Sir Jonas Moore, writing in 1689, says: "All artillery are commonly reduced to three sorts: The first is that of the Culvering, the second Cannons of Battery, the third Cannons Petrieri. To offend afar off, in case of strong resistance, the Culverings do serve, which carries a ball of iron from 14 to 30 pounds weight, though some make these to 120 pounds. As to calibre they are called Whole-Culvering, Culvering, and Demi Culvering. The Whole-Culvering are called anciently Dragon-Drakes, and carry a ball of iron from 40, 50 to 60 pounds, etc. The Culver ing from 35, 30, 25, 20 pounds. The Half Culvering from 18, 16, and 14. As to length, they distinguish the Culvering into ordinary, ex traordinary, and bastard. The ordinary Culver ing are long from the touch-hole to the muzzle, 32 calibres. The extraordinary are longer than the ordinary, viz., to 39, 40, and 41 calibres. The bastard are shorter than the ordinary, viz., only 28, 27, and 26. The Cannons of Battery are pieces ordinarily shorter than Culverings. The One-fourth Cannon carries a ball of iron from 16 to 18 pounds. The Demi-Cannon from 20 to 28 pounds. The Cannon from 30, 40, 45 to 50 pounds. The Whole-Cannon from 70 to 120 pounds. The Cannon-Royal from 130 to 150 and 200 pound ball, used by the Turks. The Pitrieroes are so called from its ball of stone, with which they are loaded, from 2 to 100 and 150 pounds." An illus tration of the Culverin will be found in the article ARTILLERY.
During the seventeenth century ships increased in size and in battery power, but there was lit tle change in the guns from the muzzle-loaders of 1600. Early in the eighteenth century the method of the guns instead of casting them hollow and not boring out, added some thing to their accuracy and power. Robins, who published his treatise on gunnery in 1742, in vented the ballistic pendulum (see BALLISTICS) for measuring velocities, and pointed out the advantages of rifling and of elongated projectiles.
Until after the War of 1812 the heaviest pieces in use were the long 32-pounder of 55 hundredweight, and the 42-pounder of 57 hundred weight. The advantages of large calibre were un derstood, as may be seen by the adoption of car ronades, but long guns firing projectiles of this size were too heavy for use on board the ships of the day. These pieces were generally fired by means of a priming and slow match ; Sir Charles Douglas brought out the flint-lock about 1780. but it was not until after Rodney's battle of April, 1782-in which action was the Duke, pre viously commanded by Sir Charles, and having guns fitted with flint-locks at his own expense that the advantages of the lock were appreciated. No measures were taken to supply these locks until 1790, when brass locks of a new pattern were supplied, and used up to 1818. The dis covery of a composition which could be ignited by friction or percussion was made in 1807 by G. Forsyth, a clergyman. Sir Charles Doug las designed quill primers for his locks about 1780, and a modification of these was used for the new percussion locks. Flint-locks continued
in general use up to 1835 or 1840. In 1828 per cussion locks were fitted to the guns of the U. S. S. Vandalia, but they were not exclusively used in the United States service until 1842, when Hid don patented the hammer with a slot permitting it to be drawn back from the vent. In 1832 an efficient percussion lock was introduced into the French Navy; the British continued to use some flint-locks until about 1845, when they adopted a modified form of Hiddon's lock.
Sighting was effected by looking along the 'line of metal,' and decisive actions necessarily took place at close range. Soon after 1801 fixed sights on guns were adopted in the British Navy, but the invention of the movable rear-sight, attrib uted to Colonel Jure of the French Army, did not take place until much later, the method of al lowing for distance being to shoot at certain parts of the ship which were higher than the point to be hit.
The next important improvement was the de velopment of the shell gun by General Paixhans. In his Nouvelle Arme, published in 1821, he most strongly advocated the abandonment of the use of solid shot in long guns and the adoption of ex plosive shell, which had hitherto been fired from mortars and howitzers only. General Paixhans's views were adopted, and shell guns were intro duced in all navies. The consequences of the intro duction of shell guns General Paixhans also foresaw; in 1824, after the new guns were adopted in the French Navy, in an official letter to the Government he prophesied that the new departure in projectiles would force the creation of ar mored ships. His prophecy was fulfilled and the armored ships in turn caused the development of the rifled gun. In this, France was again the leader. During the Crimean War some 6.5-inch cast-iron rifles were made and mounted for trial on hoard ship. These were muzzle-loaders of crude design modeled after the Paixhans shell guns, and used studded projectiles; but they proved to be so much more powerful against armor that they immediately gained favor. Other countries followed suit in the development of rifled guns. Prussia decided upon a breech loading rifle, and in England Armstrong and Whitworth brought out breech-loaders. Krupp's earlier pieces were muzzle-loaders, but in 1862 he exhibited at London his first five cast-steel breech-loading guns. Armstrong brought out his breech-loading rifled field gun in 1855, and naval guns a year or more later. In 1858-59 a series of competitive trials of Whitworth and Armstrong breech-loading rifles resulted in the adoption of the latter. But the method of breech-closure was very defective, and after numerous serious acci dents, the navy demanded a return to muzzle loaders. The French adopted breech-loade-s in 1862, but adhered to cast iron as a cannon-metal until 1875. The retention of east iron by the French and the return to muzzle-loading in Eng land left Krupp's primacy undoubted (as we view the question now), hut of course this was not acknowledged at the time.