Abstract
ONE of the most interesting features connected with the recent meeting of the Iron and Steel Institute was the fact that the Arsenal authorities abandoned at last the official reserve which has so long been complained of, and descended into the arena of professional discussion by reading papers on the manufacture of ordnance, projectiles, small arms, and gun-carriages, and submitting them to public criticism. We must specially congratulate Col. Maitland, the present distinguished head of Woolwich Arsenal, on having had the courage to take this step. His paper on the Metallurgy and Manufacture of Modern British Ordnance was extremely interesting. Its production also was well timed, coming at a period when the confidence of the public was considerably shaken in the management of the Royal Arsenal, by the bursting of the Thunderer's 38-ton gun. Col. Maitland reviews in succession the early history of Steel versus Iron, the successive improvements in the manufacture of gunpowder, the processes of the manufacture of the iron and steel, the building up of the gun, and the boring and rifling of the barrel. The paper concludes with a description of some of the special tools and furnaces in use at the Arsenal. As regards the question of powder, it is satisfactory to find from an official utterance that the problem of the proper action of gunpowder is at last thoroughly understood. On this point the author states, “With the large slow-burning powders now used, long heavy shell move quietly off under the impulse of a gradual evolution of gas, the pressure of which continues to increase till the projectile has moved a foot or more; then ensues a contest between the increasing volume of gas, tending to raise the pressure, and the growing space behind the advancing shot tending to relieve it. As artillery science progresses, so does the duration of this contest extend further along the bore of the gun towards the great desideratum, a low maximum pressure long sustained.” To this last sentence we call particular attention, for in the attainment of this object by our powder manufacturers lies the whole possible development of the power of artillery. When the author uses the words low maximum pressure, we take it that the expression must be understood in a relative sense only, and that the maximum pressure should not be high as compared with the mean; what is in reality the great desideratum is as high a maximum pressure as is consistent with the strength of the gun, sustained throughout the entire length of the bore. How far this object is from being attained at present can be seen at a glance from the shape of even the most modern heavy gun, which is very thick at the breech and dwindles down to almost nothing at the muzzle, showing that the pressures at the breech are still far from being sufficiently sustained. The problem here is more one for powder-makers than artillerists. The latter can but indicate what is wanted. It seems from à priori grounds impossible to expect that the solid pebble powder now in use, burning as it does from the surface to the centre, can ever give off the increasing volumes of gas wanted in order to fill up the spaces behind the advancing projectile, and thus maintain the pressure. It is, we believe, no secret that the results attained with our home-made powders are inferior to those furnished by the perforated prismatic powders made in Germany and Russia.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
The Iron and Steel Institute . Nature 24, 608–609 (1881). https://doi.org/10.1038/024608a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/024608a0