The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-16 00:00:00

PRICE ...... Ad.
STAMPED:....Sd.

unquestionably bad when compared with the de-
structive effect of Sir William's guns. Thus during
the past week's trial each gun had to fire five rounds
of shell against the abattis of trees in front of the
earthwork we have already described in our previous
notice. Both Sir William's guns, the shunt and the
breech-loader, in five rounds of segment shell so
completely cut an opening in the trees that a cart
could have been driven through ; whereas the effect
of Mr. Whitworth's shells was absolutely nil. In
the same way, against the earthwork of the battery
the immense superiority of Sir William's shell was
almost equally manifest. In fact, Mr. Whitworth's
gun, as a shell gun, has done nothing yet. Mr,
Whitworth frankly admits that his shrapnoll shell
catinot cope with abattis or earthworks, but is, on
the other hand, confident that, when hated against
targets of the height and width of a company of
soldiers, it will be found to be more destructive in
the number of wounds it inflicts than the Arm.
strong. Throughout the contest the breech-loader
has shot the worst of the three guns, except when
tried with shell—the only projectile it is intended
to fire—when it has instantly vindicated its old
reputation for efficiency. In other respects it has
been short in range and deficient in accuracy com-
pared with either Sir William's shunt gun or Mr.
Whitworth's. Its falling short by some 200 yards
of the range of the other two guns is unimportant,
and is solely due to the fact that the charge for
this gun is while the two others have nib.'
Its failing to attain the same marvellous accuracy
as the others is a fact for which no one can
account. The practice made by the average
breech-loaders of the same kind in the service
is, we aro informed, above the average of the
shooting of this gun, made with so much care apes
cially for these trials and with a special steel tube
for the barrel. It may be that too much care has
spoilt it, for, as we have said, its shooting is not
equal, not alone to the shunt and Whitworth guns,
but to all the other Armatrongs of the same kind
which are in plenty at Shoeburyness. Our readers
however must not adopt the idea that it shoots
badly as a gun; it is only relatively to the two
other competing ordnance that this can be said.
But the accuracy of the last two is something so
wonderful that even the rifle shooting for the
Queen's Prize at Wimbledon bears no comparison
to it. To give an idea of what this accuracy is, we
may state that at the 300 yards range Mr. Whit-
worth sent many shots in succession through the
bull's-eye, which was only one foot in diameter.
This was a short range, certainly, but still the prac-

tice was wonderful, and again at 1,600 yards Mr.
Whitworth had 10 shots, the greatest lateral devia-
tion of which from the true line was only 5 inches,
and there were in the same range as many of Sir
William's from the shunt gun which were as true.
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that if a crow
or a hen could be seen at such a distance it would
have been hit over and over again by either of these
guns.

At two degrees of elevation the breech-loader was
short by 50 yards of the other two guns, but was
very accurate. The Armstrong shunt gun and the
Whitworth shot equal an to range and accuracy,
and if a choice could be made between the two it
was in favour of Whitworth. At three degrees Mr.
Whitworth claims a distinct victory—a claim, how-
ever, which is not borne out by the official records
of the committee, from which only, as generally
given in the rough, do we derive our data for this
report. According to the general results of this
official return, it is stated that at three degrees
the shunt and Whitworth were with shot equal
to a yard--the shunt gun having a decided ad-
vantage with shell. At four degrees also the
shunt and Whitworth are reported nearly equal,
the breech-loader being short by 200 yards, but
otherwise throwing for this range very accurately
indeed. When we use the term " nearly equal" as
betwc.'n the shunt and Whitworth, we mean that
the average of the rounds gave Mr. Whitworth's
gun a gi e ;ter range by is i yards thin tLe Arm-
itrong,—an amount of difference which at 2,000
yards is scarcely wcr,h le-.3ording on ether side.
After these came the trials with shell at the abattis
and Earthworks, wLcre, as we have said, Sir

Ham's victory was complete, his shells sweeping
away everything before them, while Mr. Whit-
worth's were in destructive effect perfectly harm-
less, as far as could be judged by the appearance of
the obstacles against which they were directed.
During Thursday and yesterday the trials were
again for range and accuracy, at elevations rising
from five to seven degrees. At five andsiz degress
each party claims to have won, end the Committee
returns were not sufficiently made out to enable as
to say which had really been the victor, though
again it was generally believed by those who were
impartial that there really was no choice between
the performances of the two. The same may be said
of the firing yesterday, at seven degrees, when the
two guns were throwing 3,000 yards and upwards,
dropping their shot, round after round, in almost
precisely the same holes in which the first fell, till
they bored and the mounds of sand they threw up
formed three little targets, which were distinctly
visible. No official return was made of the firing
yesterday, and if an opinion can be formed from
what was seen of the fall of the shot through a te-
lescope it would almost appear as if Mr. Whit-
worth had a trifling advantage in the regularity of
his line of file.

As far as the trials have hitherto extended, it
seems to be the feeling of all officers on the ground
that, regard being had only to range and accuracy,
there is literally no choice between the Armstrong
shunt gun and the Whitworth. Each of the in-
ventors is, however, confident that his final victory
has only been deferred till the long ranges com-
mence, when each expects to prove a markee
superiority over his opponent. But the niceties of
these fancy ranges at 8,000 and 10,000 yards, when,
the difference is only a foot or two one way or the
other, are quite beside the question of the real
merits of field guns. Artillerists say that each
gun is far beyond the standard required ; that is
to say, that each gun possesses such powers of
scientific accuracy as are certain never to be deve-
loped in the hurry and hot blood of actual service.
The real question betweenlthem now is which gun
is most destructive, and which endures longest.
These trials will begin next week, when the de-
structive power of the guns will be tried against
stockades and walls, and the endurance will be

tested by continuous and rapid firing. In destruc-
tive powers, unless Mr. Whitworth's shell behaves
better than it has hitherto done, his chances are
likely to be small. For endurance both competitors
are equally confident of success, Sir William relying
on the fact that his guns of the same pattern have
stood nearly 4,000 rounds without an evidence of
change, and Mr, Whitworth depending on the pro-
digious strength of the metal of his ordnance, which
are of the finest soft-tempered steel. It would very
much hasten the important result that is to be
arrived at in this trial of endurance if at the end of

each day's firing for accuracy, when two and three
and four hours are somtimes wasted doing nothing,
the guns were ordered to fire 100 rounds into the
water as fast as they could be discharged and
loaded. Such a finale to the next day's prac-
tice would tell most seriously on the next day's
accuracy of range, if there is any truth in the
report that some of the guns are being hurt by
their own projectiles. This would be the fairest
way of testing the Endurance of the pieces.
together with their subsequent accuracy, and would
shorten the competition by at least a fortnight;
while it at the same time made the trials more
searching, and therefore more satisfactory.
During the course of these trials the vent, or
touch-hole, of Mr. Whitworth's gun gave signs of
choking, and he had to apply to the committee for
permission to re-vent it, which he did the same
evening. This failure of the vent-tube is a matter
of no great importance, if it does not occur again,
and if the present accident can be shown to be