BIG v. SMALL BULLETS.'
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—I am not surprised that you correspondent, "C. M.," thinks that some recent occurrences prove that we must discard our small-calibre rifles and return to the large7bores. Although, indeed because, a good many share his opinion, I ask you to give me a little space to show that the real facts do not justify their opinions. A large bullet is not necessarily more deadly than a small one; it has not even got the one advantage that seems undeniable,—that it must make a bigger hole. Although the whole question is intensely interesting, I can only ask you for sufficient space to treat it very briefly. On account of the flatness of its trajectory, it is much easier to hit a man with a small, long bullet than with a big cne, and if the small bullet be of suitable construc- tion it will do more damage when it does hit him. It is quite true that our regulation -303 bullet does often go clean through without doing very great damage. The reason is that its outside casing of nickel and copper is too thick and stiff, so that the bullet is very rigid, and does not break up readily enough. It is capable of killing an elephant with one shot in the head, but with soft-skinned animals such as man it does not meet with sufficient resistance to be broken up or spread out. But if its envelope be made thinner or be weakened locally, so that the bullet breaks up in the body, then the tremendous velocity makes it terribly destruc- tive. Such a weakened bullet is found to be most effective against beasts of all sorts, and even when not struck in very vital parts the damage done by the jagged pieces of bullet is so great that few animals run far, but usually drop at once.
The original pattern of '303 bullet, which was proved to be very destructive, had a weaker envelope than the present bullet has, and it "mushroomed," or broke up more readily. It would not only "break a horse's leg," but would splinter the bone in a terrible fashion. The envelope was afterwards strengthened, for reasons I need not trouble you with, as they are very technical. We cannot possibly return to larger- calibre rifles ; but we can, without loss or much difficulty, use a more suitable bullet than our present one; and then we shall have a more effective rifle than has ever been used in war. The old Snider bullet, partly hollow, of soft lead, and large calibre, was a very effective hitter, when it did hit. It was the most effective bitter that has ever been extensively used in war. It has been a favourite in Australia for shooting wild horses for their skins. But no man who has used the '303 with a suitable bullet for that purpose goes back to the Snider. His effective range is increased from 150 yards to 500; and very few horses fairly struck in the body ever get away. It is as easy to hit and kill a horse with it at 500 yards as it was with the Snider at 150 yards ; and running shots impossible with the Snider are fairly easy with the -303. I might give you many other examples, but I give this because it seems indisputable that the best rifle for wild- horse shooting must be best for stopping cavalry. The whole effective result of a small-calibre bullet depends on its being fairly suitable for the animal to be shot. If it be suitable, the small-calibre bullet will do much more damage, will cut up the blood-vessels, nerves, and muscles, and shatter the bones, and even cut a bigger hole after penetration than a big bullet. For the big bullet can have but a comparatively low velocity, and does not break up unless it is hollowed. I am certain we can never go back to larger calibres, but very likely our next weapon will be smaller still.—I am, Sir, &c.,
A MARKSMAN.
Previous page
