QUESTION. (Hansard, 9 March 1866)

§ MR. WATKIN

said, that he had arranged with the noble Lord the Secretary at War, who had explained to him the cause of his absence, to proceed with his Question as to whether any and what experiments had been made with the repeating rifles in use in the United States army; and as to the use of similar weapons in the army of Her Majesty? By calling the attention of the House to a subject of such moment, admitting, as he felt assured the House would, that the British soldier ought to be armed with the best weapon of modern invention, the Question divided itself into two—namely, the alteration of the Enfield, the present arm of our service, into a breech-loader, and the provision of even a better weapon for at least a portion of our troops. He did not at all object, but the contrary, to the conversion of the Enfield, but he looked upon it as a temporary measure, and as not satisfactorily answering the demand for a weapon fully equal to that wholly or even partially in use by any nation with whom we might come into collision. The noble Lord had spoken of the alteration of the Enfield proposed by Mr. Snider, and he believed that ingenious inventor had succeeded in doing 1829 as much as it was possible to accomplish with this particular weapon. If what he had heard was correct, the Snider breechloader Enfield cost to alter from 12s. to 15s., which was certainly a low price, and even that price, it was stated, could be reduced if a very large quantity of rifles were ordered to be fitted with this very simple breech-loading arrangement. He was told, also, that 240 rounds had been fired, and that the targets proved very effective results, the mean absolute deviation being only 7.86 inches, as against a mean deviation of nineteen inches in the case of the muzzle-loaders, or unaltered Enfield. As regarded rapidity of fire, twenty rounds were fired in a mean time of one minute and ten seconds, the smallest time being only one minute and three seconds. And as respected fouling, he believed that one of these rifles had been used for five weeks, in which time 1,000 rounds had been fired, without having to be cleaned at all. But remarkable as this was, it did not answer the ease he wished to make. That case was that a more efficient arm still existed and ought to be adopted, and that the experience gained in actual warfare by the armies of the United States deserved, and ought to receive, the most serious consideration of the War Department. The noble Lord had stated that all countries were equally anxious to adopt a breech-loader, but that hitherto they were all as far behind, if not more so, than Great Britain. He joined issue with the noble Lord upon that statement, and he asserted confidently that the United States army possessed better weapons than we did. In the United States veteran Generals contended that not only must there be breech-loaders, but that, especially for cavalry, a repeater, or rifle not merely loading at the breech, but also carrying its own ammunition, or magazine, was required, and the United States army, more or less, possessed it, and had the war gone on no doubt the whole army would have been served with it. He contended, therefore, that in altering the Enfield we had only got some way upon the right road. In America there were many kinds of repeating breechloaders. He would mention two, not desiring to say that they wore either the best or that they could not be improved if submitted to the known ingenuity of our own able mechanics. They were the "Spencer" rifle and the "Henry." The "Spencer" was loaded through the stock, 1830 seven cartridges being inserted in a steel tube containing a spring, and thus seven shots could be fired and then the piece be retubed in less time than it took to load the ordinary muzzle-loader musket. The "Henry" had a cartridge tube alongside the barrel, and with this arm fifteen shots, and with the long piece twenty-one shots, could be fired without reloading, and when this number had been fired the piece was re-loaded by again filling up the tube with cartridges. He had stated the work of the "Snider" rifle, and now he would mention the performance of the "Spencer." That rifle, in the hands of a steady soldier, would fire its seven shots in twelve seconds, or at the rate of thirty-five shots per minute. In platoon firing, or firing by word of command, it would discharge once in three seconds, or at the rate of twenty shots per minute. If this rapidity were multiplied by the numbers of even a small force opposed to a larger body armed with muzzle-loaders, it would be seen that nothing could live before such a fire. It was alleged by the opponents of the rifle that all magazine guns were liable to explode. He was assured, however, by officers of distinction with whom he had conversed in America, that this was very seldom the case, and that there was practically no danger of the blowing up of the store or magazine of cartridges. Then the range and power of the gun were excellent. It would throw a ball 2,000 yards with accuracy, and at a range of 150 feet would send a ball through thirteen inches of solid timber. In fact, rapidity, range, power, endurance, and safety, seemed to attach to this as to other similar weapons used during the late war. [The hon. Member then read to the House letters speaking in the highest terms of the efficiency in actual battle of the "Spencer" rifle, from General Howard, General Hawley, and especially from General Joseph Hooker; and in favour of the "Henry" rifle from Major I Baker and Colonel Kingsbury, Chief of Ordnance, U.S.] To sum up, all the evidence he had collected went to show that these weapons made one man as effective as from four to six armed with a common muzzle-loader, and far more effective than the soldier armed with the mere breechloader. In fact, he had been told that dismounted cavalry, pushed up to an enemy in large force, had often literally swept away the front opposed to them. Now he did not know that any one contended that every arm of the service 1831 should possess exactly the same weapon. The same types were, of course, necessary; but not one single weapon for every purpose. Therefore, what he had said did not condemn the improvement at a small cost of the existing rifle; but, at the same time, it went, he trusted, to show that such an improvement provided for only one part of the want of the army. Every one remembered the struggle, both in and out of that House, by which the percussion cap at length replaced the old flint lock, and the rifle was at last substituted for "Brown Bess." Discussion and inquiry had now proceeded too long as to breech-loading. The War Office had not even yet made up its mind either as to what was, abstractedly, best, or what could at once be practically applied as a decided improvement. For himself, he would greatly prefer to see the War Office adopt the invention of Mr. Snider, and thereby largely and cheaply increase the effective power of our arms, than stand still and do nothing. But even that would leave it imperatively needful to obtain also a repeating rifle at least equal to that of America. It would indeed be discreditable to that House and to the country if a war should come upon us and find us unprepared with the most obvious improvements in arms adopted by other countries. He trusted that the subject would be seriously taken in hand. He did not at all blame the able and laborious officers engaged upon the "small arms" and "breech-loading" Commissions for the delay. If blame existed, it must attach to the noble Lord and the prominent members of the War Department, who could order what they pleased, and whose practical recommendations were rarely refused by that House.