BIG v. SMALL BULLETS.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR."] Sin,—In the Spectator of October 17th there appeared a letter signed " C. M.," and with your permission I should like to reply to the first portion of it—viz., that relating to the bullet of the Service rifle ; the latter part dealing with Mr. Cecil Rhodes and the politics of South Africa is no concern of mine.
The Lee-Metford rifle was not introduced hastily into the Service, nor " was it adopted on account of its trajectory only." The Small Arms Committee bad the whole question under consideration for upwards of three years, and the rifle was subjected to a series of the most exhaustive trials and tests. To ascertain the smashing power of the small bullet and its penetration, it was fired into horses, sheep, and dummies made up to represent human bodies, and against steel-plates, balks of timber, rammed earth, and other substances. The Inspector-General of Cavalry and all the officers of the Army Medical Staff and the Veterinary Depart- ment who assisted at the trials, were convinced that cavalry would fare no better against the 0 303 in. bullet than against the 0.402 in. ; the War Office having decided in 1885 to adopt the latter calibre. The Martini-Henry bullet sometimes failed to stop by shock only the Soudanese Arabs and the Zulus, many of whom charged right up to our men when struck in a non-vital place and having no bone broken; and to stop a horse or a savage by shock alone would require a bullet as large as an orange. In savage warfare a few isolated cases of individuals coming on although struck by more than one bullet will occur, but the result of an engagement would not be affected.
To go back to a large-calibre rifle would be a retrograde step and a deplorable error. All the Continental Powers have deliberately adopted a small-bore rifle, and in one or two instances of late years a still smaller calibre than 0 303 in.,— viz., 0 256 in.—has been taken. In addition to the many advantages possessed by a small-bore rifle over the Martini- Henry, its introduction was a political necessity, as every nation in Europe had adopted or was about to adopt it, and England cannot afford to lag behind her neighbours in matters of armament. The Lee-Metford rifle at the time it was introduced into the Service—viz., in 1888—was probably the best military rifle in Europe. Since then inventors have been busy, and it is possible that the time has arrived when we should reconsider the question of the infantry weapon, but not in the direction advocated by " C. M." The Lee- Metford rifle is not a perfect weapon, but it is a thoroughly sound and reliable arm ; still, it is capable of improvement. The chief faults are excessive weight and the time it takes to load or charge the magazine. As regards the bullet, steps have already been taken to increase the stopping effect, but penetration will suffer. "C. M." may rest assured that we shall never revert to a larger calibre, the advantages of the small calibre are so overwhelming, and may be summed up as. follows : - Greater extent of ground covered by fire without the soldier having to alter his backsight, diminished recoil, increased penetration, greater accuracy, especially at long ranges, and lightness of ammunition, the difference between the Martini-Henry and Lee-Metford rifles being a hundred and fifteen rounds and seventy fcr the same weight. The rifle of the future will probably be of slightly smaller calibre than 0.303 in., will weigh two pounds less, and the magazine holding five cartridges only will be capable of being charged either by putting in all five cartridges at once or one by one as desired.
late Member of Small Arms Committee., Army and Navy Club, October 20th.
Previous page
