Volltext Seite (XML)
alluding to a purely personal subject, let me add that the remembrance of the long and honourable labours of my late father, Dr. Olinthus Gregory, our honorary member, in connection with the scientific branches of the army, as Professor of Mathematics in the Royal Mili tary Academy, my own early associations and subsequent friendship with many of his pupils, and the fact of my having served for some time as a civil member of the Ordnance Select Committee, have all con tributed to the desire to call your attention, more particularly, to the application of Engineering to the purposes of National Defence. On the 25th of November, 1851, a Paper was read at this Institution “ On the Application of Machinery to the Manufacture of Rotating Firearms,” by Colonel Samuel Colt, of the United States, Assoc. Inst. G.E. The Paper claimed for the machinery used, the advantage of cheap production of the weapons in large quantities, and such unifor mity in the various parts, that, when a new piece is required, a duplicate can be supplied with greater accuracy, while in active service a number of complete arms may bo readily made up from portions of broken ones. In 1852, the first manufactory in England for the construction of arms on this principle was erected at Thames Bank, under the direction of our Honorary Secretary, Mr. Charles Manby, M. Inst. C.E., and subsequently a manufactory was erected by Messrs. Dean and Adams, which in later years passed into the hands of other companies; but prior to this time the construction of firearms was really carried on by small manufacturers, who each made only one separate part, one for locks, one for barrels, one for bayonets, &c., the gunmaker being in fact, little more than a setter-up ; and the Government after obtaining by contract the separate parts of their muskets, excepting barrels and some small parts, from separate manufacturers, put them together at their own works at Enfield. In 1853, Mr. John Anderson, M. Inst. C.E., Engineer to the Board of Ordnance, proposed the construction and equipment of a Government manufactory, in which, by the use of complete machinery, all the pro cesses for the production of small-arms should be carried on succes sively to completion. In 1854 the subject was considered by a select committee of the House of Commons, and the adoption of machinery, as recommended by Mr. Anderson, was advocated by Mr. Jos. Whitworth, M. Inst. C.E., Mr. James Nasmyth, General Tulloh, R.A., and other Officers and Engineers; and, in spite of the views of those whose habits or prejudices led them to oppose a new system, the committee recommended a partial trial, which issued in the establishment of the present Small-arm Factory at Enfield. This new factory, stocked with improved machinery, founded on that already in use in the United States Arsenals at Springfield and Har per’s ferry, and made partly in America, and partly in England, was set to work in January, 1857, under the direction of Colonel Manley Dixon, R. A., the present superintendent of Small Arm Factories, in the construction of small arms generally, but particularly of the Enfield rifle of the pattern of 1853, which, with trifling modifications, is the long rifle now used in our army, where not superseded by the Snider breach-loader. The machines used at Enfield are to a great extent varieties of copying machines, in which a standard model is reproduced by a revolving cutter, in wood or metal as the case may require. The different parts’as produced, are checked with templates and guages, and finally the finished parts, stock, lock, barrel, bands, bayonet, plates, screws, &c., find their way in numbers to an “ assembler,” who, fur nished with a screwdriver and chisel, takes the parts up indiscrimi nately, and puts them together; and so entirely interchangeable a re the parts found to be, that a payment of 3d*29 for each rifle put to gether gives the workman wages of about 50s per week. The long Enfield rifle consists of 53 parts, and passes through about 740 processes of manufacture. These processes are multiplied so as to simplify each operation, to divide the labour, and to require mostty only a cheap class of workmen. All parts, including the stock, are issued for repair in a finished state, and any damaged part in a rifle in use can at once be replaced by a corresponding part without any fitting. Up to the present time the Government has had no contract for in terchangeable arms, excepting one for 30,000 with the London Armoury Company. The Birmingham Small Arms Company has, however, lately made interchangeable short rifles for the Turkish Government. The cost of non-interchangeable long Enfield rifles with bayonets, under a contract made in 1859, was £2 J 8s 6d. each, to which must be added the cost of the stock 2s 6d, and viewing expenses 3s. bringing the total cost to £3 4s each. It is stated that the average cost of the long Enfield rifles made at the Government factory, including an allow ance of 5 per cent, on the cost of buildings and machinery, for depre ciation, has averaged about £2 each. In 1859 a contract was entered into for short Enfield rifles, which, complete, and including stocks and viewing expenses, cost £4 14s each. The cost of subsequently produ cing the same weapon at Enfield is stated to be £2 14s each. Neither interest on capital nor profit arc included in the Government estimates here quoted. It has been estimated that the improvement arising from the accurate work produced by good machinery, coupled with that arising from better ammunition, has resulted in reducing by 50 per cent, the mean deviation in rifle shooting. The old smooth-bore musket was considered to make good practice if, at 100 yards, 75 shots in 100 hit a target 6 feet square. With the present service rifle and ammunition, 100 shots can, at the same range, be placed in a space of 6 inches. From January 1857 to December 26th, 1867, the total number of new arms made at Enfield was 616,828. The number of arms con verted to breech-loaders on Snider’s plan up to the same date, was 175,550. On April 1st, 1866, an order was sent to Enfield to prepare for the conversion of breech loaders of 40,000 arms; on July 1st this order was enlarged to 100,000; between July and September 10,000 converted breech-loaders had been sent to Canada, and by April 1st, 1867, the whole 100,000 had been supplied. The cost of the alteration of old machines and supply of new ones for the purpose of the conver sion, has nearly reached £10,000, which divided over 200,000 arms, would come to Is each. The cost of converting to the Snider breach loader, including the above sum and depreciation on buildings and plant, is said to be about 16s 3d per arm. With the present machinery, Enfield is capable of turning out about 130,000 new arms annually. It is said that even now the Enfield factory stands alone in England, and it is believed, in Europe, in the fact that every part of the arm produced there, from first to last, is made on the promises. The advantages claimed for this central Government establishment are, that it prevents the country from being dependent for arms on private factories, that it maintains a standard of excellence, and can afford to develop the best mechanical improvements, for insuring accuracy, interchangeability, and cheapness. I must be admitted that this establishment has well fulfilled its promise; it has shown great and elastic powers of production; it turns out arms which have the great merit of interchangeability, and which, for soundness and excel lence of work cannot be equalled by the military arms of any other country ; and it has, although only by slow degrees, led to the adoption by a portion of the gun-making trade, of the system of concentration, and of copying machinery. The Crimean War has given the greatest impulse in modern times to changes in the material of war and the means of defence. Roused from a long interval of repose, undisturbed by any great war, the public interest was at once directed to every measure which was pro posed to increase our power for offence or for defence. During the years 1854 and 1855, the Government were besieged by inventors, and the Ordnance Select Committee, to whom their inventions were re ferred, had often to consider and report on twenty or thirty projects in each week. As might be supposed, a large number of these schemes were wild and impracticable; ungovernable torpedoes and submarine rams vied with balloons which were to carry shells of tons in weight; ships, in the fore-part of which were to be framed guns of 100 feet long, were to be fitted with a moveable stern for carrying ammunition, and which was to be detached like the limber from a field gun, while the ships of the enemy were to be burnt with naptha floating on the sea around them. But amidst much that was useless, many practical men were bringing their minds to bear on the great changes which applied mechanics might work out; and if it be no matter of surprise that some of the most valuable propositions came from Engineers, it is due to those officers of the Government whose departments came officially under my notice, to bear my testimony to the zeal and intelligence with which they applied themselves to the public service. While the select committee fairly and honestly weighed all propositions laid before them, the officers of the gun factory, the carriage factory, the laboratory, and other establishments, were actively employed in the introduction of new machinery, and in many improvements of great and permanent value, with which, then or since, the names of Generals St. George, Lefroy, and Tulloh, Colonels Wilmot, Boxer, Ask with, Dixon. Camp bell, and Clarke, and Messrs. Abel. Anderson, Fraser, and others, have become honourably connected. I will not attempt to follow out all the improvements to which that period gave rise, but will refer shortly to those mostly connected with our profession, viz., the production of heavy armour plates and large guns, with their consequent results. While suggestions had been made and partial experiments tried with a view to the use of iron for defensive purposes, prior to the Crimean war, the credit of the first great trial of a practical nature is due to the Emperor of the French, who built three floating batteries cased with thick iron plates, which were engaged in the attack of the Allies on Kinburn, on October 17th, 1855. These batteries were exposed, un supported, to a heavy fire at a range of 700 yards for about three hours, and although some casualties occurred from shot and shell entering the large old-fashioned portholes, the vessels received very little injury. From this date the public attention was drawn more closely to the pro tection of ships of war by armour plating, and various experiments were made in this country, among which were the trials, towards the end of 1858, of the “Meteor” and “Erebus,” iron-cased floating batteries, and of an iron shield fixed to the side of the “Alfred,” against which, for the first time, the powers of rifled ordnancs were brought to bear. It soon, however, became apparent that the subject of the use of iron for this novel purpose was so complicated by considerations of a mechanical character as to demand a more searching technical inves tigation than it could receive at the hands of purely military or naval