The idea of putting breech-loaders and muzzle-loaders to the test was not limited to
The Field’s efforts, and some correspondents were pleased to report the results of their own research on the matter. One such correspondent, writing under the pseudonym ‘Practice,’ suspected the criticism of breech-loaders was not the result of actual experience with them. In the 22 January 1859 issue,
The Field published his lengthy letter:
“Sir,— I have just been reading Mr Greener’s new work on gunnery. In the chapter which he devotes to breech-loading guns, made upon the principle of the “French crutch-gun,” he condemns them so entirely, that, taking for granted his opinions are formed only from the result of practice with that weapon, no reasonable person would think of procuring one, or if he had done so, of attempting to use it. Some of the statements, however, are so contrary to my experience of that description of gun, that I am induced to think the whole chapter is founded upon theories, the greater portion of which will not be borne out when reduced to practice.”
“Among the many assertions that the gun is wrong in its principle and construction, and deficient when in use, only one word of praise is awarded it, viz., that “it certainly can be loaded more rapidly.” This, however, according to Mr Greener, is no actual benefit, “as guns can already be charged more quickly than is necessary;” and as for firing a greater number of rounds without being cleaned, Mr Greener says that it is a mistake, as he can already “fire a muzzle-loader one hundred times without wiping out, and a breech-loader can do no more;” in addition to which, a breech-loader requires more powder, and will then put 25 per cent. less pellets on a plate than a muzzle-loader.”
“To test this I have been at some little trouble, and borrowed from my friends a gun each of the following makers – W. Greener, W. Moore, Purdey, C. Lancaster, S. and C. Smith – bores 11, 14, 13, 12, 14. I fired each gun until I could no longer get the powder to explode, nor did I put one away until I had tried all ordinary means of getting the powder into the nipple-hole. The five guns fired unitedly from one barrel each 186 shots, an average of 37 1/3 each; they put on to the iron plate, 15,348 pellets, or 82 ½ each shot. Then I tried my breech-loader (size for No. 12 cartridge). Out of one barrel of that I fired in succession 186 shots, which placed upon the plate 16,068 pellets – an average of 91. At the end of the 186 shots there were no more signs of the breech-loader requiring to be cleaned out before again firing than there were after the first shot; and I see no limit to the number of times it could be discharged.”
“The gun has now stood twenty-four hours without cleaning, and the inside of the barrel is still bright and clear. During the whole time the inside of the barrel did not foul, nor in one single instance was any rod or anything put down from the muzzle required to extract the case of the exploded cartridge; even the hook had seldom to be used, and my fingers would alone have sufficed every time, had I discarded a few cartridges that, from their defective make, improperly fitted the barrel. On taking out the breeches of the muzzle-loading barrels all were exceedingly foul, and the communication hole stopped up with a perfectly hard substance. Each gun was charged with 3 drachms powder, 1 ¼ oz. shot, greased edged wads; distance from plate, 40 yards. Mr Greener says that — Owing to the enlargement of the bore to admit the case of the cartridge, the shot is started in a larger space than that which it afterwards has to travel; and to say that the case fills up the enlarged part is absurd, as anyone who knows the force of gunpowder must also know the paper “intervening between the charge and the sides of the barrel would be condensed at the moment of explosion to one-fourth its original thickness.” (If it is so, the said paper is wonderfully elastic, as when taken out of the barrel it is the same thickness as before putting it in; and I have some thousands of exploded cartridges that present no difference in their appearance to those not used, excepting a little discolouration in the inside.) “At what cost of force is this effected?” asks Mr Greener; and replies, “Thirty per cent. would be a shrewd guess.” From this shrewd guess are deduced the following facts: —Thirty per cent. of the whole charge cannot be thrown away with no more result than the mere wasting of powder. Iron and its combinations are as certainly limited in their duration as is human life itself. Every bar of iron is capable of resisting a certain amount of pressure, every successive strain in its fibres deteriorating it more rapidly. This being the case, how much more rapidly must a breech-loader be destroyed when thirty per cent. of the charge is always absorbed in the cavity alone. The fact is so self-evident, no experiment is required to demonstrate it. To an argument founded upon a guess and demonstrated by no experiment, the natural reply is — Perhaps it is not so. Experiment, however, proves it is not so.”
“Mr Greener also says that the recoil must necessarily be far greater, and commiserates the unfortunate user on the wretched state his shoulder will be in after sustaining the shock of repeatedly firing it. I need only point to 186 shots fired in succession from my shoulder, and to assure him it became neither black nor blue, nor did I experience any unpleasant recoil. I had no apparatus for testing the exact recoil of each; but taking the effect on the shoulder as the criterion, the breech-loader, after firing any number of shots, has far less recoil than a muzzle-loader after the latter has been fired a dozen times.”
“I fear I am trespassing too much upon your space. I think, however, that no description of gun should be set aside merely by theories; and I am persuaded that most of those advanced in the chapter I have quoted from, relative to this kind of breech-loader, will, if attempted to be demonstrated by experiment, prove far from correct.
Practice.”
The reference to Greener and to his book, the full title being
“Gunnery in 1858: Being A Treatise on Rifles, Cannon, and Sporting Arms; explaining the Principles of the Science of Gunnery, and Describing the Newest Improvements in Fire-Arms,” refers to William Greener Sr., and not his son William Wellington Greener. WW Greener became a staunch supporter of the pin-fire breech-loader, while his father remained a fierce opponent. In the book referred to above, Greener wrote the following harsh words about the pin-fire:
“The French system of breech-loading fire-arms is a specious pretence, the supposed advantages of which have been loudly boasted of; but none of these advantages have as yet been established by its most strenuous advocates. How it is that the British sportsman has become the dupe of certain men who set themselves up for reputable gunmakers I know not. It is certain, however, that by these acts they have forfeited all claim to the confidence of their too confiding customers, and that they never could have tested the shooting properties of their guns. With regard to the safety of these guns, they display an utter want of the most ordinary judgment; and this is abundant proof that they considered neither their safety, nor (what is also of importance) the economy of the whole arrangement, as regards their manufacture or their use.”
‘Practice’ was unhelpful by not naming whose breech-loader he was using. However, he does mention William Moore, who would soon be producing breech-loaders himself. Here is one of his, a second- or third-quality gun, made around 1860 or so, using the pattern based on Beatus Beringer’s design. The barrel rib is signed “W. M. & Co,” as are the lock plates. Though cryptic today, at the time, everyone knew the Moore name, as William Moore was one of London and Birmingham's most highly regarded makers.
Originally a stocker for Joseph Manton, in 1829 William Moore set up his own stock-making business in Birmingham and became a gunmaker shortly after. In 1836, the name of the firm changed to William Moore & Co., and Moore also entered into several partnerships in addition to operating his own business. In 1838, he partnered with William Harris, forming the firm of Moore & Harris at 35 Loveday Street. In 1847, Moore partnered with William Patrick Grey and operated as Wm. Moore & Grey. In 1854, William Moore & Co. moved to 43 Old Bond Street, London, and Moore and Grey began trading from this address under the name William Moore & Grey. Guns marked Wm Moore & Co were mainly export-quality guns with a different serial number range. In 1861, Frederick Beesley, a name that would become famous later, was apprenticed to William Moore & Co. William Moore may have died in 1864. The fame of the William Moore name was such that it subsequently appeared on low-quality Belgian guns to dupe buyers into believing they were purchasing a recognized name. What is confusing is that real Moore guns might be signed William Moore, Wm Moore & Co, Moore & Harris, William Moore & Grey, William Moore, Grey & Co., or, as this gun, W. M. & Co.
Next, on to the 1859 trial.