The Ordnance Manual gives 867 yards as the mean range of the 6-pounder gun with a solid shot and 14 pounds of powder.

The bore of the gun was repeatedly and carefully examined with the aid of a mirror, and it received no injury until the firing of the last shell, which burst in the gun. This shell had been twice fired through the target and was reserved as of doubtful soundness. Three indentations were made near the middle of the chase of the gun. On comparing the results of the firing given above with those obtained with smoothbored guns, we have to regret the want of desirable data. The tables of artillery practice given in the Ordnance Manual make no reference to accuracy of firing, and but little minute information on this particular is accessible at the Ordnance Office. I have been unable to find any table of firing corresponding nearly with the first six rounds. The following statement of practice with the French 8-pounder (about equal in caliber to our 9-pounder) from the "Aide Mémoire," 1884, probably applies as nearly as anything I have been able to obtain.

The mean lateral deviation of 100 rounds at the distance of 500 meters (547 yards) was 2.3 meters (7 feet 6 inches), and at 800 meters (875 yards) 7.0 meters (22 feet 114 inches).

The three rounds of table (4) correspond pretty nearly in distance to this last. We may make the following comparison:

Ft. In.

64

22 111 3

5

Ten rounds of solid shot were fired by an officer of the Ordnance Department from a smooth-bored 6-pounder with the service charge (14 pounds) of powder at the same target and from the same distance as the six rounds of table (3), principally for the purpose of comparing the penetrations. Four of these shots hit the target, six missing it. The mean penetration was 16 inches. The deviations are not known.

A table was also furnished me, by the kindness of Colonel Huger, of the firing of 75 rounds of 6-pound shot with the service charge, at a target 10 feet high by 20 feet wide and 600 yards distant. The lateral deviations are given in feet. The number of hits was 49, of which the average deviation was just 4 feet. The number of hits on the central 12 feet of the target (or of which the deviations are set down as 6 feet or less) was 31, their average deviation 3 feet.

We will again compare as follows:

The proportion of hits in firing at targets 600 yards distant is in the table furnished by Colonel Huger (central 12 feet), 1 to 2.4; ten rounds (6-pound shot), 1 to 2.6; table (3) rifled gun, 1 to 1.5. The mean lateral deviation of the above hits was in the table furnished by Colonel Huger (central 12 feet), 3 feet. Table (3) rifled gun, 2 feet 4 inches.

The following statement was the only information furnished me on application at the Ordnance Office in regard to the deviations of firing at the distance of 660 yards: [Extract from General Orders No. 10, 1814.]

ORDNANCE OFFICE, Washington, February 17, 1844.

Of 114 fires from field artillery (6-pounder guns and 12-pounder bowitzers) at targets from 400 to 600 yards distant, there were 37 hits, rather more than one in four shots.

# *

General R. JONES,

#

Adjutant-General, U. S. A.

G. TALCOTT, Lieutenant-Colonel Ordnance.

The size of the target is not given, and no accurate comparison can be made. Of the whole number of shells fired at the target from the rifled gun, one-third hit the target; and their average deviation was a little less than 22 inches. Some of these shells were very defective, the best being used in the first rounds.

The superiority of the firing of the rifled gun is markedly seen in its comparative penetration.

The 6-pound shot fired with 14 pounds of powder penetrated 16 inches, while the shell fired with 1 pound of powder went through the target (24 inches) and still retained a great velocity, as is evident from the distance at which the shells exploded behind the target, although they were fired by percussion against it.

This advantage in regard to penetration is doubtless the result of the following causes: The prevention of the loss of the force of the powder by windage, as already explained; the decreased resistance of the air to the projectile, and lastly, the advan tageous form of the shell for penetration. The effect of the first two of these causes is also seen in comparing the mean range of the three shells fired with 14 pounds of powder with the mean range of 6-ponnd shot with the same charge and at the same elevation as given in the Ördnance Manual. Although the weight of the shell exceeds that of the shot more than 50 per cent., its range lacks less than 4 per cent. of being equal.

The advantages of the proposed plan over the use of ordinary smooth-bored guns, if we may deduce them from the foregoing experiments, may be expressed in the following summary:

(1) The greater effective force or penetration of the projectile.

(2) The greater accuracy of firing.

(3) The ability to explode shells by percussion against the object at which they are fired.

(4) The flattened form of the rinochet, which renders ricochet firing much more destructive.

(5) The greater durability of the gun, in consequence of the prevention of the lodgments usually formed by the bounding of the ball in the bore.

(6) It will necessarily follow from the facts that the same initial velocity may be imparted to the proposed shell, and that its resistance to the air is less; that greater ranges may be obtained by the proposed plan than are possible with spherical shot. It would be but stating the converse of these advantages to say that guns and ammunition of equal efficiency would have less weight and more transportability.

The service of the gun is rendered no more complex, and if any increase of time is required in loading it will be only in presenting the ball properly for entering the gun, and the whole time consumed in charging the gun will be much less than is always required for accurate aiming.

The importance of these advantages undoubtedly varies in different departments of service. It is probably greatest in siege, sea-coast, and naval service.

In siege service great penetrative force of the shot or shells, accuracy of firing, long ranges, and transportability of guns and ammunition, are all necessary in the highest degree.

The explosion of shells by percussion will probably be of greatest importance in firing against shipping. Great want of uniformity in the distance at which shells will explode when fired with the common fuses, even though perfect uniformity were attained in the time of their burning, will always occur, in consequence of the variation in the time of flight of shells fired under apparently the same circumstances; and when to this is added the difficulty of a correct estimate of distances, the proba bility of exploding a shell at any particular place will be seen to be exceedingly small. It is also a matter of great difficulty to lodge a shell in a ship's side, since the conditions to be fulfilled include the weight of the charge, the distance, and the angle of the ship's side with the line of fire. In the use of percussion shells, however, the velocity most favorable to accuracy may be used, and these difficulties are entirely avoided.

The effect of the explosion of a large shell between the decks of a ship of war can hardly be anticipated. The accidental explosion of a 10-inch shell on board the English practice ship Excellent is stated to have put 100 men hors du combat.

Long ranges and accuracy of firing are eminently important in sea-coast service. The estimated importance of long ranges and great penetrative force in the naval service is evinced by the introduction of guns of heavy caliber. The decreased weight of the guns, and the diminished force of recoil consequent on the more economical use of the explosive force of the powder in producing equivalent effect, would doubtless be desirable.

With the desire that the value of the plan proposed may be fully tested by guns of heavy caliber, and compared with the unrifled cannon now in use in the various points affecting its utility in the different branches of service, Congress is petitioned for the necessary aid.

DECEMBER, 1852.

WILLIAM E. WOODBRIDGE.

1st Session

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 12, 1890.-Ordered to be printed.

{No. 1485.

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Pensions, submitted the following

REPORT;

[To accompany H. R. 4415.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R 4415) granting a pension to John S. Dill, have examined the same and report:

The report of the Committee on Pensions of the House of Repre sentatives hereto appended is adopted and the passage of the bill rec ommended.

HOUSE REPORT.

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4415) granting a pension to John S. Dill, have considered the same and report:

A similar bill was introduced in the House at the first session of the Fiftieth Congress, and was favorably reported to the House by your committee in report No. 3057. Said report contains a correct statement of the facts, and your committee adopt the same as their report, and recommend that the bill do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the word "War" in the sixth line, and substitute in lieu thereof the words: "And allow him a pension at $8 per month.

[House Report No. 3057, Fiftieth Congress, first session.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2089) granting a pension to John S. Dill, have considered the same and report as follows:

Departmental records show that John Dill served in a company commanded by Capt. J. Mayo, of Illinois Volunteers, in the Black Hawk war, from June 19, 1832, to August 15, 1832. His claim for pension before the Pension Burean, based on the alleged incurrence of right inguinal hernia while in service, has been rejected on the ground of no record of said disability and no sufficient proof of its incurrence in service.

The claimant is now seventy six years old and is affected by au inguinal hernia as alleged, which would entitle him to a rating of $8 per month under the general pen sion laws, and by varicose veins, also claimed to be due to service, for which a rating of $4 per month would be commensurate.

Additional evidence has been filed in the claim since its rejection. It is shown by the testimony of a sergeant and a private in claimant's regiment that he was thrown from his horse in service in 1832 and injured severely in the groin. The disability has continued ever since.

This man would be entitled to a pension under the bill reported by this committee at the present session of Congress, to pension the survivors of the Indian wars from

1832 to 1842.

Your committee recommend the passage of the bill.

1st Session.

No. 1486.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 12, 1890.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Pensions, submitted the following

REPORT:

[To accompany H. R. 2430.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2430) granting a pension to Ruth A. Ball, have examined the same and report:

The report of the Committee on Invalid Pensions of the House of Representatives hereto appended is adopted, and the passage of the bill recommended.

HOUSE REPORT.

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2430) granting a pension to Ruth A. Ball, submit the following report:

The claimant was the widow of Mathew Holmes, second lieutenant, Company B, Twenty-eighth Michigan Infantry, who was killed in action at the battle of Wise's Forks, March 8, 1865. She was pensioned at the rate of $15 per month, and said pension was paid her until her marriage with one Ball, about ten years after. Said Ball proved to be a worthless character, and after living with her long enough to squander her small means deserted her. She has no knowledge of his whereabouts for the past twelve years, and has been informed that he was married to another woman, from whom he was not divorced at the time of her marriage to him, and that he is now living with this woman. In view of the fact that her first husband was killed in battle, and that the claimant is now in poor health and destitute circumstances, and that it is a common practice to restore such to the pension-rolls, your committee recommend the passage of the bill with the amendment as noted in the bill.

1st Session.

No. 1487.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

JULY 12, 1890.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on Pensions, submitted the following

REPORT:

[To accompany H. R. 4935.]

The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4935) to increase the pension of Elmore E. Ewing, have examined the same, and report:

The report of the House committee, appended hereto, sets forth with sufficient fullness the grounds upon which this application is based. In view of these considerations the passage of the bill is recommended.

HOUSE REPORT.

The Committee on Invalid Pensions, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4935) to increase the pension of Elmore E. Ewing, having considered the same, report as follows:

The claimant enlisted as a private in Company A, Ninety-first Ohio Volunteers, on the 31st day of January, 1862; was promoted to second lieutenant Company K of said regiment June 25, 1863, and to first lieutenant of said company to date Angust 14, 1864, and was mustered out of the service December 4, 1864.

He was severely wounded in battle, in the line of duty, at Winchester, Va., July 24, 1864. The wound is described by surgeons as follows:

"Ball entered at the point of the left scapula, passed through the left lung, making its exit about 1 inch to the left of the left nipple."

There is a constant oppression in the lung and he is subject to hemorrhages. Any attempt to labor causes nervousness and sleeplessness, and in ascending stairs he suffers severe pain in the region of the heart. As he grows older his disability increases, and, in the opinion of your committee, he is fairly entitled to the pension provided in the bill, and we therefore recommend the passage of the bill.

This claimant's pension has been increased from $10 to $17. At different periods until now he received the full amount allowed for his rank for total disability. His disability is liable to cause death, and it was rejected in Pension Office because he could not be allowed increase on account of his dangerous condition.