Frederick Engels

The History of the Rifle

I in No. 9, 3 November 1860  
II in No. 11, 17 November 1860  
III in No. 14, 8 December 1860  
IV in No. 15, 15 December 1860  
V in No. 17, 29 December 1860  
VI in No. 18, 5 January 1861  
VII in No. 19, 12 January 1861  
VIII in No. 20, 19 January 1861

I

The rifle is a German invention, made towards the end of the 15th century. The first rifles were evidently manufactured only for the purpose of facilitating the loading of a weapon with a bullet that fitted almost exactly. Hence the grooves were straight, without any spiral twist, and they served merely to reduce the friction of the bullet in the barrel. The bullet itself was wrapped in a greased piece of woollen or linen cloth (the patch) and thus rammed down without great difficulty. These rifles, primitive as they were, must have achieved far better results than the smoothbore guns of that time, whose bullets had a considerably smaller diameter than the calibre.

Later, the character of the weapon was completely changed by the spiral twist given to the grooves, which converted the bore of the barrel into a sort of screw nut. The bullet, which because of the tightly fitting patch had to follow the grooves and thus also the screw twist, retained a spiral rotation throughout its entire trajectory. It was soon found that this method of setting the bullet in rotation enormously increased the range and accuracy of the weapon, and thus the spiral grooves very quickly displaced the straight ones.

This was the model of the rifle that was in general use for more than 200 years. Apart from set triggers and more carefully made sights, it was hardly improved up to 1828. This rifle was far superior to the smoothbore musket in accuracy, but not so much in range; beyond 300 to 500 yards it could not be relied upon. At the same time, it was comparatively difficult to load; ramming down the projectile was a very lengthy operation; the powder and the bullet wrapped in the patch had each to be put into the barrel separately, and one could not fire more than one shot a minute. These drawbacks rendered the rifle unsuitable for the greater part of the army, especially in a period, such as the 18th century, when all battles were decided by the rapid fire of deployed lines. With this tactic, the old smoothbore musket, with all its manifest shortcomings, was still a weapon that was by far to be preferred. Thus we find that the rifle remained the favoured weapon for the stalker and chamois hunter, and that only exceptionally were a few sharpshooter battalions equipped with this weapon, and only in those armies that could recruit such battalions from a sufficient number of practised hunters among the population.

The wars of the American and French Revolutions brought about a great change in tactics. Since that time, open order has been employed in every engagement. The use of skirmishers in conjunction with lines or columns became the true characteristic of modern combat. The main bodies are kept back for the greater part of the day; they stand in reserve or are manoeuvred so as to concentrate them on the enemy's weak point. They are brought into action only at decisive moments; during this time, however, the skirmishers and their immediate supports are constantly engaged. The greater part of the ammunition is expended by them, and the targets at which they fire are rarely larger than the front of a company. In most cases they have to fire at individual opponents who are well covered by protective objects. The effect of their fire is, however, of the greatest importance, because every attack is thereby prepared, and every enemy attack is first met by it. The skirmishers are expected both to weaken the power of resistance of the detachments holding farmhouses or villages, and to take the edge off the attack of an advancing line. With the old Brown Bess none of these tasks could be effectively carried out. Whoever has ever stood under the fire of skirmishers armed with smoothbore muskets can only have felt the utmost contempt for their effect at medium ranges. But the old model of the rifle, too, was not suitable for the majority of skirmishers. To facilitate the ramming down of the bullet, it had to be short, so short that it was only a scanty grip for a bayonet. Skirmishers were therefore employed only in such positions as were safe from a bayonet or cavalry attack.

Under these circumstances the following urgent task arose: to invent a firearm which combines the range and accuracy of the rifle with the rapidity and ease of loading and with the length of barrel of the smoothbore musket—a weapon, therefore, which is at once a rifle and a close-combat arm that can be placed in the hands of every infantryman.

Thus we see that it was precisely through the introduction of fighting in open order into modern tactics that the demand for such an improved weapon of war arose. Whenever in the 19th century the need for a thing arises and this need is justified by the given circumstances, it is certain to be satisfied. In this case it did. Almost all the improvements made in hand firearms since 1828 have served this purpose.

Before we attempt, however, to give a survey of the improvements which have brought about such great and numerous changes in rifled firearms by abandoning the old system of ramming the bullet down the barrel, let us be permitted to take a glance at the attempts to improve the rifle while still adhering to the old method of loading.

The rifle with the oval bore, known in England as the Lancaster rifle, had been in use on the Continent for more than 40 years. It is mentioned in a German military work printed in 1818. Colonel Berner of Brunswick improved it and had the whole infantry of that duchy armed with it in 1832. The bore was only slightly oval, and the oval bullet was rammed down in the old way. This oval projectile, however, was only to be used when skirmishing. For volley firing, the soldiers were supplied with round bullets of smaller calibre, which rolled down the barrel as easily as any musket ball. However, the shortcomings of this system are obvious. It is noteworthy only because it was the first attempt to arm the entire infantry of an army with rifles.

In Switzerland a civil engineer and rifle officer, M. Wild, considerably improved the rifle. His bullet was smaller in proportion to the calibre than usual and so shaped that it could only pass the grooves by means of the patch; a disc on the ramrod prevented it from penetrating too deeply into the barrel and thereby ramming the bullet so close to the charge that the powder was crushed. The twist of the grooves was reduced and the charge increased. Wild's rifle achieved—at a range of over 500 yards and with a very flat trajectory—very good results; besides, it made it possible to fire more than 100 rounds without fouling. It was adopted in Switzerland, Württemberg and Baden; but now it is, of course, antiquated and superseded.

The most modern and best rifle constructed on the pressure principle is the new Swiss sharpshooter's regulation rifle. For this weapon the American principle of a very small calibre has been adopted. The calibre is no more than 10.5 mm or 0.42 inch. The barrel is only 28 inches long and has eight shallow grooves (one turn in thirty-four inches). The ramrod is fitted with the disc introduced by Wild. The projectile is cylindro-ogival and very long. It is rammed down with the aid of a greased patch. The charge is comparatively strong and consists of a very coarse-grained powder. This weapon has shown the most astonishing results, and in the trials with various rifles recently carried out by the Dutch Government, it was found that none equalled it in range, accuracy and flatness of trajectory. In fact, at a range of 600 yards the highest point of the trajectory is only eight feet six inches, so that at this distance the whole trajectory of the projectile is dangerous for cavalry, and the last 100 yards of the trajectory even for infantry. In other words, an error of 100 yards in estimating the distance of 600 yards would not prevent the bullet from hitting an object six feet high. This is a result by which every other rifle is far surpassed; the very best of them require an elevation which raises the highest points of the trajectory at 600 yards to 13 to 20 feet, and reduces the dangerous space from 60 to as little as 25 yards. This extraordinarily flat trajectory is produced by the small calibre of the weapon, which permits a strongly elongated, bolt-shaped projectile and a comparatively strong charge. With a small calibre, the rifle can be very strong without becoming clumsy, the projectile can be long without becoming heavy, and the charge can be comparatively strong without producing too great a recoil. It is certain that the stronger charge has nothing to do with the excellent shooting results of the rifle. In fact, it is the only drawback of this weapon and prevents it from being used generally for the infantry. The Swiss have therefore confined it to their sharpshooter companies, in whose hands it will undoubtedly yield extraordinarily good results.

In the next article we shall show how the rifle was developed into a weapon fit to be placed in the hands of every infantryman.

II

Delvigne, a French officer, was the first who attempted to develop the rifle into a weapon suitable for the entire infantry. He recognised that for this purpose the bullet must slide into the barrel as easily, or almost as easily, as that of a smoothbore gun, and must be so constituted that it subsequently changes its form in order to enter the grooves.

To achieve this, as early as 1828 he constructed a rifle with a chamber in the breech plug. That is to say, the rearmost end of the barrel interior at the breech plug, where the powder lies, was given a considerably smaller diameter than the rest of the barrel. This chamber was adopted from howitzers and mortars, which had always been built that way. However, while in the artillery it merely served to keep the small charges intended for mortars and howitzers well together, in Delvigne’s rifle it fulfilled an essentially different purpose. After the powder had been poured into the chamber, the ball, which was smaller than the calibre, was rolled down. When it then reached the edge of the chamber, it could go no further and stuck fast. A few vigorous blows with the ramrod sufficed, however, to press the soft lead of the ball into the rifling and so to increase its diameter that it sat tight in the barrel.

The greatest drawback of this system was that the ball lost its round form and became somewhat flattened. As a result, it tended to lose the lateral rotation imparted by the rifling, which considerably impaired accuracy. To remedy this, Delvigne invented the elongated projectile (cylindrical), and although the experiments with this type of projectile in France were at first not very successful, they had very good results in Belgium, Austria and Sardinia, where Delvigne’s rifle, with various improvements, was issued to the chasseur battalions in place of the old rifle. Although Delvigne’s rifle is at present almost everywhere superseded, his improvements embrace the two important principles from which all subsequent inventors had to set out: firstly, that in muzzle-loaders the projectile must slide with a certain amount of play, to allow easy loading, and that, in order to take the rifling, it must be firmly rammed home and must thereby change its external form; secondly, that elongated projectiles are the only ones suited to modern rifles. Delvigne at once placed the question on its correct foundation and fully deserves the name: father of the modern rifle.

The elongated projectile offers numerous advantages over round balls, so long as the lateral rotation (about the longitudinal axis) is preserved for it, which is achieved satisfactorily by almost every modern rifled rifle. In proportion to its weight, the elongated projectile exposes a much smaller part to the resistance of the atmosphere than the round ball. Its point can be so shaped as to reduce this resistance to a minimum. Like a bolt or an arrow, it is to a certain extent supported by the air beneath it. Consequently, it loses its initial velocity through air resistance far less, and will accordingly reach a given distance with a much lower trajectory (that means, with a trajectory that is far more dangerous to the enemy) than any round projectile of the same diameter.

A further advantage is that the elongated projectile offers a decidedly larger surface for contact with the wall of the barrel than the round projectile. Thereby the former can take the rifling far better, and therefore permits both a shortened pitch and a lesser depth of rifling. Both circumstances facilitate the cleaning of the weapon and at the same time allow the use of full charges without increasing the recoil of the rifle.

And finally, since the weight of the elongated projectile is so much greater than that of the round ball, it follows that the calibre, that is the diameter of the bore of the rifle, can be considerably reduced, and yet it is still possible to fire a projectile of the same weight as the old round ball. If, therefore, the weight of the old, smooth-bore musket and that of its ball are taken as the normal weight, then in proportion to the old musket a rifled rifle of equal weight for elongated projectiles can be strengthened to the degree that the calibre is reduced, and it will then still not exceed the weight of the old musket. As the rifle is stronger, it withstands the charge all the better; it has less recoil, and consequently the smaller calibre permits relatively stronger charges, by which a greater initial velocity and a correspondingly lower trajectory are ensured.

The next improvement was made by another French officer, Colonel Thouvenin. He clearly recognised the drawback that arises from the projectile being held, when upset into the rifling, by a circular ridge surrounding the edge of the projectile. He therefore removed the edges of the chamber by, as earlier, boring out the entire barrel uniformly with a single diameter. In the centre of the breech plug, which closes the barrel, he fixed a short, strong iron pin or mandrel which projected into the barrel and around which the powder was to fall. By the flattened tip of this mandrel the projectile was to be supported while the ramrod upset it into the rifling. The advantages of this system were considerable. The expansion of the projectile by the blows of the ramrod was far more regular than in Delvigne’s rifle. The weapon allowed a greater amount of play, which facilitated loading. The results obtained with it were so satisfactory that before 1846 the French chasseurs à pied were armed with Thouvenin rifles. The Zouaves and the other light African infantry followed, and when it turned out that the old smooth-bore muskets could, at little cost, be turned into Thouvenin rifles, all the carbines of the French foot artillery were altered accordingly. The Prussian riflemen were armed with the Thouvenin rifle in 1847, the Bavarians in 1848, and most of the smaller states of Northern Germany followed this example. In some cases even parts of the line were equipped with this excellent weapon. In all these rifles, despite all variations of calibre, etc., a certain approximation to a uniform system is visible. The number of rifling grooves is reduced (mostly to four), and the twist usually amounts to three-quarters to one full turn in the whole length of the barrel.

The Thouvenin rifle, however, also had its drawbacks. The force required to press the lead of the projectile into the rifling with repeated blows was incompatible with the length of barrel which the ordinary rifle of the line infantry must always have as an effective handle for a bayonet. Moreover, it was very difficult for the riflemen to apply this force in a crawling or kneeling posture. The resistance that the projectile, driven into the rifling right in front of the powder, opposes to the explosive force increases the recoil and thereby restricts the rifle to a comparatively small charge. Finally, the mandrel always remains an obnoxious complication of the weapon; it makes cleaning directly around it very difficult and is prone to defects.

The principle of compressing the projectile by the blows of the ramrod produced, with Delvigne’s system, under the circumstances of that time very satisfactory results, and still better ones with Thouvenin’s system. Nevertheless, the rifled rifle could not assert its superiority over the old smooth-bore musket as a general weapon for the infantry. Before a rifled rifle suitable for every soldier could be produced, recourse had to be had to other principles. Of these we shall speak in one of the next numbers.

III

Delvigne, whose rifled rifle we described in the preceding article, found it advisable to hollow out his elongated projectiles at the base, in order to reduce their weight to about that of the old round ball. Although he very soon discovered that this hollow projectile was incompatible with the system of expanding the projectile by mechanical blows, his experiments sufficed to prove to him that the gas developed by the ignition penetrates into the cavity of the projectile and has a tendency to expand the walls of this cavity. In this way the projectile is made to fit exactly into the barrel and thus to take the rifling.

This discovery was taken up in 1849 by the then Captain Minié. He definitively did away with the pin or support at the breech end and restored to the rifle the simplicity which it had had before Delvigne and Thouvenin. In doing so, he relied exclusively on the expanding effect of the ignition on the cavity of his projectile. This projectile was cylindro-ogival with two annular grooves around the cylindrical part
(1)
and hollowed out conically from the base. A cup-shaped iron cap (culot) sealed the cavity and was driven into it by the force of the ignition, whereby the lead was effectively expanded. The projectile had sufficient play

to pass easily down the barrel, even when wrapped in the greased paper cartridge.

Thus here we have at last a rifled rifle and a projectile developed according to such principles as make it possible to place this weapon in the hands of every foot soldier. The new weapon loads just as easily as the smooth-bore musket and has an effect far superior to that of the old rifle, which it equals in accuracy but far surpasses in range. The rifle with the expanding bullet is unquestionably among all muzzle-loaders the best weapon both for general use and for sharpshooters, and precisely to this circumstance it owes its great success, its adoption into so many armies and also the many attempts to improve the form of the projectile or the rifling of the rifle. The Minié bullet need be only a little heavier than the old round ball of the same calibre, since it is hollowed out. As the projectile lies loose on the powder and, while passing down the barrel, expands only gradually, the recoil is far less than with the old rifle or also with the Delvigne or Thouvenin rifles, in which the projectile is firmly rammed into the barrel and is released only by the full force of the ignition. Therefore a relatively strong charge can be used with the Minié rifle. The rifling must be very shallow, which facilitates cleaning the barrel. The length of the axis for one full turn of the rifling must be fairly large, by which the number of rotations of the projectile and hence the air friction (which occurs with every rotation) is diminished, and thus the initial velocity is better preserved. The hollow base end of the projectile also shifts its centre of gravity further forward, and all these circumstances combined yield a comparatively low trajectory.

The general adoption of the Minié rifle was, however, also to be ascribed to another cause: namely, that by a very simple procedure all old, smooth-bore muskets could be altered into rifled rifles usable for Minié projectiles. When the Crimean War made it desirable to arm the entire infantry in Prussia immediately with rifled rifles, and the requisite quantity of needle-guns had not been manufactured, 300,000 old muskets were provided with rifling and made fit for Minié ammunition in less than a year.

The French government was the first to arm a few battalions with Minié rifles. The rifling was, however, progressive, that is, it was deeper at the breech plug than at the muzzle, so that the

Lead which had got into the grooves at the breech screw, for instance, was compressed again during its passage through the barrel by the shallower grooves, while at the same time the expansive force of the powder gases continued to act. Thereby such a degree of friction was produced that the solid part of the bullet was very often torn off and flung out of the barrel, while the hollow base remained firmly in the grooves. This defect and other shortcomings prompted the government to abandon all further efforts to introduce the Minié rifle.

Already in 1851, 28,000 such rifles were manufactured in England, similar to those tried out in France. The bullet was slightly conical with an ogival point, a round hollow cone, and without incisions, since it was intended to press the bullets. The results were very unsatisfactory – chiefly on account of the shape of the bullet – until new experiments were made in 1852, from which the Enfield rifle and its bullets finally emerged, to which we shall return later. The Enfield rifle is only a variant of the Minié rifle. Since 1854 it has definitively driven all smooth-bore muskets out of the British army.

In Belgium, the Minié rifle was adopted with slight modifications for the riflemen in 1854 and, more recently, for the line infantry as well.

In Spain the riflemen received the Minié rifle in 1853, and at about the same time the line infantry was also equipped with it.

In Prussia the Minié rifle was temporarily issued to the line infantry in 1855/56, as mentioned above. It has since been completely supplanted by the needle-gun.

In the smaller German states, with very few exceptions, the Minié rifle was likewise adopted.

The Prélat rifle, intended in Switzerland for arming the entire infantry with the exception of the sharpshooters, is only a modification of the Minié rifle.

And finally in Russia, the government is just now engaged in replacing the old smooth-bore muskets with Minié rifles of a very good model.

In almost every one of these countries, the number, depth, and rate of twist of the rifling grooves, as well as the shape of the bullet, were subjected to various minor modifications. A description of the most important of them will be the subject of our next article.

IV

Let us recapitulate once more the principle of the Minié rifle: A rifled gun with shallow grooves is loaded with an elongated bullet which is just so much smaller in diameter than the calibre that it slides down easily. This bullet is hollowed out from the base, that is, from the end that rests on the powder. On firing, the gas developed by the ignition penetrates into this cavity and, by its pressure on the comparatively thin walls, expands the lead so that it fits the bore and can enter the grooves. The bullet must necessarily follow the twist of these grooves and retain the lateral rotation characteristic of all rifle bullets. That is the principle, the foundation, common to all the various rifles which fire expanding bullets. In its execution, however, various inventors introduced a host of modifications.

Minié himself used the cup. This cup was a small round, cup-shaped piece of iron sheet, driven into the mouth of the bullet’s cavity. It was intended to be driven deeper into the hollow by the powder gases and thus to assist and reliably ensure the expansion of the bullet. However, it soon turned out that this cup-shaped piece had great disadvantages. On leaving the muzzle it frequently detached itself from the bullet and, on its irregular trajectory, wounded soldiers belonging to the firing party who stood somewhat further forward to the side. Sometimes the cup twisted while it was being driven into the lead and thus caused an irregular expansion, whereby the bullet deviated from the line of sight. Since it had been proved that the expansion of the bullet could be achieved even without the cup, experiments were undertaken to ascertain the best form of an expanding bullet without a cup. Prussian Captain Neindorff seems to have been the first to propose such a bullet (1852). The cavity of this bullet is cylindrical, but widened towards the base in the shape of a funnel. This bullet obtained very good results in range and precision, but it soon turned out that, besides assisting expansion, the cup served another purpose. It protected the thin sides of the hollow bullet from being pressed in during transport and rough handling. Neindorff’s bullets, on the contrary, were deformed during transport and then produced very poor results. Hence, in most German armies, the hollow iron cup was retained. It was given, however, a long, pointed shape resembling a sugar-loaf, and then sufficiently fulfilled expectations; it never turned over and hardly ever detached itself from the lead bullet. The Enfield bullet, as is well known, has a solid wooden plug.

In some states, however, experiments with capless bullets were continued and such bullets adopted in the army, as in Belgium, France, Switzerland, and Bavaria. The chief aim of all these trials was to give the cavity of the bullet a shape which would protect it from compression, while still permitting its expansion. This cavity was therefore shaped like a bell (Timmerhans in Belgium), like a three-sided prism (Nessler in France), with a cross-shaped sub-division (Plönnies in Darmstadt), etc. But it seems almost impossible to unite these two elements – strength and expansibility – in any kind of expanding bullet without a cup. Up to now, the new Bavarian bullet (Major Podewils), which has a very shallow cylindrical cavity with very thick side walls, seems to meet the requirements best.

In the countries where old smooth-bore muskets received rifling grooves for Minié bullets, the large calibre of the old musket naturally became obligatory. But where entirely new rifles had been introduced for the army, the calibre was considerably reduced for reasons we dealt with in an earlier article. The English Enfield rifle has a calibre of 14.68 millimetres, the South German rifle (adopted in Württemberg, Bavaria, Baden, and Hesse-Darmstadt) 13.9 mm. Only the French retained, for the rifles of their Guard, the calibre of their smooth-bore muskets (17.80 mm).

The Enfield rifle is a very good example of the expanding system. Its calibre is small enough to allow a bullet of twice the length of the diameter, and yet no heavier than the old round musket ball. It is very well finished and superior to almost all the rifles with which the troops on the European continent are equipped. The bullet has very good proportions. The objection raised against the wooden plug is that it could either swell and thereby increase the diameter of the bullet, or shrink and then fall out; yet we consider these objections idle. If the swelling of the plug brought inconveniences with it, this would long since have been discovered, and in the event of shrinking, the shape of the cartridge prevents it from falling out. The successes achieved with the Enfield rifle place it on a level with the best European expanding rifles.

The objections to the Enfield rifle as a rifle for expanding bullets are as follows: that the calibre ought to be still smaller, which would yield both a longer bullet and a stronger barrel at the same weight; that five grooves have proved better than three; that the barrel of the long Enfield rifle is at least at the muzzle too delicate to serve as a handle for a bayonet; that the bullet has to withstand tremendous friction in the barrel because it has no ring-shaped incisions, and thereby runs the risk that the solid part is torn off while the ring-shaped hollow part sticks fast in the grooves.

To alter the calibre is a very important matter, and it will be very difficult to give greater strength to the muzzle end of the barrel without such an alteration. That seems to us the most serious objection. All other objections to it are unimportant; the number of grooves and the shape of the bullet can at any time be altered without difficulty. But even in its present condition, the Enfield rifle has proved a very serviceable weapon of war.

We have so far compared the Enfield rifle only with such rifles as use expanding bullets. We must reserve for a later occasion the comparison with rifles based on other principles, when we have examined the various other constructions now in use.

V

In the year 1852, an English gunmaker, Mr. Wilkinson, and an Austrian artillery officer, Captain Lorenz, simultaneously but independently of each other, invented a new method of enlarging the diameter of a loosely fitting elongated bullet by the force of the ignition, so that it sat fast in the barrel and followed the rifling. This method consisted in compressing the bullet lengthwise by the ignition, instead of expanding it.

Take a soft or elastic ball, place it on a table, and let it fly up by a slight blow of our hand. The first effect of the blow, even before it moves the ball, will be a change in the form of the ball. Light as it is, the pressure of the ball yet offers sufficient resistance to be flattened on the side on which it receives the blow. It is compressed in one direction, and must accordingly expand in another, just as it expands when we flatten it completely. As the blow acts on the elastic ball, so must the ignition of the powder act on the compression bullet of Lorenz and Wilkinson. The weight, the vis inertiae (force of inertia) of the bullet becomes the means, by its resistance to the explosive force, of compressing the bullet in length and thereby strengthening it laterally. The bullet leaving the barrel is shorter and thicker than the one previously placed in the barrel.

To offer sufficient resistance—the prerequisite for being compressed enough to be able to take the rifling—an elongated bullet of solid lead would have to be very heavy, in other words very long in proportion to its thickness. Even with a small calibre, such a bullet would be too heavy for war; the men would be overloaded with ammunition if they carried the usual number of bullets. To remedy this, two very deep annular grooves are cut in the cylindrical part of the bullet. Take an Enfield bullet, remove the plug, fill the cavity with molten lead, and when it has cooled, cut these two grooves close together at the blunt end of the cylindrical part of the bullet, so that the three existing parts of the bullet remain connected, as it were, by a common solid lead axis. The bullet will then consist of two very flat, truncated, forward-facing cones and of the heavy, solid point, all parts firmly joined together. This bullet acts as a compression bullet. The resistance to ignition is supplied by the heavy fore-part, by the point of the bullet. The head of the rear cone is driven by the force of the powder gases into the base of the cone in front of it, just as the latter’s head is driven into the rear end of the point. In this way, the shortened bullet, compressed in its length, increases so much in circumference that it fits tightly against the whole interior of the barrel and takes the rifling.

It is clear from this that the solid point is the principal part of the compression bullet. The longer and heavier the bullet is, the more resistance it offers and the more certain, accordingly, is the compression effect of the ignition. As long as the rifle has a small calibre, or better, smaller than the Enfield, it will be possible to use compression bullets that are no heavier than expansion bullets. With the calibre, however, the surface of the base of the bullet increases, in other words the surface that is exposed to the immediate action of the powder. This is the reason why compression bullets would always be too heavy for large calibres to be used at all. Otherwise the force of the ignition, overcoming the resistance of the bullet, would throw it out of the barrel before it has been properly compressed. For this reason, large-calibre, smooth-bore muskets can be converted into rifles for expansion bullets, but never for compression bullets.

With small calibres and shallow rifling, the compression system yields excellent results. The forward position of the centre of gravity greatly favours a flat trajectory. The compression bullet has all the advantages of the expansion system, as regards lightness and speed of loading and the trifling recoil. The bullet is solid and withstands transport and rough handling tolerably well. Its form allows the bullet to be swaged instead of cast. The only drawback is that the compression system requires a very small windage of not more than 0.01 inch, and great uniformity of the calibre of the barrel and of the bullets, since compression obviously increases the surface of the bullet nowhere near so much as expansion, and it is therefore very doubtful, with a larger windage or with old barrels, whether the bullet is sufficiently compressed to take the rifling. Yet this small windage is no significant objection, since many rifles with expansion bullets have no larger windage (the Enfield, for example, also has only 0.01 inch), and today it is not difficult to manufacture both barrels and bullets with very precise and uniform measurements.

The Austrian army has adopted the compression bullet for the whole of the infantry. The calibre is small, 13.9 mm or 0.546 inch (0.031 less than the Enfield rifle). The barrel has four very shallow grooves (an even number of grooves, although decidedly to be rejected for expansion rifles, has proved to be better for compression rifles than an odd number) with one turn in about six feet six inches (almost the same as in the Enfield rifle). The bullet weighs about 480 grains (50 grains less than the Enfield), and the charge is 1/6 of the bullet weight (in the Enfield rifle about 1/8). This weapon proved itself in the Italian campaign of 1859, and the great number of French soldiers, especially officers, whom it struck down testifies to its excellent quality. The rifle has a considerably lower trajectory than the Enfield rifle, which is to be attributed to its proportionally stronger charge, to the smaller calibre, which allows a longer bullet, and perhaps to the effect of the two annular grooves.

Saxony, Hanover, and one or two small German states have likewise adopted, for their light infantry, rifled muskets from which compression bullets constructed on Lorenz’s principle are fired.

In Switzerland, besides the sharpshooter rifle already mentioned, a rifle of the same calibre (10.51 mm or 0.413 inch, 0.164 smaller than the Enfield rifle) has been adopted for compression bullets. This rifle is used by the light companies of the infantry battalions. The bullet is a Lorenz model, and the results of this rifle as regards lower trajectory, range, and precision are surpassed only by the Swiss sharpshooter rifle mentioned above, whose bullet, rammed down in the old fashion, has the lowest trajectory of all known rifles. At 500 yards, the Swiss compression bullet, when fired from this rifle, yields a dangerous space of 130 yards.
(2)
Up to now, the compression system has undoubtedly yielded better results than the expansion system, since it has plainly achieved the lowest trajectory obtained so far. Nor can it be doubted that this is not to be attributed to the system itself, but to other causes, of which the small calibre is the most important. With an equally small calibre, the expansion bullet must have as low a trajectory as its hitherto more successful counterpart. This will soon become apparent. The rifles of the four states of south-west Germany (Bavaria, etc.) have the same calibre as Austria’s, so that in an emergency they can use Austrian ammunition
and vice versa. However, with the adoption of the same calibre, these states have adopted expansion bullets, and the range tables of both classes of bullets will therefore allow a tolerably exact examination of their respective merits. If, as we expect, the expansion bullet then yields results as good as its counterpart, it deserves priority, because, first, it can take the rifling more reliably under all circumstances; second, with the same calibre, it can be made lighter than the compression bullet; and third, because the enlargement of the calibre, which occurs in all rifle barrels when they are used for a longer period, affects the expansion bullet less.

VI

All the rifled muskets we have described so far were muzzle-loaders. In earlier times, however, there existed a great number of different firearms that were loaded from the breech. Breech-loaders preceded muzzle-loaders with artillery, and most old armouries will contain guns and pistols two to three hundred years old, with a movable breech into which the charge could be introduced without its being rammed through the barrel with a ramrod. The great difficulty was always to connect the movable breech to the barrel in such a way that it could be easily removed and replaced, and that the mode of fastening was stable enough to withstand the discharge. Given the inadequate mechanical contrivances of those times, it was not surprising that the one could not be combined with the other. Either the parts that connected the breech to the barrel were deficient in strength and durability, or the process of detaching and attaching was dreadfully slow. No wonder that these weapons were done away with, that muzzle-loaders performed their task more quickly, and that the ramrod reigned unchecked.

When, in more recent times, soldiers and gunsmiths strove to construct a firearm combining the ease and quickness of loading of the old musket with the range and precision of the rifle, it was only natural that loading from the breech again attracted attention. By a suitable system of fastening the breech, all difficulties were overcome. The bullet, slightly larger in diameter than the calibre, could then be introduced, together with the charge, into the rear part of the barrel. Driven forward by the ignition, it would squeeze through the bore, fill the grooves with its surplus lead, take the rifling, and exclude every possibility of windage. The only difficulty lay in the mode of fastening the breech. But what was impossible in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries need not be given up as hopeless today.

Once these difficulties are overcome, the great advantages of the breech-loader are obvious. The time required for loading is considerably shorter. No drawing, turning round, and ramming back of the ramrod is necessary. One motion opens the breech, another places the cartridge in its place, a third closes the breech again. A rapid fire by the skirmishers, or a quick succession of volleys, which are so important in many decisive situations, are thereby secured to a degree that no muzzle-loader can attain.

With all muzzle-loaders, loading is made difficult as soon as the soldier kneels down while skirmishing or lies behind a protecting object. If he stays behind his cover, he cannot hold his rifle in a vertical direction, and a large part of his charge, as it slides in, will stick to the sides of the barrel. If he holds his rifle vertically upwards, he is forced to expose himself. With a breech-loader, the soldier can load in any position, without ever losing sight of the enemy, since he can load without looking at his weapon. In line, he can load during the advance, can fire volley after volley while advancing, and will yet always come upon the enemy with a loaded rifle. The bullet can be of the simplest construction, completely solid, and will never be subject to the accidents that cause both compression and expansion bullets not to take the rifling, or to give rise to other troublesome phenomena. Cleaning the firearm is extraordinarily facilitated. The chamber, or the place where the powder and the bullet lie, that is, the part that always gets most fouled, lies here completely open, and the barrel, also open at both ends, can easily be examined and impeccably cleaned. Since the parts at the rear end of the barrel must necessarily be very heavy, as otherwise they could not withstand the discharge, they bring the centre of gravity of the rifle closer to the shoulder, thereby facilitating steady aiming.

We have seen that the only difficulty consists in finding a reliable breech. This difficulty has now, undoubtedly, been completely overcome. The number of breech-loaders brought out during the last twenty years is astonishing, and at least some of them fulfil all reasonable expectations both as to the effectiveness and solidity of the breech-loading mechanism and as to the ease and rapidity with which the breech can be fastened and opened. As weapons of war, however, only three different systems are at present in use.

The first is the firearm now employed by the infantry in Sweden and Norway. The breech-loading mechanism appears sufficiently handy and strong. The charge is ignited by a percussion cap. Hammer and nipple both lie in the lower part of the chamber. We have been unable to obtain any details of the experience gained with this firearm.

The second is the revolver. The revolver, like the rifle, is a very old German invention. Centuries ago hand firearms with several barrels were made, with a turning mechanism which after each shot brought a new barrel into the position necessary for the action of the lock upon the projectile. Colonel Colt in America took up this idea again. He separated the chambers from the barrels, so that one barrel sufficed for all the turning chambers; in this way he made the weapon a breech-loader. As most of our readers will already have had something to do with one of these Colt pistols, it will not be necessary to describe them. Besides, the complicated nature of the mechanism would make any detailed description without drawings impossible. This weapon is ignited by means of percussion caps, and the round bullet, a little larger than the calibre of the barrel, takes to the rifling as it is forced through. Since Colt’s invention became popular, a large number of small cylinder weapons have been invented; but only Deane and Adams have really simplified and improved them as a weapon of war. Yet the whole thing is highly complicated, and for war purposes applicable only to hand firearms. However, with a few improvements, this revolver will become a necessity for every cavalry as well as for boarders at sea. It is likewise far better suited to the artillery than any carbine. The effect of this revolver at close quarters is terrible, and not only has the American cavalry been equipped with it,

but also the British, American, French and Russian fleets.

The Swedish rifle, like the revolver, is ignited from outside with ordinary percussion caps. The third kind of breech-loader, the much-discussed Prussian needle-gun, sets this entirely aside; the charge is ignited from within.

The needle-gun was invented by a civilian, Mr Dreyse of Sömmerda in Prussia. After first developing the method of discharging a firearm by a needle suddenly penetrating the explosive compound contained in the cartridge, he completed his invention as early as 1835 by constructing a breech-loader provided with this needle-ignition mechanism. The Prussian government immediately bought up this secret and successfully kept it until it became public in 1848. Meanwhile they had resolved, in the event of war, to equip their entire infantry with this weapon, and had continued to manufacture needle-guns. At present the whole of the line infantry and the greater part of the Landwehr are armed with it, while the entire light cavalry are now receiving needle-carbines that load from the rear.

Of the breech-loading mechanism we will only say that it seems to be the simplest, handiest, and most durable of all that have been proposed so far. After years of trials it can now be stated that the only ascertainable defect is that it does not last quite so long for ammunition as the fixed breech-plug of the muzzle-loader. But this is a defect that seems unavoidable in breech-loaders, and the necessity of renewing some parts of the breech somewhat earlier than on the old guns can in no way detract from the great excellences of this weapon.

The cartridge contains bullet, powder and the explosive mixture, and is placed unopened into the chamber, which is somewhat larger than the rifled barrel. A simple movement of the hand closes the breech and at the same time cocks the firearm. There is, however, no hammer on the outside. Behind the charge, in a hollow iron cylinder, lies a strong, pointed steel needle, moved by a spiral spring. The cocking of the weapon consists simply in drawing back, compressing and holding fast this spring. When the trigger is pulled, it releases this spring, which instantly springs forward, strikes upon the cartridge, and immediately ignites the explosive mixture, by which the charge is fired. Thus loading and firing with this weapon consist of only five movements: opening the breech, inserting the cartridge, closing the breech, presenting the piece and firing. No wonder that with such a weapon five well-aimed shots can be delivered in a minute.

The projectiles first used for the needle-guns had a very unfavourable form and consequently gave a very high trajectory. This defect was remedied a short time ago with good success. The projectile is now much longer and has the shape of an acorn from which the cup has been removed. It is of considerably smaller diameter than the barrel. Its rear part is embedded in a sort of cup of a soft material, to give it the required strength. This cup adheres to the bullet while it is in the barrel, penetrates the rifling, and thereby imparts the lateral rotation to the projectile, while at the same time it considerably reduces the friction in the barrel and yet eliminates all windage. The firearm was so far improved by this that the same sight which formerly served for 600 paces (500 yards) can now be used for 900 paces (750 yards), whereby the trajectory becomes decidedly flatter.

It is far from the truth to assert that the needle-gun has a very complicated construction. The breech-loading mechanism and the needle-lock not only consist of far fewer parts, but these are also much stronger than those of which an ordinary percussion lock is composed, which, however, nobody would consider too complicated for war purposes or for rough treatment. While, moreover, the taking apart of an ordinary percussion lock is a matter requiring considerable time and all sorts of instruments, a needle-lock can be taken apart and put together in an incredibly short time, and with no other instrument than the soldier’s ten fingers. The only piece that is apt to break is the needle itself. But every soldier carries a spare needle with him, which he can immediately insert into the lock without having to take it apart, even during an engagement. We are also aware that Mr Dreyse has rendered the breaking of the needle almost impossible by an improvement in the lock, an improvement which causes the needle to return to its protected resting position as soon as it has fulfilled its purpose of igniting the charge.

The trajectory of the current Prussian needle-gun will be about the same as that of the Enfield rifle; its calibre is a little larger than that of the Enfield. If the calibre were reduced to that of the Austrian, or better still, to that of the Swiss

sharpshooter’s rifle, it would without doubt be equal to any of these weapons in range, accuracy, and flatness of trajectory, while its other enormous advantages would remain. The breech-loading mechanism could even become much stronger than it now is, and the centre of gravity of the firearm would come still nearer to the shoulder of the soldier taking aim.

The introduction of a weapon into an army with such rapidity of fire will necessarily call forth much speculation as to what changes it will bring about in tactics, especially among people who are so fond of speculating as the North Germans. There is no end to the controversies over the supposed revolution in tactics which the needle-gun was to call forth. The majority of the military public in Prussia at length came to the conclusion that against a battalion which delivers volleys from needle-guns in rapid succession no attack can be undertaken, and that consequently the bayonet is done for. Had this ridiculous notion remained predominant, the needle-gun would have brought many a severe defeat upon the Prussians. Happily, the Italian war showed all who could see that the fire of modern weapons is not necessarily so very dangerous to a battalion attacking with spirit, and Prince Frederick Charles of Prussia took the opportunity to remind his companions that passive defence, however well armed, is always certain of defeat. The current of military opinion has turned. People are beginning to recognise once more that men, and not muskets, must win battles, and if this new weapon really will bring about a change in tactics, it will be (where the ground permits) the return to an extended use of the deployed line and even to attack in line, which, although Frederick the Great won most of his battles with it, had gone almost entirely out of fashion in the Prussian infantry.

VII

Having passed in review the various systems on the basis of which the different rifles now in use in the European armies are constructed, we cannot leave our subject without saying a few words about a rifle that, though introduced

in no army, enjoys a well-deserved popularity on account of its astonishing accuracy at great ranges. We refer, of course, to the Whitworth rifle.

If we are not mistaken, Mr Whitworth can claim to have invented two principles in the construction of his firearm: the hexagonal bore and the mechanical fitting of the projectile into the bore. This has, instead of a round one, a completely hexagonal profile, and a very strong pitch or twist, as does the surface of the hexagonal projectile. The projectile, which is made of a hard metal, fills the interior of the barrel very well, and does not change its form upon ignition, since, on account of its six corners, it follows the twist of the rifling with unfailing certainty. In order to avoid windage and to lubricate the interior of the barrel, a cake or disk of fatty material is placed between the powder and the charge. The fat melts from the heat of ignition and runs along behind the projectile towards the muzzle.

But despite the indisputably excellent results which Mr. Whitworth has achieved with his rifle, we nevertheless believe that this principle is inferior to the expansion principle, as well as to the compression principle, and to that of the breech-loader with a bullet whose diameter is larger than the calibre. That is to say, we believe that a rifle for expansion bullets, or one for compression bullets, or one constructed according to the system of the Prussian needle-gun, would be superior to a Whitworth rifle, provided the workmanship were equally good, the calibre equally small, and all other circumstances alike. Mr. Whitworth’s mechanically achieved fit, however beautiful it may be, cannot be as tight as that obtained by the alteration of the shape of the bullet during and after ignition. In his rifles with hard bullets there is always what must absolutely be avoided in a rifle, namely play and, consequently, escaping gases. Even the melting grease cannot entirely remedy this, particularly in a rifle whose calibre has become somewhat larger through long use. In such a case there is a very definite limit to every mechanically achieved fit, namely: the fit must be loose enough to allow the bullet to pass easily and quickly, even after a few dozen shots. The consequence is that these hexagonal bullets only fit loosely, and although we do not know exactly the amount of play, from the fact that they fall down quite easily without grease and with a piece of paper wrapped round them, it is likely that the play is not much less (if less at all) than that of the Enfield bullet, which amounts to one-hundredth of an inch.

Mr. Whitworth seems, in inventing his rifle, to have been guided principally by two basic ideas: first, to eliminate every possibility of the rifling leading, and secondly, to eliminate all the contingencies which may prevent a cylindrical bullet from taking the rifling—since they prevent either expansion or compression—by making the bore and the bullet fit one another from the outset. Fouling of the rifling by particles of lead splitting off from the bullet can occur in all rifles with soft lead bullets. The contingencies which prevent a bullet from taking the rifling properly can occur in both compression and expansion rifles, but not in breech-loaders on the Prussian principle. None of these shortcomings, however, is so great that it could not be overcome, and that, in order to avoid them, the most important principle of rifle-making—namely, that the bullet takes the rifling without leaving any play—should be sacrificed.

In making this assertion we rely on an excellent authority, namely Mr. Whitworth himself. We know that Mr. Whitworth abandoned his principle of the mechanically achieved fit, as far as his rifle is concerned, and it is certain that at present most people do not fire a hard, solid, hexagonal bullet from his rifle, but a soft, cylindrical lead bullet. This bullet is hollowed out at its base, similar to the Enfield bullet, but it has no plug. It is very long (the one weighing 480 grains is three times as long as its diameter, the other of 530 grains 3
1
/
2
 times as long as its diameter), and it takes the rifling through the action of the ignition. Here, then, Mr. Whitworth’s principle of the mechanically achieved fit is completely abandoned in favour of the principle of expansion, and the Whitworth rifle is transformed into a subordinate species of the Minié genus, exactly as has been the case with the Enfield rifle. There remains the hexagonal bore, and how far it is suitable for an expansion rifle.

The hexagonal bore has, of course, six grooves, and we have seen that an even number of grooves has proved not as good for expansion bullets as an odd number, since it is not desirable that two grooves should lie diametrically opposite one another. Now the grooves in most expansion rifles are very shallow, in the Enfield rifle, for example, barely visible. In the hexagon, the difference between the diameter of the inner circle (approximately corresponding to the calibre) and that of the outer circle (drawn through the six corners) is about two-thirteenths, or somewhat less than a sixth, of the former diameter; or, in other words, the lead must expand by almost
1
/
6
 of its diameter before it can properly cling to the corners of the hexagonal bore. From this it would follow that the hexagonal bore, although extremely suitable for the system of mechanical fitting, is the least serviceable for the expansion bullet.

Yet it proves itself, as the results of almost every shooting competition show. How is this possible, if Mr. Whitworth has abandoned the core of his principle and now employs a principle for which his rifle is not adapted?

First of all, mention must be made of the excellent workmanship. It is known that Mr. Whitworth is unsurpassed in accuracy in the most minute and even micrometric details. Like his machine tools, his rifles are perfect specimens in the execution of their details. Just look at the muzzle of his rifles and that of any other design! No comparison is possible, and for rifles firing up to 1,000 yards range, this is an immense advantage.

Secondly and mainly: the calibre of the Whitworth rifle is 0.451 inches smallest diameter (what we have called the inner circle). The Enfield rifle has 0.577, the Swiss sharpshooter’s rifle, mentioned by us several times as the one with the known lowest trajectory, 0.413 inches. Now consider the difference in the shape of the bullet. The Whitworth expansion bullet of 530 grains is
3
/
8
 of an inch longer than the Enfield bullet of the same weight, the former being about 3
1
/
2
 times as long as its own diameter, the latter barely twice as long as its diameter. It is obvious that a bullet of the same weight and with the same charge can penetrate the air better, that is, will have a lower trajectory, if it is thin and long than if it is short and thick. Hence the charge of the Enfield rifle has 68 grains of powder; for the Whitworth rifle charges of 60, 70, and 80 grains of powder are used. But we have heard from good shots who constantly use this rifle that 80 grains are required for the bullet to expand well and achieve good results at great ranges. Thus for the Whitworth rifle we have a charge that is a whole sixth stronger than that for the Enfield rifle, and this charge should act better (even with the same weight) since it ignites in a more confined space and acts on a much smaller surface of the bullet.

Here, then, we have a further example of the immense advantage of the small calibre, which entails a long, thin, bolt-shaped bullet. Those of my readers who have attentively followed the investigations into the merits of the different rifled weapons will long since have come to the conclusion that the shape of the bullet is far more important than the system according to which the bullet or the rifle is constructed, and that, in order to arrive at a shape of bullet most easily carried by the soldiers, a small calibre must be had. That is a lesson which the Whitworth rifle teaches us anew.

We can also learn from it that with a small calibre, the long, heavy point of the bullet offers enough resistance for the hollow tail-end to expand surely and without the aid of a capsule. The Whitworth bullet has only a small hollow at its base and no capsule; it must expand at least three times as much as any other expansion bullet, and yet it takes the rifling quite satisfactorily with 80 grains of powder (which the rifle bears without great recoil).

We doubt very much that Mr. Whitworth’s rifle will ever become a weapon of war; we believe rather that the hexagonal bore will soon disappear altogether. When volunteers, practically convinced of the superior shooting efficiency of the Whitworth rifle in comparison with the present Enfield rifle, have proposed arming them with the former, they have certainly gone decidedly too far. We consider it extremely inadmissible to compare the two types of weapons with one another. The Whitworth rifle is a luxury weapon, the manufacture of which costs at least twice as much as that of the Enfield rifle. In its present condition it is too delicate a weapon to place in the hands of every soldier. If, however, we were to replace, for example, the sensitive fore-sight at the muzzle by one for rough handling, the accuracy at great ranges would be considerably diminished. In order to arm both the army and the volunteers with the Whitworth rifle, one of two things would have to be done: either the calibre of the regular hand-firearms would have to remain as it is now, and then a Whitworth rifle with the calibre of the present Enfield rifle would have far worse results than the present Whitworth rifle; or the calibre would have to be reduced to, say, that of the present Whitworth rifle. Then it is likely that an Enfield rifle with this smaller calibre, if as much were expended on its manufacture as on a Whitworth rifle, would achieve just as good, or even better, results.

VIII

We conclude with a brief recapitulation of the different rifle systems at present in use, and of the principles which we may regard as established for this weapon.

The different rifle systems are the following:

1. The system of forcible loading: the tight-fitting bullet and the patch are driven down by strong blows of the ramrod. This is the oldest method of making a bullet take the rifling. It has now been abandoned almost everywhere for weapons of war. The most important and most remarkable exception is the new Swiss sharpshooter’s rifle, which has a very small calibre and a long, bolt-shaped bullet, and which attains the lowest trajectory of all rifles now in use. It is not intended as a weapon for the mass of the infantry, but only for selected units, and requires careful loading in order to achieve the extremely favourable results which distinguish it before all other rifles known to us today.

2. The system of upsetting the loosely-fitting bullet against an obstacle at the bottom of the breech (either the edge of a narrowing chamber—Delvigne—or a stem fixed in the centre of the chamber—Thouvenin—) and thereby driving it into the rifling. This method, at one time generally preferred, is now more or less superseded by the following systems. At the same time it should be noted that this system requires a fairly large calibre, since otherwise the chamber becomes too narrow.

3. The expansion system: the loosely-fitting, long bullet is hollowed out from the base; the gas generated by the ignition penetrates into the hollow and, so to speak, inflates it sufficiently for the ball to fit the bore and take the rifling. This system is now generally preferred and can still be greatly improved. This is shown by the excellent results recently achieved by Mr. Whitworth with his rifle, since he adopted the principle of expansion.

4. The system of compression, whereby the same result is obtained by deep, round grooves (cannelures) made on the projectiles. The force of the ignition causes the projectile, which offers resistance by its heavy forepart, to be compressed lengthwise and thereby to acquire the requisite increase in its diameter. This method, although obviously less reliable than the expansion principle, has given excellent results with small calibres, as proved in Austria and Switzerland. However, the compression bullet, fired from the above-mentioned Swiss sharpshooter rifle, does not yield results quite as good as the tight-fitting patched bullet from the same weapon.

5. The breech-loading system: It has special advantages over all other rifle systems in the manner of loading and firing. At the same time it offers the greatest certainty that the bullet takes the rifling, since chamber and bullet can be somewhat larger than the rest of the bore, and thus the bullet cannot reach the muzzle without being pressed into the rifling. This system really seems destined gradually to oust all other systems.

We do not count Mr. Whitworth’s system of mechanical fitting among these, since it has been abandoned, at least with regard to small arms — and it is only with these that we are now concerned.

When the various systems are assessed according to their real merits, we must rate the needle-gun highest, next the expansion system, then the compression system. The two first systems can be regarded as superseded. For although in Switzerland violent loading has so far yielded better results than the compression rifle of the same calibre, we should by no means ascribe these results to the system without a very thorough investigation. Apart from that, it is certain that the Swiss sharpshooter patched bullet is not suitable for the mass of the infantry.

We have also seen that since the introduction of the elongated bullet, for the achievement of great range, a low trajectory and accuracy of flight, the system according to which the rifle or the bullet is constructed is only of secondary importance. As long as bullets were round, the system of rifling was of much greater importance, since all bullets encountered the air resistance under nearly equal conditions, and the influence of a greater twist of the rifling, deeper or more numerous grooves, etc., was proportionally far greater

than now. But with the elongated bullet a new element appears on the scene. The bullet can be longer or shorter within fairly wide limits, and thereby the question arises as to which bullet shape is the most advantageous. Theoretically it is clear that the same quantity of lead, fired with the same initial velocity, will retain this velocity better with a long and thin shape than with a short and thick one; always provided that the lateral rotation which a rifle imparts to the bullet is maintained in order to prevent tumbling. Air resistance is the retarding force; it gradually diminishes the initial velocity which the bullet received from the powder and thereby gives the ever-increasing force of gravity, so to speak, a greater influence on the projectile. The initial velocity depends on the charge and to a certain extent on the construction of the weapon; we can therefore regard it as fixed. Gravity is also fixed and has a definite magnitude; thus only the bullet shape remains variable, so that the bullet can pass through the air with the least resistance. To reduce air resistance, a long and thin bullet, as said, is far better suited than a short and thick one of the same weight.

The maximum weight of a bullet for military purposes now also has a definite value. A soldier must be able to carry, besides his arms and equipment, at least 60 cartridges. To produce the best-shaped bullet, it must, given the lead weight (say 530 grains), be lengthened and its thickness reduced. In other words: The calibre of the rifled musket must be reduced. Up to a certain point this will be possible without exception. Consider the 530 grains in the Enfield and the same weight in the Whitworth bullet. A single glance explains why the latter has so much lower a trajectory (that is, retains its initial velocity far better) and therefore will easily hit a target at 1,000 yards’ distance, while at that distance the Enfield bullet cannot be relied upon. And yet both are expansion bullets, even though the general construction of the Whitworth rifle is certainly not best suited for the expansion bullet. Consider the Swiss sharpshooter rifle, which with a still smaller calibre than that of the Whitworth rifle achieves still better results and maintains a still lower trajectory, whether the bullet is rammed down with a patch or loosely inserted and compressed by the ignition. Or take the Prussian needle-gun. By re-

ducing the diameter and lengthening the bullet, while it is then guided into the wide bore by a knob or plug, the bullet now flies, with the same sight that formerly indicated 600 yards’ range, 900 yards. We shall therefore be fairly safe in considering it an established fact that the efficiency of rifles, regardless of the system on which they are constructed, is in general inversely proportional to the diameter of their bore. The smaller the calibre, the better the rifle, and vice versa.

With these remarks we leave a subject which may have appeared rather dry to many of our readers. It is, however, of very great importance. No intelligent soldier should be ignorant of the principles upon which his weapon is built or is intended to work. What we have attempted to set forth here is what the non-commissioned officers of most continental armies are required to know, and certainly the majority of the Volunteers, “the intelligence of the country”, should be as far advanced in the knowledge of their firearms as these are!

(1)
These recesses (cannelures) were invented by Tamisier, another French officer. Besides reducing the weight of the bullet and the friction in the bore, they enabled the bullet, like the feathers of an arrow in the air, to maintain its equilibrium and thereby to flatten the trajectory.

(2)
By dangerous space is meant here that part of the flight of a projectile which rises no higher than the height of a man, say 6 feet; i.e., in this case a bullet aimed at the base of a target 6 feet high and 500 yards away will hit any object that is 6 feet high and stands anywhere between 370 and 500 yards from the marksman in the line of sight. In other words, with the sight set at 500 yards, an error of 130 yards may be made in estimating the distance of the object, and yet the object will be hit if the line of sight has been correctly taken.