The foregoing tables show clearly the danger of persevering in using heavy charges of shot; for it must be borne in mind that accidental circumstances will increase this pressure, and never can act so as to lessen it: a foul gun, or a variety of other circumstances, being sure to increase the danger.

Having fully explained the nature of gunpowder, it remains to say something about the other portion, namely, the shot. That a barrel creating explosive force, until the charge is in the act of leaving the muzzle, will shoot better than another which does not do this, there cannot exist a doubt; for this is the germ of the science. Also that the column of air in barrels, where the explosive fluid is sooner expended, acts upon the wadding, and influences the lateral direction of the shot, there can also be no doubt; therefore, more attention is requisite to this point than is generally given. I am quite certain that all well-constructed barrels, both as regards metal and exterior shape, shoot best, shoot so longest, and foul or lead less, than barrels having the aid of friction: soft barrels require it, no doubt, but why make soft barrels? The others cost but little more, and the superiority admits of no question. The quantity of shot is a matter of the first consequence, and I think that I have clearly established the fact, that the less the weight, in proportion to the force, the greater the speed or velocity given to that weight; hence it follows that to be beneficial a certain quantity is suited.

All guns, according to their bore and length, will shoot a certain weight and a certain size of shot best. A great deal of shot in a small bore lies too far up the barrel, and creates an unnecessary friction; and the shot, by the compression at the moment of explosion, becomes all shapes: a circumstance which materially affects its flight. If of too great a weight, the powder has not power to drive it with that speed and force required to be efficacious, because the weight is too great in proportion.

Those who reason from mathematical calculation will object to this doctrine. They will say, the greater the weight the greater the effect. No doubt it is so, if thrown with a proportionate force; but that cannot be obtained with a small gun. We must adapt the weight of projectile force to the power we are in possession of; and from many experiments, I am inclined to think, that a fourteen gauge, two feet eight inches barrel, should never be loaded with above one ounce and a quarter of shot (No. 6 will suit best), and the utmost powder she will burn. A fifteen gauge will not require more than one ounce; and no doubt No. 7 would be thrown by her quite as strong as No. 6 by the fourteen gauge gun, and do as much execution at forty yards with less recoil. Setting aside all other reasons, I should, on this account, prefer the fifteen gauge-gun, if both be of a length; as I find as much execution can be done at the same distance with one as with the other. To render a fourteen gauge barrel superior, Colonel Hawker is right in stating, that it should never be under thirty-four inches; which description of barrel I very much approve. He also says, “You cannot have closeness and strength in shooting combined, beyond a certain degree:” an observation, in the truth of which I fully concur; it being found that where there is a greater degree of either strength or closeness, the other requisite is always wanting. Neither would it be advisable, as the sportsman will find a medium decidedly the best: a medium that will give the shots fairly spread over a space of thirty inches diameter, at forty yards; and so regularly, that a space, which would allow a bird to escape, shall not occur above twice out of five shots, and each shot to penetrate through thirty sheets of paper. It will be found, that a gun doing this regularly, is far superior to one throwing twice as close and not one-half through the paper; as the latter will require four or five pellets to kill a bird, when two of the other would be quite as efficacious, on account of penetrating twice as far.

In favour of small shot, Mr. Daniel’s observations are so pertinent, that I cannot do better than quote him. He says, “The velocity of a charge of No. 7 being equal (we will say nearly) to one of No. 3 at that distance (35 yards), and since small shot fly thicker than large in proportion to its size; and as there are many parts about the body of a bird, wherein a pellet of No. 7 will affect its vitality equal to a pellet of No. 2, the chances by using the former are multiplied in the workman’s favour; for it is the number and not the magnitude of the particles that kills on the spot. They who prefer large shot, and accustom themselves to fire at great distances, leave nearly as many languishing in the field as immediately die. Whereas, those that use small shot, and shoot fair, fill their bag with little spoil or waste beyond what they take with them from the field.” To an old gamekeeper of his (he tells us) he has often put the question, “Why he was so partial to small shot,” and his reply was, “Sir, they go between the feathers like pins and needles; whilst the large shot you use, as often glance off as penetrate them.” No doubt, here Mr. Daniel is as correct as may be. Mr. Blaine says, query? But he ought to be aware, as I suppose he is, though allowing himself to lose sight of principles, that small shot can be, and are, propelled from the barrel with an equal velocity with the larger; it is only in the length of range that the greater triumphs; but if we take thirty or thirty-five yards’ distance as an average, the latter will not “lead” in the race. Therefore, the advocates of small shot have unquestionably the better of the argument at this distance; at greater, I will not dispute it, though I have picked up No. 5 shot 300 yards from the spot fired from; larger, No. 3, rarely reaches 400 yards.

Hard shot is not so liable to be mis-shaped, nor does it lose its velocity by contact, as easily as soft.

Under the head mixed shot, Blaine observes, “We do not believe any law in projectiles can be brought forward to prove its impropriety. The mass of shot is propelled by the expansive power of the powder; it is ejected in a mass; and when it separates, each shot carries with it its own share of ejective force, with very little interference with any other, it being evident that the projectile force acting on each shot is in the proportion of its area of dimensions,” &c.

Here is a great mistake. The law of projectiles is not wanted to prove its fallacy; the laws of motion will do that. If you take any number of equal or dissimilar sizes of shot, and place it as a charge is placed in a gun barrel, occupying ³⁄₄ of an inch of tube, there is, of course, a wadding between powder and shot; this wadding is, or ought to be, a piston; velocity is communicated to this piston by the explosion; it does so to the shot immediately above it, that to the layers above, and so on until the whole mass is in motion. The velocity behind the piston is increasing to a certain point, where it ceases; then it is that the layer farthest from the piston, having received its maximum from the layers below, travels quicker than its assistants; who, having parted with their force, fall behind in proportion: so does each layer, even until the last one which received it from the piston, having communicated so much to his friends before him, is left without himself. It is an undisputed law in motion that one body may convey to another, by contact, nearly its own velocity, but in so doing, is sure to come to rest immediately. Strike one billiard ball against another, if the blow is centrical, the ball struck receives the motion, the other comes to rest; and so is it with shot: it is only the layers next the muzzle which strikes the target, the remainder fall without travelling the same distance. I have fired three balls from a rifle, and having marked them I found the uppermost projected farthest, and the others in proportion. This is easily proved.

Thus, it is quite clear that in all charges of mixed shot, the larger will extract the velocity from the smaller, and consequently become useless for the purpose intended: this fact is unquestionable.

In speaking of the longest duck or swivel guns, I may instance Colonel Hawker’s account of the performance of such fowling artillery. It appears evident that they do not effect anything like the execution which might be expected from their immense size and capability. The reason of this is obvious. From the great space of the interior, in order to receive that equal pressure on the inch which a common fowling-piece receives, they should be charged in proportion to the increased size; but then, I scarcely need add, they would become ungovernable. In addition to this objection, they could not be forged of malleable iron, so as to be safe; on account of the impossibility of forging a barrel of that weight by hand hammers, and the little probability of hammers ever being invented to work by steam to do it sufficiently quick. The greater the weight of the barrel its strength is gradually decreased, owing to the impossibility of sufficiently beating it throughout the whole body.

It must be well known to any one versed in mechanics, that an anchor-shank weighing some hundredweights is more easily broken than iron one-twentieth part of the weight, which has had the advantage of being forged by hammers where the blows were felt through the whole mass. This cannot be the case in forging large barrels, as the workmen cannot use hammers heavy enough; consequently the barrel is turned out of hand with the pores more open than a piece of cast iron. They have tried this with large guns for the artillery, and it has repeatedly failed, entirely from the want of sufficient power to compress the iron.

All guns, therefore, of an unusual size, are not of strength in proportion to a small gun; hence the reason they cannot with safety be charged up to the corresponding scale. Neither are they of the length they should be, if the bore is to be the criterion. It must be remembered that to be charged in proportion, the pressure on the inch should be as many times the pressure on the inch of the small gun, as the one is the number of times larger than the other. If we come exactly to the real state of the case, we doubt much (when taking into consideration the difference of surface) that the pressure on the inch in the large gun is equal even to that on a small gun. The comparison might be carried up to the largest artillery, and I doubt whether it would come up to this scale; as it is well known that the heaviest guns will not throw their projectile as far in proportion as the small gun, because you dare not generate the force required to do it. The same principle is applicable to artillery as to fowling-pieces.

From the above data, I would say, never make duck-guns above seven-eighths in the bore, if you wish them to kill at a great distance; and not less than fifteen or sixteen pounds weight, and full four feet long; because then you can generate strength sufficient. Therefore, instead of the large stanchion-guns being one hundred pounds weight, they should, strictly speaking, be two hundred, and so on. In proof of this I may just mention that, upon repeated experiments, I have ascertained that a double stanchion-gun, with each barrel of the same bore, weight, and length, as a single gun, will kill further than the latter; simply owing to the advantage of the greater weight of the double gun. I have made observations, when trying moderate-sized and shoulder duck-guns on that fine level piece of sand before spoken of, and by tracing the grazing of the shots I have been enabled to pick them up. The large shot from the duck-gun, mostly No. 2, I found scarcely 400 yards from the spot where she was fired; the small shot, five and six, from a fourteen bore, were repeatedly picked up at 350 yards: thus showing that the large gun had not much advantage; but yet making probable many assertions made of killing at seventy, eighty, and sometimes a hundred yards, with a common-sized gun. By this it appears possible; for shot that will fly that distance must kill, if it hit during its flight through the first quarter of such a range; but then, at a single bird, above fifty-five or sixty yards, it is always twenty to one against hitting the object at all; as the pellets begin to separate rapidly at that distance, though their force is still sufficient, and in large flocks is apt to do execution.

The invention of the patent wire cartridge is rather the production of a scientific mind than the production of chance; though the invention of General Shrapnell contains the principle, and the perfection attained is but the extension of that principle: namely, the means of projecting a number of bodies of a similarity in size without subjecting them to an extreme jamming by the lateral expansion, and thus allowing each to travel his allotted distance without any of his companions robbing him of his speed by impact. The great peculiarity of the wire cartridge is, that being less than the bore, and having no bottom wadding, the explosive fluid acts all around, between the sides of the barrel and the net, by what may not inaptly be termed the windage, and the shot are thus expelled by a cushion-like force, which does not jam or compress them in the way it is liable to by a wadding forcing it outwards. Here the net is of use to keep the whole in a mass; but you must not suppose the same would be obtained by a charge of shot, without a wadding below. The net opens, after leaving the muzzle of the gun. The introduction of bone-dust is intended for, and answers the purpose of preventing the grains of shot being mis-shaped by the compression: during their passage up the barrel they form with the bone-dust a comparatively solid body, and keep the pellets from impact, thus allowing them to go forth into the atmosphere beautifully round and uninjured; and, as such, more likely to travel farther and stronger. The latter arrangement possesses all the science, as the net can be dispensed with; for it aids the combination but slightly, and in no case more than a moderate quantity of good paper would do.

The science of this mechanical construction of projectiles is perfectly in keeping with all the established laws of motion, and more particularly good in thus avoiding the necessity of lateral pressure on the sides of the tube of the gun, the upper end having the means of better resisting the column of air in their progress outwards; for there can be no question but this controls and induces the divergence of the shot in leaving the muzzle. One of the old arrangements, often laughed at, I mean the bell muzzle in old guns, intimates that our ancestors possessed some smattering of science; as the relief in the muzzle of a gun has a tendency, by allowing a gradual expansion laterally, to keep the charge of shot better together: for it is quite apparent that any body severely compressed for a certain distance, expands in proportion when free of that restraint; and the consequence is a tendency to fly off at a tangent, as the friction of a crooked barrel induces a ball to fly in a curve contrary to the bend of the barrel.

The extreme relief we find in some old barrels is certainly not required; but still it clearly shows that the principle was understood and acted upon: the very extreme has been produced by ignorance, as certainly as the suggestion was a proof of knowledge on the part of the suggestor; for many think, if a small dose is good for a patient, a large one must be equally so. Like ourselves of the present day, having discovered that fine gunpowder was advantageous, we have carried the principle so far as undoubtedly to overstep the line to which it was beneficial we should advance; thus clearly establishing the truth of the old adage, “One extreme begets another.”

Therefore, in advocating the adoption of gun-barrels of the very essence of iron, I also say, let that part of the tube whose duty is the generating of force be nearly cylindrical, and let there be a gradual expansion of the bore for a few inches in approaching the muzzle, that the restraint of the lateral pressure may not be too rapidly loosened. But yet let that expansion be so graduated that there shall not be an extreme either way—only a scarcely perceptible relief; yet such as will influence and prevent the divergence of the projectiles to a considerable extent.

Blaine says—“A very long barrel is liable to have the force of its discharge lessened by the increase of counter pressure in the greater volume of internal air in a long than in a short barrel.” The column of air in the barrel is unquestionably calculated to lessen the force of the discharge. But I have already shown that this is completely controlled by the system of granulation. Further, he says—“Its force must also suffer by the loss which the elasticity of the propelling gas experiences in its lengthened transit through an extended range of barrel.” He is here supposing an instantaneous generation of force, which cannot possibly happen; and if it did, would be comparatively useless. But he is evidently on the right scent, if he could only follow it up. Again,—“In such cases, it is probable, that the shot, which should leave the mouth of the piece at the instant when the propelling force has gained its maximum, in a long barrel are detained beyond that particular limit of capacity we have pointed out as inherent in each barrel; and which properties, and which quantities of charge, nothing but repeated and varied trials can teach the owner of the gun.”

This is an excellent illustration of the “theory” of the resistance of the column of air in long barrels with very fine quickly-burnt powder; and could he have pointed out the cause, the explanation would have been perfect; as it must be quite apparent to the reader that it is not the length of barrel which is in fault, but a want of a continuous producing force in the powder; for when all the charge is exploded, the maximum has been obtained. This clearly proves that the charge was too small to keep up that maximum, or that the grain of the powder was too fine, and thus too quickly expended. There is no discrepancy between the fact of long barrels being preferable half a century ago, and short ones now; for it is in the improvement of gunpowder burning in half the time now that it did then, and leaves the question of length of barrel precisely where it has ever been. You may have any length you like in moderation, if you suit the grain of powder to it.

I am quite satisfied to steer between extremes; avoiding alike too small a charge of projectiles and too wide a calibre with too heavy a charge of the former, and preferring a size of bore that gives, under all circumstances, the greatest range with the least amount of explosive material; which neither requires that to be too fine a grain, nor too coarse: namely, a bore of fifteen and two feet six inches long. Under all the above circumstances combined, this size will long hold a position in the front rank of sporting guns.

The Belgians have long been, and still are, our principal competitors in supplying those parts of the world which do not rank gun manufacturing among their staple trade. The cost of labour being small, they have great facilities for producing cheap material; and the extent to which they tempt the eye of those inexperienced in gunnery is quite obvious to the world; but excepting the cheapness of the lower grade of guns, the Belgian products are not at all to be placed on an equality with the well made English manufacture.

In consequence of the relaxation of our custom laws, foreign gunnery is now admitted at ten per cent. duty; and as soon as this change was made, the Belgians sent large quantities of their guns and pistols to London; whence they found their way through different parts of the country. Regular establishments were opened for the sale of their very highly ornamented barrels: ten different varieties were produced, even to the imitation of laminated steel.

These barrels were at first sent in the bored and ground state, in large quantities; their apparent low price and great beauty quite captivated some of the “Brums,” so that for a period they were all the rage; and the Belgians began to boast of the extensive trade they were doing. But nothing in this world runs smooth. “The best laid schemes of mice and men oft gang agee;” and so it was with the Belgian importations. Our proof was not exactly to their liking, or perhaps the iron was not equal to the proof; losses and discoveries began to accumulate: “Too soft, by far,” says one; “They are all plated,” says another; “Filed it through, by jingo!” exclaimed a third; “Common iron, by all that’s wonderful!” protested a fourth; “Oh, twisted iron, under such inimitable Damascus!” growled a fifth: in short, steel over iron turned out to be the secret of the whole business.

It is very probable that such facts as these soon established the inferiority of “the beautiful Damascus and arabesque” of the Belgian manufacturers; and they have, I trust, disappeared for ever from the English market: at least, they are not held in estimation by those qualified to judge.

Their advocates have for years adduced the fact, that the Belgian laws required guns to be twice proved; and our old laws not requiring this, they had certainly a tangible argument; but our improved proof laws have now removed that anomaly, and certainly our proof is now much superior, even to that of the Belgians: so much so, indeed, that I have now before me a letter from a Belgian barrel maker, who, in reply to the inquiry why he did not send any more barrels, says very truly, “your English proof is too severe.”

A very carefully conducted experiment on at least twenty best Belgian barrels, satisfied me of the indisputable fact, that at least nineteen out of the twenty were plated, and principally on twisted iron of the softest description; as was shown by eating it entirely away, by a lengthened immersion in a solution of the sulphate of copper. This may be done in the course of a few hours, leaving the Damascus, and the arabesque plating comparatively untouched. The production of that extremely beautiful figure has to be effected by using metals of considerable dissimilarity in their state of carbonization; the iron evidently being entirely decarbonized before mixing with the steel, and the steel even appearing extremely soft; although, no doubt, much of this would be effected during the heating of the barrels to solder with brass: and it is well known this cannot be done, except by heating them to nearly a white heat.

As this is the universal practice with all barrels which the Belgians finish, a good shooting gun is, by all fixed laws of science, a scarcity with them. But a point of still greater importance arises from this injurious proceeding. In the act of heating two tubes like gun barrels, it is an impossibility to heat them equally, so that neither shall be at a higher temperature than the other; and again in lifting them from the furnace, and in cooling, all are subject to bend by expansion and contraction alone; the result is that perfectly straight Belgian hard soldered barrels are utterly unattainable. To an unpractised eye the bending in and out appears trifling, but professionally, it is a very serious defect indeed; and on that score alone, the Belgian can never compete in quality with our own manufacture. Time, however, will no doubt remedy this; already they are great imitators, and they will, no doubt, become greater. They are competitors whom respectable manufacturers need not fear; and though they eschew the imitation of our higher quality, they imitate, even to the name, the “marks” of our leading makers. I still would welcome and fraternize with them, as highly skilled workers in elaborate mixtures of metals suitable for ornamental gun-barrels.

The French gunmakers have not yet realized the true value of the shooting of their fowling-pieces. This arises, in a great measure, no doubt, from the want of a proper field for improvement. Necessity has always been an important improver, and wild game creating the necessity for good guns in England, a different direction has been given to the manufacturer, owing to the continual cry for long killing guns; and not a doubt can exist that English guns are better constructed for that purpose, than those of any other country. Attention to the shooting has always been the first study of every English gunmaker, and great progress has been made during the last twenty years; indeed, a comparison between the largest “target” of to-day, and the best that Colonel Hawker ever made with his crack Joe Manton, will show a progressive improvement of nearly 100 per cent., not only in closeness of shooting, but also in penetration. All this may not be due entirely to the gun, but in part to the gunpowder; and to the sensible course we now pursue of using less weight of shot, avoiding artificial friction in the barrels, instead of increasing it to retard the shot with the view of increasing its power: also by having the expellant agent accelerative to the greatest extent, closeness and strength of shooting are obtained, with the least amount of recoil possible.

Our French competitors have paid much more attention to the artistic decoration of their guns than to their usefulness; and the universal result of this sort of proceeding, ever since the invention of gunnery, has been a total neglect of their power of extreme projection. The metal, like other portions of their work is, in all cases, manipulated with a view to beauty only; as the fact of their veneering, or plating, their barrels proves.

If at all masters of the science, they must be aware that this weakens the shooting of the barrels, and is an injurious practice. But the greater fact remains, that they continue to fix all their barrels together, by brasing them with brass from end to end, as they do in Belgium; thus lessening the strength of the barrels in point of safety, and nearly destroying any smart shooting power they might have possessed.

The French appear to me to have only reached that stage of progress which we attained forty years ago, when every intelligent mechanic was seeking after that “useless thing,” even when attained, “a perfect safety gun;” which, from its complex character, might have been designated “the dangerous gun;” indeed, experience taught (though not without great cost) that few would use it when attained, and the consequence was that it fell into disuse. Our Continental neighbours, however, are mining it with great energy. A little more of our experience, and they, also, will see the folly of the attempt. All the facts go clearly to establish the truth of the assertion, that for all useful purposes they are half a century behind us in the essential part of gun manufacturing. The anxiety shown by all leading Continental sportsmen to obtain a first-class English gun, and more especially of laminated steel, is very strong evidence in support of this assertion. All the guns I exhibited in Paris in 1855 were eagerly bought up at high figures; and I have since executed many orders for France, Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, and Russia, as well as for other northern states.

The display of artistically constructed guns by the French makers in their Great Exposition of 1855, was very great, and by certain classes of sportsmen would be considered superb. My notes, made at the time of inspection, will show better than a description can do, in what state of transition their manufacture is, and how they vacillate between their old and our present style:—

Parisian gunmakers presented 36; Rheims, 1; St. Etienne, 14.

Leopold Bernard, barrel-maker.—Very good work; barrels made of two spirals, inner and outer, with the twist running the reverse way; fine figure; mixture of steel and iron.

Monsieur Gauvain.—Very good sound work; all highly artistic; the cock formed so as to resemble a tree with a snake coiled round it, the head of the snake striking on the nipple. Several other guns of the latest English patterns.

Monsieur Beringer.—Guns ornamented arabesque; a medium show of work; principally breech-loaders.

Monsieur Caron.—Showy, ornamental, very middling.

Lepage and Moutier.—Work good, ornamented, principally arabesque. Game and English scroll pattern, engraving, cocks, &c., but inferior to the English patterns of Gauvain.

Houllier Blanchard.—Good work; designs English; a very novel pattern of figure in the barrels.

Monsieur Le Perrin.—All his guns artistic; raised, embossed, artistic, ornamental, heavy cocks to imitate my shape; one good English pattern soft gun.

Monsieur Lainê.—Good sound work; English pattern of twenty years ago.

Monsieur Andrê.—Good work; ornaments embossed; “Devisme” inlaying; carving and embossing unequalled; several English pattern guns, but of the standard twenty years ago.

“Thomas.”—Guns well inlaid; work medium.

Albert Benard, barrel-maker.—Iron very good, but all lined; bar apparently reduced from a mass two inches square, which tenuates the figure extremely, as the bars are only ¹⁄₄ inch thick.

Gastienne Renette.—All highly artistically ornamented; work good, carving very elaborate. A novel mode of breech-loading: a piece on hinge turns out, a cartridge, slides in return to its place, and a quoin like a wedge forces it up into a chamber; the wedge and head receiving all the force of the recoil.

Lenoir, barrel-maker.—Iron very good; thirty rods in a faggot 5 + 6, and welded and drawn down into ³⁄₈ of an inch square: an enormous elongation of the fibres.

Doye.—Good English pattern-work—nothing else.

Fontereau.—Work, all English pattern; very good.

M. Brunn, successor to Armand and Bourbon.—Highly embossed work: a novel breech-loader; artistic design for cock; female figures with fishes’ tails in scroll on to the tumbler.

Guerin.—A novel safety guard; locks while on the nipple at half cock, and full cock; swivel double like a split ring.

May.—A novel safety guard, very likely to break the finger: sure to do it if on an English gun. Breech-loader: central fire, the same as now made by Lancaster.

Loger, barrel-maker.—Bars faggoted 6 + 2, and so formed to imitate laminated steel.

Dufour.—All breech-loading guns; but all work of the first class.

Juelle Magana, barrel-maker, St. Etienne.—Barrels well fitted and figure varying, but not possessing the regularity observed in the Belgian barrels.

Chapellon.—Coutereau.—Exhibit some barrels filled, with a charge of 12 inches of powder, 6¹⁄₂ inches of shot, and warrant them not to burst on firing that charge.

Delabourse, Paris.—Good work “à la Purdey.”

Lefaucheaux, Paris, prize medalist, 1851.—Good embossed work; breech-loaders; also very good imitation of English work.

Such is a fair sample of the whole. But the best work by far is that by Gauvain, though not so highly estimated by the jury; but that is in many cases no test of ability whatever—as much depends upon the influence and standing of the individual.

Great exhibitions are calculated to effect great good if properly carried out. In that of the English exhibitors at Paris nothing could be more reprehensible, for the jurors left them to the tender mercies of their foreign competitors. In the case of the gun-makers, nothing could be worse, for the two jurymen appointed by the English Government never, I believe, saw a gun, home-made or foreign; and the fact of my obtaining two first-class medals speaks much for the impartiality of our Continental brethren.

Recoil.

Recoil varies according to the position of the gun; when fired on the horizontal, the resistance to be overcome is the tendency of the projectile to fall to the earth, and its friction as it moves in a line parallel to the earth. When the muzzle is elevated this resistance is increased, because the force generated by the explosion of the gunpowder has to exert its action more directly in opposition to the direction of the force of gravity; and when this force is exerted in a line directly opposed to the centre of gravity, as it is when the gun is fired vertically, then the recoil is doubled, and is made more painful, because the body resting on the earth cannot yield.

A gun fired in the direction of the earth, or in the line of the centre of gravity, would recoil much less (perhaps fifty per cent. less) than when fired vertically; from the very obvious fact, that if the bullet was not kept in position by its friction on the sides of the barrel, it would fall to the ground of itself.

“The recoil of a gun is inseparable from a discharge of its contents—on the broad principle that action begets reaction; it is, therefore, only when the ‘kick,’ as it is called, becomes painful, that it is essential to avoid or lessen it. Irregularity in the bore of the barrel is a very common source of violent recoil; contracted breeches also, but more than all, the contraction of the barrel at its centre, occasion recoil, and that of the most dangerous kind: the expanding flame, during its ignition, presses violently to make its way through the contracted to the wider part, thus also destroying the expelling force. ‘Now, action and reaction being equal, it follows, that the weight of the piece being the same, the recoil will be in proportion to the quantity of the powder, and the weight of the ball, or shot; and that with the same charge the recoil will be in proportion to the weight of the piece, or the lighter the piece the greater the recoil.’”—Essay on Shooting.

Here is a true exposition of recoil, though not of contractions in the breech; for there the action would not be directly back, but have an inclination towards the muzzle; for the reaction would not have time to tell on the breech, before the charge was out of the muzzle. An extremely spiralled rifle barrel destroys the explosive force of gunpowder, but the effects are not felt in the recoil, being most all expended laterally. Blaine says, “Could we entirely obviate all recoil from a gun, we should not only remove an unpleasant shock to our persons, but there is reason to believe we should much assist the range and force of the shot likewise; although there is an opinion prevalent, that the degree of the recoil is in the proportion of the projectile force.” Of this, however, some doubts are entertained, which are warranted by the following fact:—“Mortars with iron beds immoveably fixed in the earth throw their shot to greater distances than guns which are affixed to carriages can do, and which, therefore, can recoil. This has been incontestibly proved, both in large and small artillery. Having suspended a gun barrel, charged with a determinate quantity of shot, from the ceiling by two cords, so as to allow of its recoil, fire it point blank at a target, and mark the result accurately. Now, fix the same barrel to a block, and charge it exactly with a similar charge; then having moved the target fifteen yards further, fire the barrel; it is probable that the last shot, though at this increased distance, will exceed the former, both in range and force.’ These and such like experiments are laughed at by the giddy and inconsiderate; but it is by these illustrations that the most important facts are brought to light.

“Projectile force is, therefore, to be increased by resistance; and the knowledge of this fact offers us a practical hint, that when we stand immoveable to our shot, not only by holding the gun tightly to our shoulder, but by also leaning somewhat forward in our shooting attitude, we considerably increase the resistance, and, consequently, we not only lessen the shock of the recoil to ourselves, but we aid the force of the shot and extend its range. That such is the case, may be further exemplified by the following experiment:—Throw a hand-ball against any moveable body, and it will displace that body; but the ball will drop to the ground perpendicularly, however hard the body against which it is thrown may be. Fix the same body securely, and then the rebound of the ball will be nearly equal to the force with which it was thrown.”

The weight or amount of force with which a gun recoils against the shoulder, is due to, and regulated by, several circumstances. The first and most important is the amount of explosive force generated before the charge is moved and during the act of moving, and the amount of inertia in the body of the projectile. When a quantity of gunpowder is exploded without any resisting weight in front of it, then the column of air gives comparatively a slight recoil; though there is, in fact, considerable recoil, but such as is due to the resistance of the air only, and, consequently, more like a push than a blow. The exact amount of recoil is also due to the difference between, or proportionate weights of, the charge of shot or bullet and the gun; action and reaction being always equal until one or the other body moves; the division then will be in favour of that moving fastest, and hence the obtaining of accelerative velocity: it thus follows, as a truism, that the smaller the quantity of exploded gases that can be employed to first move the charge, the less the recoil.

The advantage of the granulation system is here again most clearly shown; and (alluding again to the law of putting matter in motion gradually) if you would gain the greatest benefit, it is clear that, in the same length of tube, you would, at the termination of the accelerative power, have gained a much greater amount of velocity than could be obtained under any other circumstances with the more violently explosive gunpowder.

Many theories have been advanced, and many conjectures made as to the cause of the recoil of guns; and it must be evident that the causes vary with the form of gun, with the nature of the gunpowder, and the weight; or peculiar arrangement of the shot or bullet. For instance, an ounce of shot, and an ounce of lead in the form of a round bullet, fired from the same gun would give two very different amounts of recoil, when measured by the spring cushion; the ounce bullet not giving much more than half the recoil produced by the ounce of shot. This is owing to the simple fact that the bullet being a compact body, offers only the resistance of its weight, and the simple friction of sliding or rolling along the barrel according as it is tight or loose; but the tendency of the hundreds of shot corns is to “jam and wedge” in the most extreme manner, offering, by their lateral pressure against the sides of the barrel, the greatest amount of friction and reluctance to be driven out: hence the reaction on the gun, and thence on the shoulder of the shooter; and the smaller the size of shot the greater the jamming. Again, the same weight of shot, fired from a 16-bore and a 12-bore will recoil much more in the smaller than in the larger bore, even when all other points are equal; because the charge reaches higher in the 16-bore, thus offering at first a greater amount of inertia. Secondly, there is also more tendency to jam; and, thirdly, the extension of the surface of lateral pressure on the tubes of the barrel must also add to recoil. Dirty guns, it is well known, kick violently, simply from the greater friction, or difficulty of the matter of the charge being put in motion.

The question as to what the actual amount of recoil really is has never been settled satisfactorily; the most erroneous opinions have been given, and assertions equally erroneous have been made, by those who have attended to the subject. To clearly elucidate this question, it is absolutely necessary that the circumstances be reduced to one standard: but the difficulty is to obtain that; for it would vary according to muscular development, the weight and height of the sportsman. Indeed any principle laid down would be liable to be disputed, from the very different way in which every sportsman lifts his gun to his shoulder: if one presses it against his shoulder with a pressure equal to 5 lbs., he will receive a certain amount of recoil; he that presses it with a force equal to 10 lbs. will receive less; and with a pressure of 30 lbs. it will be found to yield the least of all. I will illustrate it in this way. Take a spring cushion (something like the spring machine found at all fairs for testing the force of a man pressing against it), if you allow a gun to recoil against this when the starting pressure is only 5 lbs., it will drive it up to 70 lbs., or nearly so, from the velocity with which you have put the 7 lbs. of matter which is contained in the gun into a long sweeping blow. The next time you try, put the starting point at 10 lbs., and you will find a much less result in the extreme weight denoted; but carry on this experiment, placing the cushion with a resisting force of 30 lbs., and you will find the extreme recoil indicated at from 40 lbs. to 45 lbs., and even up to a higher starting resistance. But to this extent it is not advisable to go, for the strain becomes too great on the handle of the gun-stock, and there is too near an apparent approach to a solid resistance, which it is well-known would break the best stock that was ever made.

Having shown how we may approximately obtain the exact amount of force, and how it may, even with two persons, give different results, I will now state what I have found to be the result of many hundreds of trials made with the view of deciding this question. Before doing so, however, I will further premise that hundreds of attempts have been made at various times by different Governments, and by many talented men, to obtain a correct recoil machine which shall efficiently measure the recoil, and in such a perfect line with the intended direction of the projectile as to obtain accurate results: but this is found to be perfectly unattainable, though I believe the nearest approach to it has been made by Mr. Whitworth during his experiments with the hexagonal rifle.

To prove that it is impossible to get all the circumstances alike, so as accurately to ascertain the exact force of the recoil, one instance only need be cited. Fire your gun at a fixed object, then fire at an object in motion, and to your senses the recoil will appear double when fired at the fixed object; but it is not really so: in the latter instance, the body of the person firing the gun, and the gun itself being in motion, a considerable amount of the force of the recoil is absorbed in overcoming the motion of the gun, and then that of the shooters body, so that the effect is not noticed. I have already alluded to the greater force of recoil felt from the lighter pressure of the gun against the shoulder; here the tendency of the gun and body moving in one direction is to close them together, and the proportion will be as the velocity of that movement. Therefore, to bring this to a conclusion, I find that under ordinary circumstances a 12-bore gun of 7¹⁄₂ lbs. weight, 30 inches in length, with a charge of 2¹⁄₂ drams of No. 5 grained gunpowder, and 1¹⁄₄ oz. shot, the barrels draw-bored cylindrically, with the least possible easing at the breech ends, and metal of the best laminated steel, will recoil with a force of from 40 lbs. to 48 lbs., or on an average 44 lbs.: this is the most satisfactory conclusion I have been able to draw from my experiments. This of course will vary, as I have shown; and it is also liable to deviations, according to the state of the atmosphere, and other collateral circumstances. Great variations will of course arise from guns of fine or rough insides; guns new or old, well kept or neglected; and in guns bored larger at the breech-ends, in order to give artificial resistance to the escape of the charge. These last are now, I trust, obsolete, except in that abortion of science the “French breech-loading crutch gun;” and as an exception, all ill-constructed guns.

The science of the question may now be regarded as clearly established. Gun-barrels of the utmost tenacity, with insides of a cylindrical form as true as possible, polished as fine as a mirror, with a moderate weight of shot calculated to suit the gun and a good charge of large granulated gunpowder, will give the greatest killing power, with the greatest amount of comfort, or absence of recoil, that is to be found in the pursuit of shooting.

A point of considerable importance in obtaining regular and good shooting—one, however, which is frequently neglected—is that of ascertaining what sized shot is particularly suited to the size of bore used.

The correct adaptation of No. 5 or No. 6 for your particular gun is easily attained. Place in the muzzle an ordinary wadding, press it into the barrel the depth of the diameter of the shot, which should be exactly flush with the muzzle, place as many shot corns on this as you can, without having more than one distinct layer, and observe the size that best fills, in concentric rings, the whole circumference of the bore, leaving no half-spaces unfilled; note whether it be No. 5 or No. 6 shot, and keep to that size for your general shooting. Again, on other occasions you may wish to use larger shot (Nos. 4, 3, or 2); then ascertain by the same method which fills the concentric rings most perfectly: the same should be done with the smaller sizes, Nos. 8 or 9.

The rationale of this proceeding is that any half-spaces are filled by shot from above pressed in upon the lower layer, disfiguring itself and those it comes into contact with; this is multiplied up to the 13 or 14 layers of which the charge is composed, and the inevitable result is that four or five pellets are pressed together until they adhere; either “balling” or leaving empty spaces in the distribution of the charge, to the injury of the gun’s shooting—a defect which may easily be obviated by attending to the instructions given above. One other point may be observed, viz., that if 1¹⁄₄ give 15¹⁄₂ layers of shot in concentric rings, the charge should be reduced until the rings are complete, for the half-layer will do much mischief by its unequal pressure on the layers beneath it. And it is further necessary to observe that in loading a gun, either with powder or with shot, the gun should be kept as nearly in the upright position as possible: the more upright the gun is held, the more perfectly will it be charged, and the more perfect will be its shooting.

A vast number of useless changes have of late years been introduced into the construction of gunnery; they have died, however, a natural death, as they ought to have done, and have thus afforded additional evidence that sportsmen of the present day only adopt what are really improvements. Great professional reputation in a gunmaker is not now, as formerly, all that is required to command a trial of individual plans of improvement: the improvement must be self-evident; nothing being taken on trust: a bonâ fide benefit to the sportsman is essential in the present day to obtain patronage.

There has lately been introduced a very novel improvement in the construction of double gun barrels, in order to overcome that defect long admitted to exist in firing the second shot. It has long been known that in a 40 yards’ flight, shot falls several inches; and it is an established fact that few sportsmen can kill with the second shot so well as with the first, although it is certainly within range of the gun. This no doubt arises in almost every case, from the shot having fallen below the object in traversing the greater distance; or, in other words, the second barrel, in order to kill as well as the first, ought be fired six inches higher; but this the best shots find it difficult to do, and it has therefore been proposed to do it for them.

Mr. F. W. Prince, of No. 138, Bond-street, has patented an improvement to obviate this difficulty; this he does by elevating or pointing upward the second barrel, so as to cover the calculated fall in the body of the shot; and the result is, that the second bird is as well aimed at and as efficiently killed as the first. The alteration is so exceedingly simple, and the benefit resulting from it so apparent, that the only wonder is that it should never have been done before; and it being the improvement of a really practical sportsman of the very first class, as Mr. Prince has long been known to be, is sufficient to stamp his invention as worthy of every consideration.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE FRENCH “CRUTCH,” OR BREECH-LOADING SHOT GUN.

Sporting in France has never been brought to the same state of perfection as in this country. Grouse-shooting on our wild romantic hills is a very different sport from quail, partridge, or rabbit shooting in the vales and on the hills of the Continent. Wild game requires great energy and perseverance on the part of the sportsman, courage and strength on the part of the dog, and last, though not least, great capacity on the part of the gun. For many years the superiority of the English manufactured gun, as well as of the English gunpowder, and the matchless skill of the English sportsman, have been acknowledged by all the world. All things, however, have their limits—the longest lane has a turning, and a very plausible and insidious innovation has been made to detract from the acquired reputation of the English sportsman, and render his shooting inferior to that of some of our friends on the other side of the Channel.

The French system of breech-loading fire-arms is a specious pretence, the supposed advantages of which have been loudly boasted of; but none of these advantages have as yet been established by its most strenuous advocates. How it is that the British sportsman has become the dupe of certain men who set themselves up for reputable gunmakers I know not. It is certain, however, that by these acts they have forfeited all claim to the confidence of their too confiding customers, and that they never could have tested the shooting properties of their guns. With regard to the safety of these guns, they display an utter want of the most ordinary judgment; and this is abundant proof that they considered neither their safety, nor (what is also of importance) the economy of the whole arrangement, as regards their manufacture or their use.

Guns are perfect only so long as they possess the power of shooting strong and close, with the least available charges. The period has passed when barrels were bored by rule of thumb, without any well-defined intention; the workman being ignorant as to whether he would have the bore of the barrel cylindrical, or (as was frequently the case) in the form of two inverted cones, and thus he continued to bore at the barrel until it was utterly useless, or until by chance he hit upon a tidy shooting bore. Barrels are now constructed so nearly alike, that it is no stretch of truth to assert that ninety-six or ninety-eight barrels out of a hundred can be made so nearly alike in their shooting, as to render it very difficult to discover the real difference between them. Yet, in the face of this high state of perfection certain English gunmakers introduce, and recommend to their patrons as an improvement, a description of gun possessing the following negative qualities:—First, there is no possibility of a breech-loader ever shooting equal to a well-constructed muzzle loader; secondly, the gun is unsafe, and becomes more and more unsafe from the first time it is used; and, thirdly, it is a very costly affair, both as regards the gun and ammunition. Nor are these negative qualities at all compensated for by any of the advantages claimed for these guns by their advocates; this assertion I now proceed to establish.

In the first place recoil has been an important obstacle to contend with, ever since the invention of fire-arms, and the methods of lessening recoil have engaged the special attention of all inventors up to the present day; on this important point, indeed, very much depends. Gunnery is good only when recoil exists in a minimum degree. Force, whether it be that of the gentle “zephyr,” or of the mammoth steam-boiler which is capable of moving thousands of tons, can always be measured, and the friction of steam against the tube through which it passes can be measured also.

The time was, when guns were so imperfectly constructed, that the recoil and friction of the charge against the barrel destroyed more than half the force generated by the explosion of the gunpowder; and this loss of force having been obviated, by finely polishing the interior of the barrel, as well as by improving the metal of the gun, has rendered English guns superior in their performance to those manufactured in any other country. Breeches of a conical form offer the greatest resistance to the action of aëriform bodies in a direct line; this is the principle of what is best known as “the patent breech:” to speak of which would be a waste of time, as nothing more is required to support its superiority than the fact, that in well constructed artillery of every country, the interior form of the breech or chamber is more or less conical. Thus we see that by adopting the crutch gun, we have to give up one of the oldest and most universally acknowledged principles in lessening recoil—namely, the conical form of the breech—and to adopt the very reverse of this: namely, the old right-angled, flat-faced breech, upon which recoil can exert its utmost force with the certainty of its reaching the shoulder of the unfortunate user.

Secondly, to enable the gun to be loaded with a cartridge which shall keep its place, a complicated arrangement is necessary. On inspection of the barrel, it will be perceived that a cavity has been formed larger than the bore of the barrel, and that this in some cases only tapers toward the further end. This cavity exactly receives the cartridge, and the gunpowder is inflamed in a space much larger than the barrel, which it has afterwards to pass through. The charge of shot is also started in a larger space than that which it afterwards has to traverse, and the column must of necessity become contracted and elongated before it can escape from the barrel. The first consideration is at what cost of force is all this effected? Thirty per cent. would certainly be a shrewd guess; and who is there conversant with the nature of gunpowder hardy enough to gainsay the fact?

I here present the reader with the measurement of a pair of barrels—bore 12, diameter of the cavity 10, or two sizes difference,—tried at the celebrated trial of Breech versus Muzzle-loading fire-arms, which took place in April last, in the court at Cremorne. The following are the results of the trial:—

Class 1 comprised twelve bore double guns, not exceeding 7¹⁄₂ lbs. in weight; the charge for the breech-loaders was three drachms of powder, and one ounce and a quarter of shot; that for the muzzle-loaders, two and three-quarter drachms of powder, and an ounce and a quarter of shot. The question will be asked why were both not charged alike? and the answer is, because the advocates for breech-loaders well knew the loss of power caused by the enlarged breech end would require a larger quantity of powder; yet, with this advantage, the result was a verdict in favour of the muzzle-loaders of nearly two to one. I quote from the Field. The aggregate number of pellets in the targets from breech-loaders was 170, the penetration 19. The aggregate number of pellets put in by the muzzle-loaders was 231, the penetration 48; and this was effected with a quarter of a drachm of powder less.

Few will doubt that this must be the inevitable result. Force cannot be expended and retained: we “cannot eat our cake and have it.” If force is destroyed by friction, it is as useless as if it had never been generated. So much, then, for the shooting qualities of the breech-loader.

And now comes the question, of much more importance than the shooting qualities of these guns: namely, can all this force—30 per cent., in fact, of the whole charge—be thrown away with no worse result than the mere wasting of the powder? Is there no change taking place in the barrel of the gun every time it is discharged? Iron and its combinations are as certainly limited in their duration as is human life itself. Every bar of iron is capable only of resisting a certain amount of pressure; every successive strain on its fibres deteriorating it more rapidly; and whether it be the mainspring of the lock, or a gun-barrel itself, a certain number of strains will destroy it. This being the case, how much more rapidly must a breech-loader be destroyed where 30 per cent. of the charge is always “absorbed” on the sides of the barrel in the cavity alone. This a lengthened experiment will prove; though the fact is so self-evident, that no experiment is required to demonstrate it.

Caution in gunnery is absolutely necessary under the most favourable circumstances, and disregard of perfection in the construction of a gun is quite unpardonable; then what shall be said of that member of society who, with all those facts before him, can say to his customers, “I advise you to have a breech-loader: they are really good guns?” In what estimation such a tradesman must be held I will not venture to say. Much more might fairly be said against these guns, but I sum up the whole in the following damnatory sentence: Breech-loaders do not shoot nearly so well, and are not half so safe, as muzzle-loading guns.

It is said, and truly, that a breech-loader can be charged more rapidly than a muzzle-loader; but I hold this to be no advantage, for this reason: all guns can be loaded more quickly than they are fired, and the tendency of all barrels to absorb heat, puts a limit to rapidity of firing; indeed, after ten rapid shots with each barrel, both guns would be about on an equality. Another question is, can breech-loaders be used longer than muzzle-loading guns, without cleaning? My opinion is, they cannot. At the trial already spoken of, after twenty-two shots had been fired from the breech-loaders, the cartridge-cases had to be extracted from the barrels with a hook, and in several cases it was necessary to cut them out with a knife; whilst a muzzle-loading gun without friction would have gone on to a hundred shots without being wiped out. There are few plans or presumed improvements which have not some redeeming points; but in the case of breech-loading fire-arms it is quite a task to find even a resemblance to one. All the advocates for breech-loaders whom I have ever met with yield, with this acknowledgment: “I must admit that I never liked them; but so many gentlemen are asking for them that I was compelled to make them, to keep my customers.” This is, no doubt, the truth; but it is calculated to lead to serious calamities: for it was apparent to hundreds, at the Cremorne trials, that even the best and newest breech-loading guns permitted an escape of gas at the breech to an extent that I never thought possible; and if this occurs in new guns, what will happen after a single season’s shooting, should any one be found sufficiently reckless to use a breech-loader so long?

No fear need be entertained that the use of breech-loaders will become general; manufactures on false principles soon show themselves worthless, however pertinaciously they may be puffed off. The number of accidents arising from the use of breech-loading fire-arms has not been very great as yet; though I have already heard of several very serious cases, from the use of well-made guns: let us consider what would be result if the workmanship was inferior?

There is one other point to which I may briefly allude before dismissing the breech-loader to the “tomb of all the Capulets.” The majority of guns on this principle merely abut against a false breech; and, from the fact of there being no connection either by hook or by cohesion, the explosion causes a separation between the barrel and the breech to an extent which would scarcely be credited. This may, however, be satisfactorily demonstrated by binding a small string of gutta percha round the joint, when after explosion the string will be found to have fallen in between the barrel and the breech; thus showing that the muzzle droops in the act of being discharged, which must must materially influence the correctness of fire.

The recoil of an ordinary 12-bore gun, loaded at the muzzle, varies from forty to forty-eight pounds, seldom exceeding the latter; that of a breech-loader varies from sixty-eight to seventy-six! And this quite independently of the enormous force which is exerted on the sides of these enlarged breech guns. The shoulder left in the barrel, too, is a formidable barrier for the charge to pass by; and, in doing this, the circle of shot in immediate contact with the barrel becomes disfigured and misshaped, so as to insure its flight only to a very short distance. In the muzzle-loader an average of 180 shots strike a target of two feet six inches diameter; but breech-loaders of the same calibre will rarely put in 120 shots; showing a clear loss of 60 pellets. This is due to the enormous jamming they have undergone in passing from the greater to the lesser area of the barrel. It is said that the paper of the cartridge fills up this enlargement; but any one who knows what the force of gunpowder is, must also know that paper intervening between the charge and the sides of the barrel would be condensed at the moment of explosion to one-fourth its original thickness.