comes into play to resist the transverse bursting strain of the charge.

The longitudinal or end strength varies: thus, in the German guns, the
tube and hoops do nothing--the jacket is considered sufficient. The
French construction relies entirely on the thick body, while the English
method aims at utilizing the whole section of the gun, both ways.
Of course, if the others are strong enough, there is no particular
advantage in this; and it is by no means improbable that eventually we
shall find it cheaper, and equally good, to substitute hoops for the
"overcoat."

I fear I have detained you a long time over construction, but it is both
instructive and interesting to note that certain well defined points
of contact now exist between all the great systems. Thus, a surface of
steel inside the bore is common to all, and the general use of steel is
spreading fast. Shrinkage, again, is now everywhere employed, and
such differences as still exist are matters rather of detail than of
principle, as far as systems of construction are concerned.

We now come to a part of the question which has long been hotly debated
in this country, and about which an immense quantity of matter has been
both spoken and written on opposite sides--I mean muzzle loading and
breech-loading. The controversy has been a remarkable one, and, perhaps,
the most remarkable part of it has been the circumstance that while
there is now little doubt that the advocates of breech-loading were on
the right side, their reasons were for the most part fallacious. Thus,
they commonly stated that a gun loaded at the breech could be more
rapidly fired than one loaded at the muzzle. Now, this was certainly not
the case, at any rate, with the comparatively short guns which were
made on both systems a few years ago. The public were acquainted with