Page images
PDF
EPUB

A COMMON FOURTEEN GAUGE DOUBLE GUN.

(Weight altogether 8 lbs.: barrels by Lancaster.)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Q. Why is the common sporting-gun tight behind, when the other guns are opened behind?

A. Because a sporting-gun requires to be fired so many times in a day, that we must adopt an inferior mode of getting friction, in order to prevent the barrel from becoming leaded; and therefore to make it shoot, through the whole day, nearly as well as when clean, and without recoil to the shoulder. Again, a sporting-gun, must of necessity be short, for the convenience of covert, and snap-shooting; and therefore the length that would properly suit that relief which must follow an opening behind (in order to prevent recoil, and preserve close shooting) would be generally objected to as an inconvenience.

[Here I allude only to flint-guns; as a detonater must, in a great degree, be debarred from this advantage; because, if too tight behind, without any subsequent check, the powder would be blown away so quick as not to be half kindled. This is the new discovery in boring for detonaters, which I before alluded to, and which has probably saved them not only from being wholly abandoned, but has brought them into general use in almost every part of the world.]

Q. Suppose, then, you were to have your fourteen gauge barrels two feet ten inches, how would you dispose of the extra length?

C

A. I would have seven inches of relief instead of five, by which my shot would be thrown equally strong, and decidedly closer.

[On this proportion I ordered a gun for a friend, who wrote to inform me that he had beat every gun he shot against. It is but justice to say, that the maker was Mr. Westley Richards, who is considered by many of our best sportsmen, as "Joe Manton the Second;" and I should say deservedly so, from what I have lately seen of him and his work. Mr. Richards is really a scientific man; instead of having more tongue than brains, like many of our gunmaking charlatans. His barrels are as good as any in the world, being made of pure Holland stubs, and twisted in a manner best suited for service and for safety. Within these last few years Mr. Richards has run some of the best London makers so hard that they begin to wish him and his prime minister Bishop in -"another and a better world!"]

Gunmakers, who know their business, form their calibers more or less, according to circumstances, on the plans already stated; except those of rifles, and guns for firing ball, which must be regularly tighter all the way out, as with these we have no reason to fear the want strength, or the risk of a recoil, and the only object is to keep the ball in the straightest possible direction, and regulate the barrel to the most accurate line of aim. should be done by having the gun of the utmost length that can be used, and steadied by immense substance and weight of metal.

This

While speaking of rifles, I must not omit to mention two of the finest pieces of mechanism of the present age - Mr. Purdey's double rifles, and the new-invented ma

chines that Greenfield has made for rifling barrels. But to say what is here due to these excellent artists, might lead me into a detail that would exceed my intended limits. I must, however, not omit to mention the twogroove rifles, which are intended to supersede all others, as I find they are more convenient for loading, because, with them, you require no mallet to force the ball into the muzzle. This appears to me as the only great advantage they have over the others, though the present Mr. Lancaster and the late William Moore have done wonders with them.

The farther the sight at the breech is placed from that near the muzzle, the more accurate, of course, must be the line of aim; and the heavier the gun, the more likely you will be to preserve it in firing.

With regard to having a barrel too far opened forward, when left with mere cylinder behind, and the various tricks that are played to ease the explosion, for the sole purpose of throwing the shot as close as possible, it will be needless to trespass on the reader's patience.

[ocr errors]

Though a barrel, bored as before mentioned, will not shoot quite so close as it might be made to do, yet, taking every thing into consideration, it has the tenfold advantage of doing justice to a good shot, and even assisting a bad one, by the irresistible force given, not only to the body of the charge, but also to the pellets, which fly wide of the mark. Let the sportsman, therefore, rest assured, that a gun which will shoot sufficiently close a surface, to insure two or three shot (of No. 7. at forty yards) taking the body of a bird, and, at the same time, distribute them in a regular manner, is better than a very close shootinggun. It was formerly the custom to make barrels,

although so small as fourteen, sixteen, or even two-andtwenty in the gauge, of three or four feet in length; and now, since it has been ascertained that two feet six inches will shoot equally well, at the short distance of a gunmaker's confined premises, many have gone too much to the other extreme, and cut them to two feet four inches, and less. The disadvantage of this is, that even the best shots are more liable to miss; for although we allow that a short gun, at a short distance, will kill as well as a long one, yet the latter gives you a more accurate aim, and considerably lessens the recoil, by which you shoot to a greater nicety, and with more steadiness. To avoid all extremes I should recommend small barrels, never less than two feet eight, nor more than three feet in length. My readers will observe that my remarks here have been altered since publishing the earlier editions. The late Mr. Joseph Manton, who knew more about a gun than any man in Europe, assured me, after innumerable experiments, he proved that two feet eight for a twenty-two gauge barrel is the best proportion for a sporting-gun. Take therefore a fourteen gauge barrel, and see whether or not I am right for recommending one of two feet ten inches, and three feet, where it can be used without inconvenience! But mind one grand point -have plenty of metal near the breech end; not only for strong shooting, but for good elevation. Let all barrels be tapered like a bulrush: no hollowing out, as this injures their shooting.

It may be thought a bold assertion, but I have every reason to believe that we have all, to this very day, been completely in the dark about the length of guns. Mr. Daniel, (speaking of a duck-gun) said that a barrel, three

feet eight inches, is "as capable, or more so, of throwing shot sharp and distant, as a barrel two feet longer." In my second edition (deceived in the same manner that all the gunmakers have been, by not having made their trials on a sufficiently large scale) I gave it as an opinion, that except the aim being better, and the recoil less, a long gun had no advantage over a short one. On the contrary, I have now proved that a short gun has no chance with a long one, in keeping the shot well together at long distances.

The experiment must not be tried with little pop-guns that are used for pigeons and partridges, but with guns on a gigantic scale, by which we can make every observation in the clearest possible manner, with the same advantage that an astronomer, with his large telescope, has over the naked eye, or diminutive glass, in discovering a planet.

I had once made up my mind that a barrel, of whatever size it might be, would kill the farthest if made fortyeight times the diameter of the intended caliber, and entered in the manuscripts for my third edition some observations to that effect. But had they gone to the press, I should have been open to the criticism of every good experimentalist; for I have since discovered, that the larger the gun, the longer it must be in proportion. In addition to my own experiments, I am indebted for the perusal of several observations (which corroborate my opinion on them) to that excellent engineer, the late General Shrapnell, of the Royal Artillery. I shall, therefore, say no more by way of argument, but lay before my readers one of the clearest proofs, selected from the number I have made:

TRIAL. Taking the average of several shots, at twenty sheets of thickest brown paper, at a target, placed in the

« PreviousContinue »