The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-16 00:00:00

STEEL BARREL CONTRO VERSY.

TO THE 1.7111T0R OF THE SUN. -
SIR,—As the subject cf steel barrels and excessive
reduction after proof nas occasioned so much contra-
' dictory discussion, I consider it but just and fair to
all parties interested to give the public the oppor-
tunity of forming their own opinions by actual in-
spection of the burst barrels, which are, as nearly as
possible, in the same state as immediately after the
accident. They have been sent to Mr. IVitton, 82,
Old Broad-street, City, with directions to show them,
with the reports of Mr. Greener and the Guomakers'
Company, and the defence of Messrs. Deane, to all
persons who may wish to examine them. Messrs.
Deane are in error in stating I said " the right barrel
had been fired several times," and hence a vacuum
was caused in the left ; the fact being the latter only
had been last discharged, and reloaded carefully, five
minutes before it burst with a double shot.

With the evidence of the barrels themselves, and
the different statements before them, the public will
be able to decide on their merits, and do justice to
all parties. _

_
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Bruton-street, Jan. 15. C. E. SCOTT.

TO TILE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.
Sir,—When Mr. Greener assures me that his pro-
lessional report on Sir Claude Scott's gun-barrel was
published without his knowledge, it would be unbe-
coming in me to disbelieve his assertion, or to doubt
his word, by requiring the proof he says he possesses.
I, therefore, claim equal credence when I assure him
that Messrs. Deane were not directly or indirectly
cognizant of the contents of my letter, or of my inten-
tion to write in their defence when I first sent it for
publication. You may suppose me then not a little
pleased when a pamphlet subsequently reached ire,
entitled " George and John Deane's defence of them-
selves and their guns, from charges brought against
both by the Company of Gunmakers and others.'' In
this they allege great towards them, thus jus-
tifying and disposing of the " bold imputation " lam
charged with.
It would seem that I have lessened Mr. Greener's
consequence, having " transposed Evans and Clive
into the position held by himself and Mr. Greenfield."
Unknown to every party in Birmingham, where, to
the best of my recollection, I never passed an hour in
my life, I could but suppose them to be nulli se-
cundus." Colonel Hawker is really answerable for
this slur; it was from his letter I gleaned the names
of Clive and Evans for perfect workmanship ; with
such a testimonial in their favour they can go on and
prosper, for they want none other.
I cannot so easily part with Mr. Greener's profes-
sional report denouncing this barrel as of " spurious
composition," although published without his know-
ledge. It is not what is or what is not the best
metal to be used, the real question being—Did
Deane employ a cheap manufacturer, or the reverse?
If the former, he is guilty ; if the latter, then, as
stated in my first letter, Purday, Lancaster, and
others are liable to a similar catastrophe. I pin him
to his own words, "spurious composition," and proof
of this must not be evaded by a treatise on " lami-
nated steel." Why Mr. Greener well knows, which
I did not until recently, who the manufacturer of
this barrel is. He denies the charge. The barrel
itself (I am told) denies it. Has he not, and is he
not, employing him at this very moment ? I can tell
the sporting world that he stands unrivalled, and is
employed by all the first gunmakers of this metro-
polis. Why, then, continue insinuations as to the in-
teriority of Deane's materials, unless it be to support
high prices and to annihilate low ones ? I plead guilty
to the charge of " bias ;" show me the man without
one. I have a " bias " tor fair competition, I have
a " bias" for the best article at the lowest price, fbr
Adams, Deane's manager, because he supplies it.
The trade are well aware that he knows his business,
and would perhaps gladly see him anywhere rather
than where he is : discharge him and my " bias" for
Deane ceases. I have no " bias" for hira on the
score of intimacy or self-interest, for I never enter
the shop more than three or four times in a year,
and then just before the shooting season commences.
This equally applies to Deane, whom I have rarely
seen there.

I cone now to the most extraordinary part of Mr.
Greener's letter, Can he be serious when he says,
"It does not necessarily follow that because a
vacuum (I call it a space) exists between the cartridge
and the charge of powder, that a barrel must burst ?
Well-made barrels (here a bit at Deane) will admit
of very great space, and yet not burst ; two charges
of powder can be exploded in an ordinary sized bar-
rel, the bore effectually stopped with a steel plug
leaving no vent for this enormous force but by
bursting the barrel, or by escaping by the
small orifice in the nipple, like steam from
a safety valve." Will any gentleman like to
try his gun, made of the " laminated steel" he boasts
of, with a large space between the charges, or with a
steel plunger at the bore, to see if the powder will
come out harmless at the nipple ? If any one be bold
enough, let me recommend him to be first supplied
with a pump for the exhaustion of atmospheric air,
or woe betide him. What Mr. Greener's object is in
publishing such a statement, I cannot imagine.
" Mr. Urquhart forgets that to injudicious reduction
in the barrel the accident was attributed." Attributed
by whom ? By Mr. Greener's unsupported testi-
mony, broadly contradicted by Messrs. Deane. It
was not attributed to " reduction" so much as to
" spurious composition." With their defence in my
hand, I see no reason to retract my " panegyric," or
one expression in my first letter, designated an " in-
congruous effusion," which with more propriety
should be called a " disagreeable one." Henceforth
I must refer objectors to Messrs. Deane, who must be
their own spokesmen, for I will neither write nor
answer any more letters. Having passed the meri-
dian of life, it is with myself only that I am disposed
to enter into controversy; I therefore bid all those
whose names I have brought forward farewell. If, in
the pursuit of fair play I have damaged any, it has
been unintentional ; if I have benefitted any, it is,
Mr. Editor, through your instrumentality, and you
are entitled to share the pleasure.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
W. A. URQUHART.

Leyton, Essex, Jan. 14.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.

Sir,—Seeing in your journal, of the 12th instant,
a letter signed by a person of the name of Greener,
of Birmingham, alleging that no danger can accrue
from a vacuum between the powder and shot being
left in a gun-barrel—nay, that the muzzle may be
stopped up with a steel plug, and the barrel loaded
with a double charge of powder without a chance of
bursting—l trust you will not permit so insane a
statement to pass uncontradicted, lest a false security
might thereby be engendered, and the sporting
public find too late they had trusted to one of the
most dangerous delusions ever put forth.
What the writer's motive may be for such a state-
ment—whether from the most lamentable ignorance
or a more questionable object, I cannot pretend to
guess; the fatal issue would be the same.

Allow me, then—with a view to give a flat con-
tradiction to so disastrous a theory—to lay before you
the result of a series of experiments made some
years ago by a friend who had the misfortune to
very seriously injure his hand by the bursting of one
of Joseph Manton's guns.
The cause of the accident became at the time a
subject of investigation, as my friend had neglected to
pass his ramrod into the left barrel, after having re-
peatedly discharged the right, and concluded it to
have arisen frem the formation of a vacuum.
The experiments were as follow :

Exp. 1. The sound barrel was loaded with an ordi-
nary charge of powder and shot with the usual wad-
ding, and a thick pasteboard wadding placed in the
barrel three inches from the muzzle. On discharging,
it burst open from the wadding two inches down-
wards, the pasteboard wad not having been displaced.
Exp. 2. The fractured part was then sawn off, and
the barrel loaded as before—the pasteboard wad again
placed three inches from the muzzle. On discharging,
it again burst, about three inches down from the
wadding.

Exp. 3. The broken part again sawn off, and
loaded as before, the pasteboard wad placed as in the
former trials. On discharging, the wad was blown
out, and no fracture took place ; but on reloading,
and placing two wads instead of one three inches from
the muzzle, the barrel again burst about three inches
down.

Lip, 4. The broken part sawn off as before; but
now it did not burst until the third shot, and three
wads had been placed three inches from the muzzle ;
when again about three inches more was fractured,
but the wads not disturbed.

Thus, Sir, you see that a gun of the best manu-
facturer known at that time was burst four times suc-
cessively, by only placing from one to three paste-
board wads within a few inches of the muzzle. What,
then, becomes of the monstrous assertion of your
Birmingham correspondent, of there being no danger
in a vacuum, and equally unscientific and ridiculous
addition, that the explosive force would pass through
the hole of the nipple ?
If the lives of sportsmen. are to be placed in the
most imminent peril by the assertions of ignorant or
interested individualp, it is high time that men of
science should take the matter up, and show the
dangerous fallacy of giving the slightest credence to
their assertions.
I beg, in conclusion, to say that I am prepared,
when required, to produce full proofs of the experi-
ments above detailed; and am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Gloucester-place, Jan. 14. T. GRIFFIN.

[The article headed " Guns with Steel Barrels,"
which appeared in The Sun of Monday, was copied
from the Times.—En. Sun.]

Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-
office from the Governor of the Falkland Islands.