be
ruled by sight, and objects will be hit eventually with as much ease at
5,000 yards as they now are at 1,000. Steel, rifled cannon, and
projectiles of gun-metal will assuredly bring about as complete a
revolution in artillery as the Greenerian rifle and bullet have effected
in small arms.
The form of gun best suited for all purposes has yet to be determined;
and we have pointed out these defects in our artillery with the hope
that some of the great practical philosophers of the present age may
devote themselves to the study of this question. It is nearly allied to
the science of bell-making, and a few more fractures of Big Ben will
extend our knowledge of the subject, and produce a remedy which lies not
very deep below the surface. The laws which should guide us in the
construction of cast steel guns, so as to insure their durability, are
very analogous to those which determine the durability of bells; for the
laws which regulate disintegration of crystalline structures are very
simil
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/43799