The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-30 00:00:00

-
•
.001:;°
—.14.• • 4.
. I/ •
1.11111111111111%,„\\,„
`446., _ \.,,, • - '
- oiv, •fo
L
•-• • • ' -
3` •-• •
„.4e • e
411.1 • . . I
*r
4 .
•jpir „ C.. DIE 16155.4...2475e'L': • to'dIMILROIT. mir 1:1 'v
.--

/~ .

~~

-..4d.
STAMPED ...M.

these guns were constructed before any experiments
upon them had been concluded. A statement has

been prepared by Mr. Whiffin, one of the Assistant
Accountants-General of the War Office, showing
the cost of guns and projectiles obtained from the

Elswick Ordnance Company, compared with the
rates of those produced at the Royal Arsenal, Wool-
wich. According to this statement, taking the
class of stores which have been supplied from

Elswick and from Woolwich, and which there-
fore admit of a direct comparison, the sum of

£242,173 10s. 6d. on an expenditure of £593,275
10s. lid. would have been saved to the public had

these guns, projectiles, and fuzes, supplied by the
Elswick Ordnance Company, been manufactured in
the Royal Arsenal. The value of this comparison
rests entirely upon the accuracy of the principles
upon which the cost of the articles produced at
Woolwich has been arrived at, and the evidence on
this subject is conflicting. The committee believe
the Armstrong field-gun is the best known for field
purposes. His Royal Highness the Field-Marshal
Commanding in Chief states that, in his opinion, Sir
W. Armstrong's system surpasses in completeness
any other, and his conviction is that England in this
respect is ahead of any other country. Col. Bing-
ham, Adjutant-General of Artillery, states that
he is perfectly satisfied with the Armstrong
field.gun. At the same time, some of the
military officers examined state that, in their
opinion, we aught not entirely to rely (for field ar-
tillery) on breech-loading guns, as they are com-
plicated and liable to injuries from rough
handling and various accidents, and are in-
clined to retain a proportion of muzzle-load-
ing guns for horse artillery. The failure of some
of these field-guns appears to have arisen from
faulty manufacture. With respect to the 110-
pounders, it is on all hands admitted that, although
useful as chase guns, they ought not to be intro-

aced into the naval service as broadside gun
They were originally required for use against
wooden ships, and whilst not sufficiently powerful
for penetrating iron-plated ships, are as yet imper
feet for general naval service, owing to the diffi
culty of managing and manufacturing the vent-
piece. Nevertheless, the 110-pounder is considered
by naval men of eminence in their profession as a
most valuable weapon in its present proportion to
the armament of a ship, and the Duke of Somerset
is of opinion that the navy has not got too many
of them. His grace states that "we have nothing
better now for close quarters than the 68 pounder,"
and concurs with all the naval witnesses in con-
sidering that in the armament of her Majesty's
ships only a small proportion of 100 pounders
should be included. His grace further adds, "that
it was not till we tried a 100 pounder and a 68
pounder against Captain Coles' copola that he be-
came aware that the 68 pounder struck a harder
blow than the 100 pounder at short range." This
comparison was made when the charge of the 100
was 141bs. ; it has now been reduced to 121bs. The
Duke of Somerset informed the committee the Ad-
miralty " had a report that the Armstrong gun had
the greatest range and the greatest power of pene-
tration of any gun tried ; when they came to try it
themselves, that was not confirmed by the facts.
For naval purposes at 200 yards, it certainly had
not the greatest power; our old 68 pounder is a
mare powerful gun than the 100 pounder Armstrong
gun." The old 68 pounder is therefore the most
effective gun in the service against iron plates.
While almost every witness gave testimony to
the superior accuracy and range of the Arm-
strong guns, great doubts have been expressed
as to whether they are not too delicate a
weapon. But the officers who commanded
Armstrong batteries in the late operations in China
found no difficulty in keeping them in order in all
weathers and under all circumstances. The com-
mittee express a hope that the different systems.
nut of Sir W. Armstrong and Mr. Whitworth only,
but of the other able men whose minds are now
engaged on ordnance questions, may be fairly expe-
rimented upon. - A uniform system of accounts is
recommended for the manufacturing departments
at Woolwich, by which the cost of guns and other
produce may be clearly ascertained.

Naval and Milit

ary