THE ARMSTRONG GUN.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 6, Issue 283, 27 February 1862, Page 4

THE ARMSTRONG GUN.

(From the Times. ) It is said that Sir Cornewall Lewis has suspended for. the present the issue of 100 pounder Armstrong guns, and has directed such experiments to be made, as-will bring the efficiency, of this new ordnance to a decisive proof. This resolution will certainly be satisfactory to the country.

Grave defects are now said to have been discovered in the piece ; tliat : Muzzles as well as vent pieces have beerffelown away; and that the Armstrong gun, in fact, is alarmingly liable do fracture. ' But these charges seem advanced solely on the evidence of experimental trial, and there is probably no gun of any description which might not be burst under those peculiar conditions of-practice. The question is not whether Armstrong guns may not be now and then imperfectly manufactured, but whether the guns actually proved and issued for service are as serviceable as they ought to be. If an excessive percentage of fracture, occurs in the process of proving, that would tell no doubt against the economy of the manufacture, but not against the ultimate efficiency of the gun. A more general argument urged against the invention is, that instead of having been brought to perfection, it is still almost in its infancy, after live years of expenditure and experiments, W e are told, that these experiments should have preceded the adoption of the gun as a national weapon., and that it would have been time enough to,establish Government fac-. tories when such questions as are now raised had been finally determined,. If such a plau had been followed, the result would have been, that while all other states had got rifled cannon, we should have been left with the artillery of fifty years ago. Whether the Armstrong gun is bett r or- worse than the Whitworth gun, or the Blakely gun, or any other gun may bo a question deserving attention, but- xt is not the question--here-implied. That is of a totally different character. It is.simply this—whether the Armstrong gun was not the most promising specimen

of rifled cannon known five years ago. We have no doubt that by adopting this gun we gained a great national advantage. It is almost enough to demolish our expectations from future experiments, when wo observe that the actual trial of these guns in the Chinese war is appealed to with confidence by bath parties alike. YV e certainly thought that the efficiency of the weapon had been conclusively demonstrated against our Tartar enemies. The guns were found to bear rough usage to be manageable in the field, and to possess the most formidable powers, of destruction. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the accounts received, while the practice, it must be remembered, took place before the critical eyes of our allies. Yet it is now said that, because of two. •‘vent-pieces ” being disabled during the campaign, and tire lead casing of some of the shells flyin< off, that the experience gained in this expedition tells, against the invention. On this point, howevei*, it is surely possible to. bring the controversy to a practical issue. Were hot the Armstrong guns found; to be infinitely superior to the old field-pieces'? Taken with all their imperfections—whatever these may have been —were they not considered by the A r illery and the army at large to be most formidable cannon l Would they have been willingly exchanged for a battery of old 12-pounders, or a battery of any other guns then known? We admit, of course, that there is a tjueatioa behind all these— viz., whether a rilled gun may not be producible of a pattern more formidable still ? Allowing that Sir Wm. Am strong is a great inventor, there may be inventors greater than he. This, in fact, s the very question now brought forward for decision. If the proposed experiment should go against the Armstrong guns, some other guns must take their place. <* ’

(From the Globe. )

We cannot como to the conclusion, bearing all the facts in view, that the impression now sought to be created agamst the Armstrong gun is a just one. The defects which undoubtedly as yet belong to tbe gun jure gi’eatly exaggerated. The small Armstrong gun—the field-piece used in Chiua—is by many degrees the most successful kind of gun nanufactured. by Sir W. Armstro .g. Yet it was pronounced anything hue perfect by those who had tire best means of ascertaining the fact. About its power of destruction when fired there was, ar.d we believe is, no question. But in its wi rking several defects were« presented and reported on. These deficiencies have since been to a great extent though, not completely supplied. The larger- guns—the 4-0 and 100-pounders—-cannot, we fear, be said to have established their excellence so.decidedly, although they have passed far beyond the experimental stage. The latest news we have heard of them is, that from each of the large-sized guns, fifty seven, rounds have been fired as fast as experienced gunners could load and discharge them, and that at the end of the time, they were all as free from flaw, strain, or defect exf any kind, fls when the first shot was put in. We may add, that the statement of the Government having stopped the issue of the 100-pounder gijn is in xnreet. The attacks upon this gu u proceed from the inventors of other gui i which have not been accepted by the Government. Sir Win. Armstrong has gained the co ifidence of the Government,* and it i 3 not an uncommon subject of complaint that, however excellent his invention, lie should occupy the position he does. The impression is, that he, a contractor, is also in a position to exclude rivals by bis dictum, and pass judgment, as the Engineer for Rifled Ordnance, upon the weapons manufactured by himself. This is a. very erroneous impression, . Sir W. A rmstrong holds office and receives a salary f r superintending and manufacture

of hiaownguns and nothing more.. He has nothing, to do .vith. tlie examination of other inventions, or With the adoption of his own guns. H ■