[New-York Daily Tribune, No. 5914, April 7, 1860] 

The first attempts at increasing the range and precision of 
ordnance by rifling the bore, and thereby giving the shot a 
rotation vertical to the line of propulsion, date from the 17th 
century. There is a small rifled gun at Munich, manufactured in 
Nuremberg in 1694; it has eight grooves and a bore of about two 
inches diameter. During the whole of the 18th century, experi- 
ments were made, both in Germany and in England, with rifled 
cannon, some of them breech-loading. Though the calibers were 
small, the results obtained were very satisfactory; the English 
two-pounders in 1776, at a range of 1,300 yards, gave a lateral 
deflection of two feet only—a degree of precision which no other 
gun at the time was capable of approaching. In the same year, 
these rifled cannon were for the first time used for projecting 
oblong shot. 

These experiments, however, remained for a long while without 
any practical results. The current of military opinion at that time 
altogether went against rifled arms. The rifle itself was then a very 
clumsy instrument, its loading was a slow and tedious operation, 
requiring considerable skill. It was a weapon unfit for general 
warfare at a period when rapid firing, whether of deployed lines, 
of heads of columns, or of skirmishers, was one of the chief 
desiderata in battle. Napoleon would have no rifles in his army; in 
England and Germany, a few battalions only were equipped with 
them; in America and Switzerland alone, the rifle remained the 
national weapon. 

The Algerian war was the occasion to bring the rifle again into 
credit, and to cause improvements in its construction which were 
but the beginning of that colossal revolution in the whole system 

of firearms which is even now far from its conclusion. The 
smooth-bore muskets of the French were no match for the long 
espingardas of the Arabs; their greater length and better material, 
which admitted of a heavier charge, enabled the Kabyles and 
Bedouins to fire on the French at distances where the regulation 
musket was utterly powerless. The Duke of Orleans,” having seen 
and admired the Prussian and Austrian chasseurs, organized the 
French chasseurs on their model, who soon, for armament, 
equipment, and tactics, became the first troops of their class in the 
world. The rifle with which they were armed was far superior to 
the old rifle, and it soon underwent further changes, resulting, 
finally, in the general introduction of rifled muskets in the whole 
of the infantry of Europe. 

The range of infantry fire having thus been increased from 300 
to 800, and even 1,000 yards, the question arose whether field 
artillery, which hitherto had commanded all distances from 300 up 
to 1,500 yards, would still be able to hold its own against the new 
small-arms. The fact was, that the greatest efficacy of common 
field guns lay just within that range which was now disputed to it 
by the rifle; canister was scarcely effective beyond 600 or 700 
yards; round shot gave no very satisfactory results, with the six or 
nine-pounder, beyond 1,000 yards; and shrapnel (spherical 
case-shot), to be very formidable, required a coolness and a correct 
estimation of distances which are not always to be found on the 
field of battle, when the enemy is advancing; while the shell- 
practice of the old howitzers against troops was anything but 
satisfactory. The armies which had the nine-pounder gun for their 
smallest caliber, such as the English, were still the best off; the 
French eight-pounder, and, still more, the German six-pounder, 
became almost useless. To obviate this, the French introduced, 
about the beginning of the Crimean war, Louis Napoleon’s 
so-called invention, the light twelve-pounder, canon obusier,” from 
which solid shot, with a charge of one-fourth instead of one-third 
its weight, as well as shell, was to be fired. This gun was a mere 
plagiarism upon the English light twelve-pounder, which had 
already been again abandoned by the English; the system of firing 
shells from long guns had been long in practice in Germany; so 
that there was nothing at all new in this pretended improvement. 
Stull, the arming of the whole French artillery with 12-pounders, 
even of a diminished range, would have given it a decided 

superiority over the old 6 and 8-pounders; and to counteract this, 
the Prussian Government, in 1859, resolved upon giving heavy 
12-pounders to all its foot batteries. This was the last move in the 
cause of the smooth-bore gun; it showed that the whole subject 
was exhausted, and the defenders of the smooth-bore driven ad 
absurdum. There could, indeed, not be anything more absurd than 
to arm the whole artillery of an army with those lumbering, 
stick-in-the-mud Prussian 12-pounders, and that at a time when 
mobility and rapidity of maneuvering is the greatest desideratum 
of all. The French light 12-pounder having a relative superiority 
only to other artillery, and none at all as regarded the new 
small-arms, and the Prussian heavy 12-pounder being a palpable 
absurdity, there remained nothing but either to drop field artillery 
altogether, or to adopt rifled cannon. 

In the mean time, experiments with rifled cannon had 
continually been carried on in various countries. In Germany, the 
Bavarian Lieut.-Col. Reichenbach experimented with a small rifled 
gun and cylindro-conoidal shot, as early as 1816. The results were 
very satisfactory as to range and precision, but the difficulties of 
loading and extraneous obstacles prevented the subject from being 
followed up. In 1846, the Piedmontese Major Cavalli constructed a 
breech-loading rifled gun which attracted considerable attention. 
His first gun was a thirty-pounder, charged with a cylindro- 
conoidal hollow shot weighing 64 pounds, and 5 pounds powder; 
at 14°/, degrees elevation he obtained a range (of first gauge) of 
3,050 metres or 3,400 yards. His experiments (continued up to the 
latest period, partly in Sweden, partly in Piedmont) had the 
important result of leading to the discovery of the regular lateral 
deflection of all shot fired from rifled ordnance, which is caused 
by the pitch of the grooves, and which is always in the direction to 
which the grooves turn; this once being ascertained, its correction 
by what is called a lateral or horizontal tangent-scale, was also 
invented by Cavalli. The results of his experiments were highly 
satisfactory. At Turin, in 1854, his thirty-pounder, with 8-pound 
charges, 64-pound shot, gave the following results: 

Lateral irregu- 

Elevation. Range. lar deflection. 
10° 2,806 metres 2.81 metres 
15° 3,785 metres 3.21 metres 
20° 4,511 metres 3.72 metres 
25° 5,103 metres 4.77 metres 

giving a range, at 25 degrees, of above three miles, with a lateral 
deflection from the line of aim (as corrected by the horizontal 

tangent-scale) of less than 16 feet! The largest French field 
howitzer, at a range of 2,400 metres, equal to 2,650 yards, gave 
lateral deflections averaging 47 metres, or 155 feet; ten times as 
large as those of the rifled gun at twice the range. 

Another system of rifled ordnance which created attention, a 
little after Cavalli’s first experiments, was that of the Swedish 
Baron Wahrendorff. His gun was also breech-loading, and his shot 
cylindro-conoidal. The difference, however, in the shot was this: 
while Cavalli’s shot was of hard metal, and had wings to fit in the 
grooves, Wahrendorff’s shot was covered with a thin layer of lead, 
and slightly larger in diameter than the bore of the rifled portion 
of the gun. After being introduced into the chamber, which was 
large enough to receive it, the shot was propelled by the explosion 
into the rifled bore, and the lead being pressed into the grooves 
effectually, did away with all windage, and prevented the escape of 
any portion of the gases formed by the explosion. The results 
obtained with these guns in Sweden and elsewhere were quite 
satisfactory, and if Cavalli’s guns were introduced into the 
armament of Genoa, those of Wahrendorff figure in the casemates 
of Waxholm in Sweden, Portsmouth in England, and in some 
Prussian fortresses. Thus, the introduction of rifled ordnance into 
practical use had begun, although only for fortresses. There 
remained only the one step to introduce them into field artillery, 
and this has been done in France and is now being done in all 
European artilleries. The various systems on which the rifling of 
field ordnance is now, or may be, profitably carried on, will form 
the subject of a second paper. 

II 

[New-York Daily Tribune, No. 5926, April 21, 1860] 

The French were, as we said in our preceding paper, the first to 
introduce rifled cannon into practical warfare. For five or six years 
past, two officers, Col. Tamisier and Lieut.-Col. (now Col.) 
Treuille de Beaulieu, had experimentalized on the subject by 
order of the Government, and the results arrived at were found 
satisfactory enough to warrant their being made the base of a 
reorganization of the French artillery immediately before the 
outbreak of the late Italian war. Without entering upon the history 
of the experiments, we will at once pass to a description of the 
system now adopted in the French artillery. 

In accordance with that desire for unity so characteristic of the 
French, they adopted one caliber only for field artillery (the old 
French four-pounder bore of 85'/. millimetres, or nearly 3'/, 
inches), and one for siege artillery (the old 12-pounder of 120 
millimetres, or 4°/, inches). All other guns, except mortars, are to 
be done away with. The material selected is generally the common 
gun-metal, but also cast-steel, in some cases. The guns are 
muzzle-loading, as the French experiments with breech-loaders 
gave no Satisfaction. There are six grooves in each gun, 5 
millimetres deep and 16mm. broad, of a rounded form; the pitch 
of the rifling appears to be but low, but there are no details 
known respecting it. The windage on the body of the shot is about 
‘fg to 1 mm.; that on the ailettes or warts which enter the grooves 
rather less than 1 mm. The shot is cylindro-ogival, and hollow, 
weighing about 12 pounds when filled; it has six ailettes, one for 
every groove, three standing near the point, and three near the 
base; they are very short—about 15 mm. long. The fuse-hole 
passes downward from the point, and is closed by a fuse or by a 
piston, with a percussion-cap for shot filled with powder, and by 
an iron screw, when the shot is not to explode; in this latter case it 
is filled with a mixture of sawdust and sand, so as to give it the 
same weight as when filled with powder. The length of bore of the 
gun is 1,385 mm., or 16 times its diameter; the weight of the brass 
gun is but 237 kilogrammes (518 pounds). To regulate the line of 
aim by the deviation (lateral deflection) of the shot in the direction 
of the pitch of the rifling—a deviation common to all projectiles 
launched from rifled barrels—the right trunnion carries what is 
called a horizontal tangent-scale. The gun, as well as its carriage, is 
reported to be of very elegant workmanship, and, from its small 
size and neatness, to look more like a model than a real engine of 
war. 

Armed with this gun, the French artillery entered upon the 
Italian campaign, where it indeed astonished the Austrians by its 
great range, but certainly not by its accuracy of fire. The guns 
very often, indeed generally, overshot the mark, and were more 
dangerous to reserves than to first lines—in other words, where 
they hit better than the common guns, they hit people at whom 
they were not aimed at all. This is certainly a very questionable 
advantage, as in nine cases out of ten it implies that the objects at 
which the guns were aimed were not hit. The Austrian artillery, 
with as clumsy a material as any in Europe, made a very decent 
appearance when opposed to them, and came up to close quarters 
(that 1s, 500 or 600 yards) with these formidable opponents, 

unlimbering under their most effective fire. There is no doubt 
that, great as the superiority of the new French guns is over their 
old smooth-bored ones, they did not perform anything like what 
was expected from them. Their extreme practicable range was 
4,000 metres (4,400 yards), and undoubtedly it was but an 
impudent Bonapartist exaggeration when it was said that they 
could easily hit a single horseman at 3,300 yards. 

The reasons for these unsatisfactory performances, in actual 
war, are very simple. The construction of these guns is utterly 
imperfect, and if the French adhere to it, in two or three years 
their artillery will possess the worst materiel in Europe. The first 
principle in rifled arms is that there must be no windage; otherwise 
the shot, loosely rolling about in the barrel and grooves, will not 
rotate round its own longitudinal axis, but rotate, in a spiral line 
of flight, round an imaginary line, the direction of which is 
determined by the accidental position of the shot when leaving the 
muzzle, and the spiral rounds will increase in diameter with the 
distance. Now, the French guns have considerable windage, and 
cannot do without it so long as the explosion of the charge is 
relied upon to light the fuse of the shell. This, then, is one 
circumstance which explains the want of accuracy. The second is 
the irregularity of the propelling force created by the greater or 
less escape of gas through windage during the explosion of the 
charge. The third is the greater elevation, with the same charge, 
necessitated through this windage; it stands to reason that where 
no gas at all can escape between shot and bore, the same charge 
propels further than where part of the gas escapes. Now, the 
French guns appear to require not only a very great charge for 
rifled guns (one-fifth of the weight of the shot), but also a pretty 
high elevation. The greater range obtained by rifled bores over 
smooth ones, even with smaller charges, is chiefly obtained by the 
absence of windage, and the certainty of having the whole 
explosive force of the charge applied to the expulsion of the shot. 
By admitting windage, the French sacrifice part of the propelling 
force, and have to replace it by increased charges to a limited 
degree, and by greater elevation beyond that. Now, there is 
nothing so contrary to accuracy at any distances as great elevation. 
So long as the line of flight of the shot does not, at its highest 
point, much exceed the hight of the object aimed at, so long a 
mistake in estimating the distance is of little importance; but at 
long range, the shot takes a very high flight, and comes down at 
an angle on an average twice as great as that under which it began 
its flight (this, of course, is confined to elevations up to about 15 

degrees). Thus, the higher the elevation the more the line in 
which the shot strikes the ground approaches the vertical; and an 
error in estimating the distance of not more than ten or twenty 
yards may preclude the possibility of hitting at all. At ranges 
beyond even 400 or 500 yards, such errors are unavoidable, and 
the consequence is the astonishing difference between the capital 
shooting on the practice-ground, with measured distances, and the 
execrable practice on the battle-field, where the distances are 
unknown, the objects moving, and the moments for reflection very 
short. Thus, with the new rifles, the chance of hitting beyond 
three hundred yards on the battle-field is very small, while under 
three hundred yards, from the low flight of the ball, it is very 
great; in consequence of which, the charge with the bayonet 
becomes the most effective means of dislodging an enemy, as soon 
as the attacking body has come up to that distance. Suppose one 
army to carry rifles which at 400 yards give no higher trajectory 
than the rifles of their opponents give at 300 yards, the former 
will have the advantage of beginning an effective fire at 100 yards 
greater distance, and as but three or four minutes are required to 
charge through 400 yards, this advantage is not a mean one in the 
decisive moment of a battle. It is similar with cannon. Sir Howard 
Douglas, ten years ago, declared* that gun far the best which gives 
the greatest range with the least elevation. With rifled cannon the 
importance of this point is still greater, as the chance of error in 
estimating distance increases with the longer range, and as the 
ricochets of any other than spherical shot cannot be relied upon. 
This is one of the disadvantages of rifled guns; they must hit with 
the first impact, if they are to hit at all, while round-shot, if it falls 
short, will rebound and continue its flight in very nearly its 
original direction. Here, then, a low trajectory is of the very 
highest importance, as every degree more of elevation reduces the 
chance of hitting with the first impact in an increasing ratio, and 
therefore the high line of flight produced by the French guns is 
one of their most serious defects. 

But the whole of the deficiencies of these guns are crowned and 
enhanced by one defect, which suffices to stamp the whole system. 
They are produced by the machinery and on the principles 
formerly serving for the manufacture of the old smooth-bored 
guns. With the very great windage of these old guns, and the 
varying weights and diameters of the shot, mathematical precision 

in the manufacture was but a secondary consideration. The 
manufacture of firearms, up to a very few years ago, was the most 
backward branch of modern industry. There was far too much 
hand labor and far too little machinery. For the old smooth-bore 
arms this might be allowable; but when arms were to be 
manufactured which were expected to have great precision at long 
distances, this system became intolerable. To insure the certainty 
that every musket should shoot perfectly alike at 600, 800, 1,000 
yards, and every cannon at 2,000, 4,000, 6,000 yards, it became 
necessary that every part of every operation should be performed 
by the most perfect and self-acting machinery, so as to turn out 
one weapon the mathematical counterpart of the other. Deviations 
from mathematical precision, inappreciable under the old system, 
now became defects rendering the whole weapon useless. The 
French have not improved their old machinery to any noticeable 
extent, and hence the irregularities in their firing. How can guns 
be made to give the same range at the same elevation, all other 
circumstances being alike, when none of them is identical with the 
other in every particular? But irregularities in manufacture which 
at 800 yards produce differences of a yard, at 4,000 will produce 
differences of a hundred yards in range. How, then, can such 
guns be expected to be true at long ranges? 

To recapitulate: the French rifled guns are bad, because they 
must have windage; because they require, comparatively, great 
elevations, and because their workmanship is not at all up to the 
requirements of rifled long-range guns. They must soon be 
superseded by different constructions, or they will reduce the 
French artillery practice to the worst in Europe. 

We have purposely examined these guns a little in detail, as they 
gave us, thereby, an opportunity of explaining the chief principles 
of rifled ordnance. In a concluding article we shall consider the 
two systems proposed, which in England are now contesting for 
superiority—systems both of which are founded upon loading by 
the breech, absence of windage, and perfect workmanship—the 
Armstrong system and that of Whitworth. 

III 
[New-York Daily Tribune, No. 5938, May 5, 1860] 
We now come to the description of the two kinds of 

breech-loading rifled cannon which at the present moment 
contend for superiority in England, and which, both invented by 

civilians, certainly surpass in efficiency anything hitherto produced 
by professional artillerists—the Armstrong gun and the Whit- 
worth gun. 

Sir William Armstrong’s gun had the advantage of priority, and 
of being praised by the whole press? and official world of 
England. It is, undoubtedly, a highly effective machine of war, 
and far superior to the French rifled gun; but whether it can beat 
Whitworth’s gun may well be doubted. 

Sir Wm. Armstrong constructs his gun by wrapping, round a 
tube of cast steel, two layers of wrought-iron tubes in a spiral 
form, the upper layer laid on in the opposite direction to the 
lower one, in the same way as gun-barrels are made from layers of 
wire. This system gives a very strong and tough material, though a 
very expensive one. The bore is rifled with numerous narrow 
grooves, one close to the other, and having one turn in the length 
of the gun. The oblong—cylindro-ogival—shot is of cast iron, 
but covered with a mantle of lead, which gives it a diameter 
somewhat larger than the bore; this shot, along with the charge, is 
introduced by the breech into a chamber wide enough to receive 
it; the explosion propels the shot into the narrow bore, where the 
soft lead is pressed into the grooves, and thus does away with all 
windage while giving the projectile the spiral rotation indicated by 
the pitch of the grooves. This mode of pressing the shot into the 
grooves, and the coating of soft material required for it, are the 
characteristic features of Armstrong’s system; and if the reader 
will refer to the principles of rifled ordnance, as developed in our 
preceding articles, he will agree that, in principle, Armstrong is 
decidedly in the right. The shot being larger in diameter than the 
bore, the gun is necessarily breech-loading, which, to us, also 
seems a necessary feature in all rifled ordnance. The breech- 
loading apparatus itself, however, has nothing whatever to do with 
the principle of any particular system of rifling, but may be 
transferred from one to the other; we leave it, therefore, entirely 
out of our consideration. 

The range and precision attained with this new gun are 
something wonderful. The shot was thrown to some 8,500 yards, 
or nearly five miles, and the certainty with which the target was hit 
at 2,000 or 3,000 yards much exceeded what the old, smooth-bore 
guns could show at one-third of these distances. Still, with all the 
puffing of the English press, the scientifically interesting details of 

February 17 and 20, and April 4, 1860.— Ed. 

all these experiments were studiously kept secret. It was never 
stated with what elevation and charge these ranges were obtained; 
the weight of the shot and that of the gun itself, the exact lateral 
and longitudinal deviations, &c., were never particularized. Now, 
at last, when the Whitworth gun has made its appearance, we 
learn some details of one set of experiments at least. Mr. Sidney 
Herbert, Secretary of War, has stated in Parliament* that a 
12-pounder gun of 8 cwt., with 1 lb. 8 oz. of powder, gave a range 
of 2,460 yards, at 7 degrees elevation, with an extreme lateral 
deviation of three, and an extreme longitudinal deviation of 65 
yards. At eight degrees elevation, the range was 2,797 yards; at 
nine, above 3,000 yards; the deviations remaining nearly the same. 
Now, an elevation of seven to nine degrees is a thing unknown in 
the practice of smooth-bore field artillery. The official tables, for 
instance, do not go beyond four degrees elevation, at which the 
12-pounder and 9-pounder give a range of 1,400 yards. Any 
higher elevation in field guns would be useless, from giving too 
high a line of flight, and thereby immensely reducing the chance 
of hitting the mark. But we have some experiments (quoted in Sir 
Howard Douglas’s Naval Gunnery) with heavy ship guns of smooth 
bore at higher elevations. The English long 32-pounder at Deal, in 
1839, gave ranges, at 7 degrees, of 2,231 to 2,318; at 9 degrees, 
from 2,498 to 2,682 yards.° The French 36-pounder, in 1846 and 
"47, gave ranges, at 7 degrees, of 2,270; at 9 degrees, of 2,636 
yards.‘ This shows that, at equal elevations, the ranges of rifled 
guns are not so very superior to those of smooth-bore cannon. 

The Whitworth gun, in almost every respect, is the opposite of 
the Armstrong gun. Its bore is not circular, but hexagonal; the 
pitch of its rifling is very near twice as high as that of the 
Armstrong gun; the shot is of a very hard material, without any 
coating of lead; and, if it is breech-loading, it is not necessarily so, 
but merely as a matter of convenience and of fashion. This gun is 
of a recently-patented material, called “homogeneous iron,” of 
great strength, elasticity, and toughness; the shot is a mathemati- 
cally exact fit to the bore, and cannot, therefore, be introduced 
without the bore being lubricated. This is done by a composition 
of wax and grease being inserted between charge and shot, which 
at the same time tends to decrease whatever windage there may be 

a In his speech in the House of Commons on February 17, 1860 (see The 
Times, No. 23546, February 18, 1860.— Ed. 

left. The material of the gun is so tough that it will easily stand 
3,000 rounds without any damage to the bore. 

The Whitworth gun was brought before the public in February 
last, when a series of experiments were made with it at Southport, 
on the Lancashire coast. There were three guns—a 3-pounder, 
12-pounder, and 80-pounder; from the long reports* we select the 
12-pounder as an illustration. This gun was 7 feet 9 inches long, 
and weighed 8 cwt. The common 12-pounder, for round shot, is 6 
feet 6 inches long, and weighs 18 cwt. The ranges obtained with 
Whitworth’s gun were as follows: At 2 degrees elevation (where 
the old 12-pounder gives 1,000 yards), with a charge of 1°/, lb., 
the range varied from 1,208 to 1,281 yards. At 5 degrees (where 
the old 32-pounder gives 1,940 yards), it ranged from 2,298 to 
2,342 yards. At 10 degrees (range of old 32-pounder, 2,800 
yards), it averaged 4,000 yards. For higher elevations a 3-pounder 
gun was used, with 8 oz. charge; with 20 degrees, it ranged from 
6,300 to 6,800, with 33 and 35 degrees, 9,400 to 9,700 yards. The 
old 56-pounder, of smooth bore, gives, at 20 degrees, a range of 
4,381 yards, at 32 degrees, of 5,680 yards. The precision obtained 
by the Whitworth gun was very satisfactory, and at least as good as 
that of the Armstrong gun in lateral deflection; as to longitudinal 
variations, the experiments do not admit of a satisfactory 
conclusion. 

Iv? 
[New-York Daily Tribune, No. 5950, May 19, 1860] 

The Whitworth gun is constructed upon the principle of 
reducing windage to the utmost minimum, by a mathematical fit 
of the shot to the bore, and doing away with what little may 
remain by the effect of the lubricating composition. In this respect 
it is inferior to Armstrong’s gun, which has no windage at all; and 
this we consider its principal defect. The polygonal bore, however, 
would be impossible without this defect, and at all events it 
deserves to be acknowledged that with such an originally defective 
system, such great results have been obtained. Whitworth has 
undoubtedly brought to its highest perfection the system which 

No. 23547, February 20, 1860.— Ed. 

gives hard, unyielding shot and allows windage. His gun is 
immensely superior to the rough empiricism of the French rifled 
ordnance. But while Armstrong’s gun, and other guns depending 
on soft-coated shot to be forced into the grooves by pressure, may 
be perfected ad infinitum, Whitworth’s gun will have no such 
future; it has already attained the highest perfection compatible 
with its fundamental principles. 

To recapitulate: 

We find that at the practicable elevation of field-artillery, the best 
rifled guns known give a range but very little superior to the old 
smooth-bored gun. There is, however, some advantage, and this 
remains an item in their favor. But the great advantages of rifled 
ordnance for field-artillery are these: 

1. The same weight of shot can be projected by a gun having a 
much smaller bore, and with a much smaller charge than with the 
old smooth-bored gun, which was only fit for spherical shot. 
Consequently, the weight of the gun is considerably reduced. The 
old 12-pounder had a bore of about 4'/, inches, and weighed 18 
cwt.; its charge was four pounds of powder. The new 12-pounder 
has a bore of about 31'/5 inches, or nearly that of the old 
9-pounder; its weight, 8 cwt.; charge, from 1'/, to 1°/, pounds. 
The French new 12-pounders, with the old 4-pounder’s bore, are 
still hghter. This is an immense advantage. It gives to the field-gun 
a mobility hitherto unknown, and renders it almost as fit to go 
over any ground as infantry. More than four horses to a gun will 
henceforth be useless. 

2. At the distances hitherto practicable for field-artillery, it gives 
a far greater chance of hitting; it lowers the trajectory, and 
reduces to a minimum both lateral and longitudinal deflections. At 
an exchange of round shot and shells with percussion fuses, a 
rifled battery will always beat a smooth-bored one of equal weight 
of shot. 

As to heavy ordnance, it will be all-powerful against stone walls, 
especially by shell-practice with percussion fuses. This has already 
been proved by experiment, both in France and Germany. It will 
give ships and siege batteries a chance of bombarding towns at 
distances from 4,000 to 9,000 yards. In every other respect it will 
not alter materially the hitherto existing relations of besiegers and 
besieged, and of ships against batteries on shore. 

On the other hand, the disadvantages of rifled ordnance are: 

1. The common case-shot becomes either impossible or ineffec- 
tive from the irregular line of flight imparted to the balls by the 
spiral rotation. 

2. Firing with shell with time-fuses (and shrapnel shot with 
ditto) becomes almost impracticable, as the absence or reduction of 
windage prevents the flame of the explosion from communicating 
with the fuse which necessarily must be at the point of the oblong 
shot. 

In spite of these drawbacks, rifled ordnance has now become a 
matter of necessity for every army. The question now is only, how 
these drawbacks can be obviated. That they will be so there can be 
no doubt. But it is certain that the same rules obtain in rifled 
ordnance which regulate the construction and use of rifled small 
arms. The exaggerated ideas of five-mile ranges in the one are as 
ridiculous as the notion of hitting a man with the new rifles at 800 
or 1,000 yards; and still the advantages given by rifled bores in 
either case, are so great that it is imperative upon every army 
which may ever be called upon to fight with civilized foes, to do 
away with all smooth-bored barrels, both in small arms and 
artillery.