GUN-MAKING.

Of the word gun there is no satisfactory etymology. Some have derived it from the French word man gon (omitting the first syllable), which was the name of a warlike instrument used before the invention of the gun now employed; and the use would seem to justify the derivation, for it was employed in discharging arrows and other missiles, before the invention of gunpowder. Others derive it from gyn, an engine employed for similar purposes. Selden says, “the word gun was in use in England for an engine to cast a thing from a man, long before there was any gunpowder found out.” The instrument called a gun, used for war or sport, has, in the progress of time, and the changes it has undergone, received various names. We find it called harquebuss, haque-but or hag-but, hand-gun, matchlock, musket, firelock, carabine, fowling-piece, besides several other denominations.

Fire-arms, under one or other of the above-mentioned names, were introduced into this country about the year 1471; and we find them used at the different sieges which were carried on in Europe about the year 1521. In the time of Henry VIII., and his successor Elizabeth, the size and shape of fire-arms were regulated by act of parliament. With respect to the mode of firing the guns then in use, this was done either with a match, or by means of a lock which revolved upon a wheel; in the one case, the priming was fired by means of a burning match, and in the other, by means of sparks generated by the revolution of a notched wheel of steel, placed right above the pan containing the priming. Specimens of these guns are to be seen in the cabinets of the curious, or in the national armories. The firing of guns by means of flints is comparatively a modern invention. The balls at first were not, as in modern times, made up along with the powder, but were carried in a separate purse or bag, and the powder by itself in a horn or flask. To ensure certainty of firing, a finer kind of powder was used for priming than for the ordinary charge of the gun, and this priming-powder was carried by itself in what was called a touch-box. Most of the guns, when first used as warlike instruments, were so heavy that they could not be held out and fired from the shoulder, as in modern times. The soldier, therefore, was provided with a rest, which he stuck into the [7:11:36]ground, and upon which he laid his gun, and took a deliberate and steady aim. The rests were shod with iron, to preserve them from decay, and that they might the more easily penetrate the ground; and were of different lengths, according to the height of the man using them. The addition of the bayonet to the gun was not made earlier than 1671, being first used by the French about that time. It derives its name of bayonet from Bayonne, a town in the south of France, where that instrument was first made. Few practical arts have made more rapid advancement than that of gun-making. The competition amongst the gun-makers has been very great, and they have arrived at a degree of perfection which it is almost impossible to surpass. Almost every great town in England, Scotland, and Ireland, as well as on the Continent, has large establishments for carrying on this beautiful and ingenious branch of manufacture. Judging of the perfection of the art by the expense of the article, we would think that gun-making had reached the very acme of perfection. It was no uncommon thing to pay fifty, sixty, seventy, or eighty guineas for the best London-made gun. The Continent has even gone before us in this respect. When Napoleon was in the plenitude of his grandeur, he established a gun manufactory at Versailles; and we are informed that pistols were there made at ten thousand livres, L.400 sterling, each, and guns at fifty thousand livres, L.2000 sterling. Of these, the first consul often made presents to foreign princes or general officers. The Marquis of Rockingham presented Colonel Thornton with a fowling-piece which cost L.400; and Messrs Robert and John Wheeler, gun-makers, Birmingham, presented George IV. with a gun of the most exquisite workmanship, which cost 300 guineas.

i The principal part of a gun, whether we consider the safety or the execution, is the barrel. Spain long maintained its superiority over the other nations of Europe for gun barrels. This arose from the supposed excellence of the iron made use of in that country in the manufacture of gun barrels, which were almost exclusively forged from the old shoes of the horses and mules, and stub nails gathered from the highways of that country. Not satisfied with the superior toughness which the old shoes and stubs thus acquired, the Spanish gun-makers, it is said, often reduced, by laborious plyings on the anvil, a mass of iron weighing from forty to fifty pounds, to the weight of an ordinary fowling-piece. From the great excellence of these barrels, many of them were counterfeited by artists of other countries, and the public, thus deceived by fictitious names, were charged exorbitant prices. Some of these Spanish barrels used to sell at very high prices, bringing from L.40 to L.50 each. Even the modern barrels made at Madrid are still much esteemed, and bring high prices. Making every allowance for the prejudice in favour of distant times and places, there can be little doubt of the excellence of the Spanish barrels, when got from the first makers, and bearing the highest price. But however excellent the Spanish barrels may have been, and still are, it is perhaps not too much to say, that they are now rivalled by those of British manufacture. The best British barrels, like the Spanish, are made of iron that has been much worn, and thus toughened by the loss of its fiery particles. Old horse stub nails constitute the best iron for the formation of gun barrels; and accordingly there are people who collect the stubs, and even gather them from the highways, and sell them at a high price to the barrel forgers. Hardly any thing can be imagined better than our best stub-nail twisted barrel.

Next in excellence to the stub-nail twisted barrel, is the Damascus barrel. It is called Damascus from its resemblance to the beautiful arms made of Damascus steel, and to be met with in Syria, Persia, Hindustan, and other countries of the East. The Damascus barrels, when of the first quality, finished with care, and browned in the best manner, are the most beautiful of all barrels; but although more beautiful, they are much inferior in strength and safety to the twisted stub-barrels. The Damascus barrels are composed of iron and steel in certain proportions, laid crossways or zig-zag, and heated and hammered together the whole length of the barrel. This is easily perceptible when the browning is either taken off by art or worn off by use, and thus the size, position, and variety of the pieces of metal composing the barrel made to appear. According to the opinion of the best judges, the object sought for in the Damascus is beauty; but though beauty is gained, strength is sacrificed. Not but that a Damascus barrel, when of the first quality, may be perfectly safe, but superiority of safety is on^the side of the twisted stub-barrel.

The two other kinds of barrels in ordinary use are the stub-iron barrels mentioned, and those made* of the common iron, though of the best quality. Soldiers’ muskets are made of this last, and also the plainest guns, that they may be sold at the lowest prices. Barrels have been formed of other materials, such as old scythes, wire, needles, some with the outer coat of iron, and a lining of steel, and others with layers of iron and steel alternately; but it is needless to do more than mention these, as they seem to have been tried merely as matter of experiment, and to have utterly failed. (See Daniel’s Pural Sports, p. 479.)

Having said thus much of the materials of which gun barrels are made, we must now say a few words of the mode of making them. Having fixed in the first place on the size of the gun, and ascertained as near as may be the width of the bore, and the length and thickness of the barrel, the next thing the forger of the barrel does, is to take a portion of the metal of which he is to make the barrel, and to form it into the shape of a thin flexible bar, something like a cooper’s hoop; this bar or hoop must not be all of the same thickness, but that part of it which is to be towards and form the muzzle of the piece, must be thinner than that which is intended to form the breech. An instrument called a mandril is then chosen, according to the size of the intended bore of the gun. The flexible bar or hoop is then heated so as to make it ply easily, and turned round the mandril, much in the same way as a ribbon of leather is turned round the handle of a whip. The edges of the hoop of iron overlap one another a little, so that, when welded, all their joinings may be compact and solid, and no slackness appear where the lips of the bar or hoop touch one another. When the metal has acquired its proper heat, and the weldings are properly executed, the places where the bars overlapped one another are quite imperceptible, and the barrel appears as made out of one piece, and finished at one heat. The mode of making the twisted barrel does not differ materially from that of the common gun now described. The welding of both is the same, the hammering the same, the horizontal stroke called Ú\e jumping is the same, and they are both wrought on a mandril in the same manner. They differ in this, however, that in the common gun the hoops are broad, overlapping one another considerably, having their edges welded down upon one another, and when finished have the appearance of one continuous piece of plain iron. The bars of the stub-twisted barrel, on the other hand, do not in general exceed half an inch in breadth, and their edges do not overlap, but are just laid close together, and when thus welded, the barrel receives horizontal strokes on the anvil, which make their joints swell up or protuberate, and are then hammered down, and thus made to form a compact and solid union. When the bars are very fine and small, it is called a wire-twist.
[7:11:37]

The instrument with which barrels are bored is called a bit, introduced into the barrel, and turned round so as to cut or grind off all its inequalities, and render the inside a smooth and perfect cylinder. Of course, the size of the bore is regulated by the diameter of that portion of the bit which grinds the barrel. The bit is worked either by water, by steam, or by the hand. To finish the inside of a barrel perfectly, bits of various sizes are used, the last or finishing one doing little more than merely polishing the bore, so that when it receives the last touch of the finishing bit, it appears as bright and smooth as a mirror of polished steel, or the finest glass. We are now speaking of the finest barrels, as plain or common guns are not bored with such care, nor receive so high a polish.

The inside of the barrel being finished, the next thing to be done is to polish its exterior. This is done in the first place by the grindstone, and next by the file. The most approved method, however, of smoothing the exterior of a barrel, is by turning it on a lathe, which secures mathematical accuracy, and adds greatly both to its beauty and its strength.

ř Formerly deplorable accidents were continually happening from barrels being sent abroad imperfectly made, of faulty materials, and which never had been subjected to any proper proof. These evils have now in some measure been remedied by act of parliament. By this act every barrel must be tried by a certain quantity of powder and weight of shot, according to the size of the piece; which proof if it stand, it is stamped accordingly with certain marks and letters, bearing that it has stood the ordeal, and been declared sound and safe accordingly. To counterfeit the government mark or letter, or to expose to sale any gun-barrel without its having been subjected to the government proof, subjects the offending party to certain penalties. Some of the best gun-makers, after the powder, subject their barrels to a water proof, which is more searching, and brings out the flaws or imperfections of the barrel even more decisively than the powder proof established by government.

Notwithstanding the act of parliament obtained in the year 1813, by the company of London gun-makers, for establishing a proof-house in London, and another at Birmingham, deplorable accidents are still happening by the bursting of gun-barrels. Various methods are practised to evade the effect of this act, arising from the temptations to elude its sanctions, the difficulty of bringing delinquents to justice, and the smallness of the penalty incurred. It therefore often happens, in direct violation of the act, that gun-barrels are made of the most faulty materials, and sent abroad to the public stamped with the proof-house mark, that never underwent the ordeal of any proof whatever. The best gun-makers are so much aware of this, that they do not trust the barrels whose sufficiency is verified merely by the legal stamp, but subject them in their own premises to the severest test, both by powder and water proof. Complete security can be had by no other means. In verification of this, take the following quotation: “The forging of the proof-marks of the London and Birmingham proof-houses is very common; and the forging is executed with such skill, and the imitation so exact, that the proofmasters are unable to swear to the forging of their own marks. The penalty is so trifling, and the trouble and difficulty of conviction so great, that those guilty of the forgery are rarely brought to punishment. There are persons in Birmingham that would make you up a gun for nothing but the price of the proof as profit.” See an admirable essay on the gun, by Mr William Greener, gunmaker, Newcastle, in which, by a series of admirably conducted experiments, and the most conclusive arguments, he appears to have completely established the danger of trusting to the mode of trial adopted by the proof-houses of London and Birmingham, and laid down rules, which, if universally adopted, would go far to prevent the melancholy catastrophes frequently arising from the bursting of gun-barrels. We recommend this essay, in all the departments of practical gun-making, as one of the best that has fallen in our way, and well worthy the attention of every one who wishes solid information on the beautiful and interesting art of gun-making. We subjoin a scale of proof, as established by act of parliament, obtained in 1813 by the company of gun-makers in London, and amended in 1815, and which is still in force.

Proof Scale.
[table]

The powder used is the best round granulated government powder.

Rifles differ from other guns in their internal construction, and a little in their exterior appearance, although they are composed of the same materials, and are forged in a similar way. After the barrel intended for a rifle is bored nearly to a perfect cylinder, the next thing is to draw in it parallel grooves of a certain depth, running the whole length of the barrel. The grooves in the rifle are not formed all at once, but successively, one after another, till the whole is finished. The grooves are then all polished out in the most careful manner, and rendered of equal depth and fineness. The grooves of some rifles have a slight twist something like a screw, which gives the ball a rotatory motion when it escapes from the muzzle, supposed favourable to its straightforward horizontal flight. A variety of opinion has prevailed as to the depth or shallowness of the grooves in a rifle, some maintaining that they should be pretty deep, and others that they should be very shallow. Robins in his learned and scientific [7:11:38]treatise on fire-arms, pleads for the latter; and his reasons appear very satisfactory.

“’ Tis sufficiently obvious,” says he, “that whatever tends to diminish the friction of rifles, renders them more complete; and consequently, the less the rifles are indented, provided they are sufficiently so to keep the bullet from turning round in the barrel, the better they are.” To secure accuracy of flight, he continues, “it is necessary that the sweeps of the rifles should be exactly parallel to each other; for then, after the bullet is put in motion, it will slide out of the barrel without any shake, and with a much smaller friction, than if the threads of the rifles had not the same degree of incurvation. Foreigners are so exact in this, that they try their pieces by pouring melted lead into the barrel; and letting it cool, they thus procure a leaden cylinder of perhaps two or three diameters in length, exactly fitted; if this, being gently pushed by the rammer, will pass from one end of the barrel to the other without any sensible strain, they pronounce the rifle regularly finished; but if it anywhere sticks or moves hard, the piece is esteemed defective.”

There are three kinds of breeching; namely, what is called the common plug breeching, the chamber plug or mortar breeching, see Plate CCLXXΠI. fig. 1, and the patent breeching. The first used to be put to the plainest kind of fire-arms, as soldiers' muskets, blunderbusses, and the common plain guns used for ordinary purposes. The second kind of breeching is a slight improvement and alteration on the first, which consists in opening the motion-hole running at right angles through both the male and the female screws, and meeting a small antechamber, which comes from the middle of the main chamber, and thus ignites the charge, not, like the common plug, laterally, but from behind and in the centre. The next is the patent breeching, see fig 3, which, indeed, after all that has been said about it, is but a slight alteration on the one last mentioned, and differs from it almost in nothing, except, perhaps, in superior neatness, in having the screws not affected by the touch-holes, in bringing it nearer the ante, and thus securing more rapid ignition in the main chamber. However, for a fine gun, the patent breeching ought certainly to be preferred, as much handsomer, and altogether in better keeping with a highly finished fowling-piece.

The shooting of barrels depends upon three things; their boring, their length, and their weight.

In boring their barrels, the most approved makers in general observe the following rules: A little tightness for a few inches at the breech end; then a perfect cylinder; and then ease the bore a few inches at the mouth. The tightness at the breech end, the cylinder in the middle, and the widening at the mouth of the barrel, must be in proportion to its length. For a percussion gun a perfect cylinder the whole length of the barrel, except a few inches of ease at the mouth, is adopted by most of the makers as the best. The next thing affecting the shooting of a gun is the length of the barrels. Here opinions vary, one maintaining that fowling-pieces of twenty-eight or even twenty-four inches in length in the barrels will shoot as well as those of thirty, forty, and forty-five inches long. Robins, who instituted a set of experiments to settle this point, says, that he found this to be the case; and the conclusion he drew from his experiments was, that the sportsman might please himself as to the length of his barrels, varying from twenty-eight up to forty inches; but that either below or above this the barrels began to fall off. The writer of this article suspects there must have been something faulty and imperfect in Mr Robins’ experiments; for after the most careful consideration of the subject, he is satisfied that short barrels are inferior to the long, both in the closeness and the strength with which they throw their shot; the only advantage they have is in snap shooting, but in ordinary sport they are not to be compared to the long barrel. For a barrel of ordinary calibre, its length should not be less than thirty-two inches. In support of this opinion we might refer to the authority of the late Joe Manton of London, no incompetent judge in this matter; and for the verification of the soundness of the opinion in favour of long barrels, we refer to Colonel Hawker, who, after a course of seemingly accurately-conducted experiments, has triumphantly established the superiority of long over short barrels. As to the weight of barrels, it is not common sense that light should do equal execution with heavy barrels. Besides the danger attending the use of light barrels, from their violent vibration when fired, they never can send the shot so strongly and so steadily as those of more metal; and from the necessity of giving them less both of powder and shot, it is evident, even to demonstration, that they never can be so deadly. A double gun, to be safe and to do good execution, should not be below seven pounds or seven pounds and a half, or even eight pounds, if the sportsman does not grudge to carry it.

Whatever may be said of the Spanish or other continental barrels as rivalling the British, no one will dispute the superiority of our locks. It is allowed by all competent judges, that the beauty and excellence of our finest locks are quite unrivalled. The ancient gun-lock was a very simple and clumsy contrivance. We gave a short description of them in the first part of this article. Here it is necessary only to name them. These were the matchlock, the wheel-lock, and the snaplance. The last was a great improvement on the two others, and indeed is the foundation of our present flint-lock, with such alterations and improvements as the genius of modern times has suggested. Any description of the present flint-lock is unnecessary, as it is known to every one.

Forsyth’s lock, fig. 2, differs from the ordinary percussion-lock in a few particulars. It has a magazine, a, for containing the percussion powder; and this magazine revolves round a roller, b, the end of which is screwed into the breech of the barrel. A small hole is opened in the roller, through which the priming powder passes. This hole communicates with a channel which leads to the chamber of the gun. Right above the little hole in the roller, is the pan for containing the priming. The magazine is provided with a steel punch, c, the under end of which is right above the pan, ready to ignite the priming when struck on the upper end by the cock d in firing the gun. When the under end of the punch is struck down into the pan, it is raised up again to its former position by a spiral spring Every time the gun is fired, the magazine is turned round so far as to drop a priming of percussion powder into the pan. It is then turned back again, and the steel punch is found in the position ready to fire the gun when the trigger is drawn.

The merit of inventing this lock, see fig. 2, and the application of percussion powder as a substitute for flint in the discharge of fire-arms, belongs exclusively to the Reverend Mr Forsyth, minister of Belhelvie, a parish in Aberdeenshire. Mr Forsyth’s invention is a very ingenious one, and his principle, though no doubt very much altered and improved in its application, has already almost completely supplanted the use of the flint gun. Notwithstanding the great superiority of the percussion over the flint gun it had to struggle for many years with the most violenl prejudices; but the principle being sound, it has now gained a most complete triumph, so much so, that there is not perhaps at this moment a high-priced flint fowl ing-piece making, either in Great Britain or on the Continent; so complete a revolution in fire-arms has the per cussion principle achieved. Although now and then aι [7:11:39] old sportsman may be met with whose prejudices are too obstinate to be subdued, and who may still hold out, yet even these are gradually falling into the opposite opinion; so that the percussion gun may now be considered as nearly universal. This is certainly a great triumph to the principle first thought of and applied by Mr Forsyth; but had the application of this principle not been simplified by subsequent alterations and improvements, it is impossible that the percussion gun would ever have gained so sure and universal a triumph. Accordingly, till the invention of the copper cap, the percussion advanced very slowly. This arose from two causes, the expense of Mr Forsyth’s locks, and the complication of their structure. Although Mr Forsyth’s locks are the same internally (we are speaking of his original patent locks), yet externally they differ materially both in appearance and complication from the ordinary lock; and these circumstances increased both their expense and their liability to derangement. This will be obvious from the inspection of the lock, which will give a far better idea of it than any description. To the inventor of the copper cap, then, whoever he was, for there is a dispute about it, must be attributed the rapid and extraordinary spread of the percussion gun. The copper cap, indeed, is so simple, and so easy in its application, both to new guns and those already in existence, that we do not think it will ever be generally superseded. A great variety of contrivances have been fallen upon as substitutes for the copper cap, but it still keeps its ground, and is likely to do so against all competition.

The superiority of the percussion, and the preference given it by the public, over the flint gun, we conceive, consists in the following circumstances: Its handsome appearance, the comfort in the use of it, the certainty and the rapidity of its discharge, its near approach to a water proof, and the facility with which it at all times obeys the eye of the sportsman. Looking at all these advantages of the detonating gun, we think it a great acquisition to sportsmen, and not likely soon to be supplanted by any other.

This lock internally is the same as the flint-lock, but externally is a little different both in construction and appearance. See fig. 4. We think it much handsomer than the flint-lock, as it gets entirely clear of three projecting and unseemly encumbrances, the hammer, the hammer spring, and the pan; nothing appears externally on the lock-plate but the cock or striker, which gives the blow to the copper cap when the gun is fired, and which is hollow or concave, provided also with a small ring of projecting metal, called a shield or fence, running round the cock at the bottom of the concave head, to defend the eye from the splinters of the copper cap, and the small stream of fire that issues upwards from the hole in the nipple when the gun is discharged. Serious accidents happened at first from the use of detonators, by not adopting such precautions. At first the heads of the cocks or strikers of copper-cap guns were nnt made hollow or concave, and without any shield or fence round them to protect the eye, but were made plain or smooth, like the head of an ordinary carpenter’s hammer: the consequence was, that when the copper cap flew into pieces when struck, the eye of the sportsman was frequently injured, and sometimes totally destroyed, by such accidents. The next peculiarity of the ordinary detonating lock is the pivot or nipple, and is that part of it which supplies the place of the pan, hammer, and hammer spring of the flint-lock. It is screwed into the patent breèch, and is perforated by a small hole upon which the copper cap is put. It is made two ways, either plain or with small circular rings running round it, intended to prevent the cap from falling or being rubbed off. If properly made, the small rings round it are unnecessary.

As Barthold Schwartz, a clerical person, a native of Germany, is considered as the inventor of gunpowder in Europe, and as the Reverend Mr Forsyth, minister of Belhelvie, Aberdeenshire, is the inventor of the detonating gun, so it also happens that the Reverend Dr Somerville, minister of the parish of Currie, Edinburghshire, is the inventor of the safety-gun.

This is effected by means of a stop, slide, or catch, situate under the trigger-plate A. It is pulled forward into a nick in the trigger by means of a spring B on the front of the guard, worked by means of a key C, which presses upon the spring when the gun is discharged. The second method of safety is accomplished by means of a small bit of moveable iron A, of a circular form, rising through a small opening B in the lock-plate C, which prevents the cock from reaching the nipple, as represented in fig. 4, until it is drawn back within the lock-plate when the gun is fired. Fig. 7 is method second discharged. The third method is accomplished by meansofa small bit of iron like a little flap or wing A, folded down in front of the breast of the cock B when the gun is put in the position of safety, and which flap or wing is again raised when the gun is to be fired. This little wing turns on the front of the lock-plate by means of a hinge C. Both these methods are worked by means of a slide or lever, and key, similar to what is described in method first. Fig. 9 is method third discharged.

There is no man who knows any thing about fire-arms but must be satisfied of the danger attending the use of the ordinary gun. The many advices given about caution by every writer on field-sports; the reiterated paragraphs of newspapers on this subject; the earnest and solicitous admonitions of parents, relations, guardians, and friends; the anxiety felt at the departure, and the joy at the return, of the young sportsman unscathed; the distressing and tragical tales of death and mutilation told in almost every newspaper, announce but too emphatically that the danger is neither imaginary, nor the mischief attending the use of fire-arms of rare occurrence. But if fears about their use, and the admonitions prompted by such fears, could remove the danger, it would be well; experience, however, proves that such admonitions are often in vain. The fact is, shooting is an amusement of that kind which, especially with young sportsmen, so suspends attention, absorbs thought, lays reason and reflection so completely asleep, and excites such ardent and headlong feelings, as to leav« no room for any thing but the occupation of the moment and to talk of preventing entirely accidents from fire-arms by admonition is perfectly hopeless, as it is calling upon young men to exercise thought and caution where thought and caution, we do not say are impossible, but frequently so difficult as to render them very nearly so. It is not without reason, then, that writers have cautioned sportsmen to be careful in the use of fire-arms, and that parents have felt anxiety about their sons when engaged in field-sports with weapons in their hands so precarious in their use, and so fatal in their effects. Too frequently the sprightly and spirited youth, in pursuit of pleasure, finds death. Advice may be given, and caution may be exerted at all times, but still there will be ample room for the employment of means more easy in their application, and more certain in their effects, than either the one or the other. These means are completely furnished by Dr Somerville’s safety-gun.

Dr Somerville, a few years ago, published an essay on' his safety-gun, and what follows is little more than an abridgment of it. The difficulty, he informs us, was to get a proper principle; but this gained, every thing was gained. Now a proper principle must accomplish four points: 1st, It must allow the right hand to carry the gun in the natural position, without touching or coming in contact, so as to disturb[7:11:40] or undo the spring or safety apparatus; 2dly, the safety must work mechanically; 3dly, there must be no loss of time in working it; and, lastly, the gun must always be locked except when levelled by the eye and pressed to the shoulder; in other words, it must be locked in its approach to the shoulder, and locked in its descent from it. These four points Dr Somerville has completely gained. This will be obvious from the following mode of applying his principle. Morally speaking, accidental discharge with this gun is completely out of the question, at least the probability is so small, that perhaps philosophy could not calculate when this gun would be discharged in any other way than by design. To fire this gun, two specific points must be touched at one specific time. If accidental pressure shall touch the key which works the safety, no evil happens, because the trigger is untouched; and if it touch the trigger, no evil happens, because it is locked. The pressure must be against the trigger and on the key at the same instant of time, otherwise the lock will not work. If the trigger is touched the twinkling of an eye before the key, or the key before the trigger, no evil can ensue; for unless touched at the same moment, they mutually counteract and support one another, and thus prevent the gun going oft'. Accident may touch the key and the trigger of this gun as well as any other; but then accident cannot touch both key and trigger at the same instant. Design only can touch two specific points at one specific time. If accident do touch the key and trigger, it must be in succession; but successive touching will not fire the gun.' It must be simultaneous to do it; but this supposes thought, and thought supposes design. A short statement of some of the advantages of this gun will conclude our article.

The first advantage, then, which this gun has over the one in common use, is the preservation of human life. This is the first and great object of the present contrivance; and in this point of view it was first thought of by the inventor. The other advantages which it possesses are all subordinate to this, and come in merely as subsidiary to the main design. The second advantage of this gun over the ordinary fowling-piece, is superior dispatch. This is evident at first sight, as this invention enables the sportsman to go with his gun full cocked, and thus, when game rises unexpectedly, saves all the time lost, as well as distraction of thought occasioned, by cocking the ordinary gun; and consequently he has only to present and discharge his piece, which he is enabled to do before the gun in ordinary use can be cocked and brought to the shoulder. So sensible are sportsmen of the advantage of having their fowling-pieces full cocked, that many of them go with them thus prepared, though at the risk both of their own and their friends’ lives. Colonel Hawker, in his instructions to young sportsmen, when speaking of the danger arising from firearms in the field, even when the sportsman goes up to his game with the ordinary gun on half cock, says, “Suppose an eager young man, who is unaccustomed to shooting, walks up to his dog with his gun half eocked; the moment the birds rise, he is in such a state of agitation, that in attempting to draw back the eock of his gun, with a trembling hand, he lets it slip before the scear has caught the tumbler. Oft' goes the gun, and the best fortune that can be expected is the happy escape of a favourite dog, or the life of his fellow shooter.” From this statement we argue thus: If snch is the danger with the ordinary gun carried on half, what must be the danger when carried on full cock? The fact is, with the ordinary gun there is great danger both ways. The present invention, however, removes danger from every way of carrying the gun, as it is always completely locked till it is raised and pressed to < the shoulder, and levelled by the eye of the sportsman.!

The third advantage of this gun over others is, the ease and tranquillity of mind which it necessarily imparts, not only to the sportsman himself, but to his friends, parents, and relations at home, from the perfect security which it affords him. No man of ordinary feeling can be perfectly at ease,when surrounded by his friends, with a loaded gun in his hand, leaping walls, crossing ditches, brushing through thickets, underwood, and hedges, whilst all the time the life of his friends is within the reach of a mortal weapon, and the danger of that weapon guarded against only by the fallaciousness of memory, and the risk increased tenfold by the eagerness of pursuit, and the suspension of thought necessarily occasioned by a species of amusement which, more than any other, lays caution asleep, and occasions that flutter and hurry of spirits from which such fatal accidents generally spring. It is certainly no very pleasant thing, in the present state of fowling-pieces, to walk all day with two tubes opposite one’s heart, which any neglect or incautionsness on the part of one’s self or friend might render fatal in a moment. What may be called, then, the moral advantage arising from a sense of safety and the removal of anxiety, is not the least advantage in the use of this gun. A man, to be sure, with the ordinary fowling-piece does not always shoot himself or friend; but there is always îí possibility of doing both, and the accumulated uneasiness and anxiety arising from the very possibility, is no small deduction from the full enjoyment of his amusement. The hair that suspends the sword over his head does not always snap, to be sure, but there is always a chance of its doing so. The present safety removes all such anxiety, and prevents all such chances; for it is completely locked, except when levelled at the object, and in the very act of pulling the trigger; for, the moment it ceases to be levelled at the game, the returning action of the safety-spring locks in the gun, not only without the consent, but even contrary to the will, of the sportsman, and thus protects both himself and friends. It must not be supposed from this that the trigger must be drawn the moment the safety-spring is pressed; all that is necessary is, that when the gnn is levelled and pressed to the shoulder, which, as a matter of course, undoes the safety-spring, and allows the locks to work, the right hand shall then draw the trigger, at whatever time the sportsman thinks he has covered his game, or feels inclined to fire, so that he may keep the safety apparatus undone, or worked, any length of time he pleases, before he draws the trigger.

A fourth advantage is, that one of the modes of shooting with this gun saves the left hand in case of the barrel bursting, by forcing the sportsman to place his left hand on the front of the guard. Colonel Hawker, in his Instructions to Young Sportsmen, and Daniel, in his Rural Sports, both most competent judges, recommend this mode of holding the gun. Daniel’s words are, “Always hold the gun with the left hand close to the guard, and not forward on the barrel to grasp it near the entrance of the ramrod, notwithstanding it has been so strenuously recommended; all the requisite steadiness in taking aim, and even of motion, in traversing the flight of a bird, can be obtained by thus holding the heaviest pieces; and in the case of a barrel’s bursting, the certainty of having a hand or arm shattered by grasping the barrel, is reduced to the chance of escaping the effects of such an accident by placing the hand close to the guard beneath it.”

The fifth advantage of this gun which we mention is, that it completely avoids the necessity of perpetually cocking and uncocking, a very fertile source of danger attending the use of the ordinary gun in the field. With the ordinary gun, the moment the dogs point, or seem to point, both locks are eocked; and if there happen to be no game, or it rise beyond reach, the gun must be uncocked again; so that with the ordinary gun the sportsman during the whole day is perpetually cocking and uncocking his gun. To his friend in company with him, who sees him perpetually[7:11:41] thumbing his locks, and hears them clicking all day, it is a source not only of great annoyance, but also of great danger. Accidents often happen from this cause.

The sixth advantage of this gun is, against the danger incurred from the breaking of the point of the scear. This is a very common source of danger, from which the sportsman cannot protect himself or friends, for he is not aware of it. The danger from this cause happens in the following manner: When the sportsman is in search of game with his gun on half cock, up springs the game, and the gun is instantly levelled without being cocked; the trigger remains immoveable; a violent pull is then given; the scear is strained, probably cracked; ignorant that the scear has been injured by the violent pull, the sportsman proceeds in search of his game as usual. The scear may break the next hour, the next day, or the next week; but at whatever time it gives way, the sportsman and his friends are all this time in danger, without having the least idea they are so. This is a very common source of mischief, against which the safety is a completo protection; for although any part or every part of the inside of the lock were to give way, the cock or striker cannot reach the nipple to fire the gun till the safety-spring is drawn back.

Another common source of danger with the ordinary gun is, that sportsmen often go with the cock or striker resting on the nipple; the consequence of which is, that any thing drawing back the striker by accident, a certain distance, and then losing its hold, off goes the gun. Against accidents of this kind the safety is a complete protection, as the striker cannot be pulled back but by the design of the person using the gun.

The last advantage of this gun we mention, is the security it gives to loaded guns, when lying in houses, or exposed to the curiosity of thoughtless or ignorant persons. Many a life has been lost by guns having been presented and fired off in a wanton and incautious manner. Such accidents cannot happen with the present gun; for, to render it perfectly safe, it is only necessary to stop the action of the safety-spring, which is done by a very simple contrivance, and restored again to action by the same simple means.

Looking at all these advantages of Dr Somerville’s safety-gun, we anticipate that in a short time no gun will be considered complete without having a safety attached to it.

We shall conclude this article by the insertion of a few tables abridged from a work published in Birmingham, by the authority of the Proof Company, illustrating the different proportions of the British and French muskets. The serjeants of the British light-infan try regiments carry a small musket or fusil of the following dimensions :—
[table]
[table]

The carbine carried by the regiments of light cavalry is in length only sixteen inches, and in weight six pounds. The pistol is in length, diameter, and weight, the same as that used by the heavy cavalry. The greater liability of the ramrod to shake out of the shorter carbine has led to the adoption of an indention of Lord Anglesey’s, by which the rod is connected to the piece by a swivel. The same invention is also applied to the pistol.

The barrel of the French musket is longer than that of the British, and the bayonet is shorter, though not so much so as to make the barrel and bayonet of the British musket equal in length to that of the barrel and bayonet of the French. The following are the proportions :—
[table]

In the comparison just drawn between the respective lengths of the British and the French muskets, that of the British is of the India pattern musket, which was used by our forces during the late war; the musket now carried by our infantry is longer, the barrel being forty-two inches and the bayonet seventeen inches, being very nearly equal in length to the French musket.

The locks of the French muskets have brass pans, and they are altogether heavier, and have a more clumsy appearance, than the British. The calibre of the barrel is likewise narrower than that of our muskets. This will be more distinctly seen by the following statement of the dimensions of the French musket, and of the new pattern musket now carried by the British forces.
[table]
[7:11:42]