Why was the calibre of the Enfield-Whitworth Pattern 1863 .451� rifle too small?
 
The Enfield-Whitworth Pattern 1863 .451� rifle had a superior accuracy, effective range and penetration compared with the Enfield pattern 1853 .577� rifle. Despite of these facts in 1859 a committee of officers reported that the .451� bore was too small for use as a military weapon.
 
A remarkable conclusion because in 1861 the British cavalry had adopted the Westley-Richards monkey tail rifle with a calibre .450�. Ok, the main reason for this was the ease of loading of this breech-loader. This is a big advantage when sitting on horseback. But in 1871 the Martini-Henry was adopted by the British service and again with a calibre of .450�!
 
Why was reported that the .451� Whitworth bore was too small for military use? Did they take the wrong conclusion?
 
I have the following thoughts about it and I am very interested what the members of this forum think about this:
 
Joseph Whitworth was asked to develop a rifle that was charged with the same powder charge and the same bullet weight as the Enfield Pattern 1853 .577� rifle. This resulted in a paper cartridge for the .451� Whitworth rifle which was thinner, longer and more fragile that the paper cartridges for the .577� Enfield rifle. The Soldiers complained about it during trails and experiments were conducted with several types of ammo pouches. See also the topic �Pandran pipe pouch for the Whitworth rifle�, (accoutrements) of this forum.
 
I assume that the officers had a point when they stated that the .451� calibre was too small. The W-R Monkey tail rifle had a shorter paper cartridge. With the introduction of the .577�-450� M-H the long and fragile paper cartridges were replaced by a bottle necked metal foil boxer cartridge. The .577�-450� Boxer cartridge was more rugged then a paper cartridge. (Later problems with the metal foil boxer cartridge are beyond the scope of this subject.)
 
Am I right? Please response if know more facts about this matter.
 
Jan van Gelderen
http://OldMilitaryRifles.EU

The first, largest, and most important consideration was MONEY.
Whitworth was tasked not to design a new rifle but to radically improve the systems and quality of the existing 1853 Rifle-Musket.
He set about redesigning the system of rifling on his own initiative and it was not until the late 1850s that he was able to show the superiority of his small bore which forced the government into accepting the need for trials.
The UK had just invested huge amounts in resupplying the whole of the forces with the .577 series in millions.
There was no immediate obvious threat to the country apart from the groundless alarm about the French in '59.
The Pattern 1853 was perfectly capable of dealing with any scenario likely to present itself.
Nevertheless the government wisely decided to, at least, test out the Whitworth for its potential. �
The trial rifles of Pattern 1863 (8,116 of them) did not start to appear until 1864 was some months old and were still being made in the middle of 1865. �The reports from user units varied and were very mixed but irrespective of all this the war in America had shown that the first consideration must now be to move to breech-loading.
The Whitworth trials were shortly afterwards abandoned but sight was not lost of the superiority of small bores in range and trajectory and the foundations for the Martini Henry were laid even before the Snider conversion programme started. �
The Snider was an essential stop-gap given the huge stocks of Enfields in possession and the conversion cost of an Enfield to a Snider was only one pound against its original cost of over three pounds.
The Martini Henry when it arrived was a pretty poor design by later lights but nothing is easier than hindsight when judging a situation. �However, the critical part of the arm was the barrel and this was entirely down to Whitworth�s principles. �The original hexagon bore was not a very good idea as, once Whitworth�s basic concept of a small bore, a long bullet and fast twist, had been accepted by every other maker, satisfactory designs multiplied. �The Henry barrel is effectively a polygon with beads in the angles. �My own view is that the Hexagon, being one of Whitworth�s trade marks was pushed by him as a publicity gimmick. �We see his hexagons everywhere in machinery and others of his products.
The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the finer points of the troop trials were essentially irrelevant to the overall picture given the recognition that breech loading had to come and soon.
Changing the subject slightly, Whitworth artillery was rejected despite having early on achieved incredible ranges of over 10,000 yards. The Ordnance Select Committee in their considerations took into account not only the greatly increased cost of the Whitworth system, but the delicate handling needed for the components. As for the huge potential range achievable, I have compared this to Frank Whittle inventing the jet engine before anyone had invented the aeroplane. �No one had invented the necessary fire control systems, sights, observation signalling and all the other minutiae that go to modern artillery; nor could anyone see the need for such ranges in the context of the wars of the period. �Whitworth�s great rival Armstrong gained the contracts, not through dirty dealing as Whitworth�s supporters alleged or through the stupidity of the officers of the OSC, but because he produced what was needed in the context of the time and for far less money.
Enough !

Bill,
 
Thank you for responding with such an elaborate answer. With this you gave me some other interesting details and facts. More than skin deep information about the Whitworth guns is hard to find.
 
Your explanation seems very logical to me. Something similar happened in the Netherlands with the 12,5 mm percussion rifle of �Kapitein N.A. Boom�. This rifle was mentioned for the first time in 1862 and after years of experiments it was finally rejected when a breech loading rifle had to be selected. I thought about such a possibility, before a put this topic on the forum. The explanation of nobody less than Joseph Whitworth himself (Guns and Steel) made me think that this was possibly not the case.
 
I am aware of the roots of the Alexander Henry barrel. It was W.E. Metford who remarked that �it was commonly considered that Henry merely added small grooves to Joseph Whitworth�s rifling in order to circumvent patent rights!�
 
Your remark about the hexagon as being one of Whitworth�s trade marks is very interesting. Early nuts are square shaped. Whitworth standardized screw threads. Is he also the inventor of hexagon shaped bolts and nuts? Whitworth made a fortune, but I suppose it was not with his guns or laths. Did he make his fortune with a factory of hexagon Whitworth threaded nuts and bolts?
 
I don�t have a good book about Whitworth. Does the biography of �Sir Joseph Whitworth: 'The World's Best Mechanician� of Norman Atkinson also give in depth information about technical matters and guns? (It�s available on second hand markets but not cheap)
 
In 1859 a committee of officers reported that the .451� bore was too small for use as a military weapon. After your explanation I agree, this was not the reason why the Pattern 1863 was never used at a large scale but nevertheless the army thought the calibre was too small.
 
Why they stated that .451� was too small? OK, the smaller caliber made the Pattern 1863 heavier than the Pattern 1853, but if this was the real reason why not simply saying so? Could it have something to do with the length of the paper cartridge or what else? Stopping power? You can kill an elk it!
 
Jan van Gelderen
http://OldMilitaryRifles.EU

Bill,
 
Again thank you for responding in such an elaborate manner.
 
You mentioned 1000 P1862 Whitworth rifles, besides the 8000 P1863 Whitworth Rifles.
What are the differences between the P62 and P63 rifles?
 
You mentioned in your first response: "My own view is that the Hexagon, being one of Whitworth�s trade marks was pushed by him as a publicity gimmick. �We see his hexagons everywhere in machinery and others of his products."
 
This brought me to the following question:
Early nuts are square shaped. Whitworth standardized screw threads. Is he also the inventor of hexagon shaped bolts and nuts?
 
Jan van Gelderen
HTTP://OldMilitaryRifles.EU

Bill,
 
Thank you for your reply,
 
I am still investigating the life and work of Whitworth and I will inform you later on.
 
In the mean time I found a copy of a book with more than 220 pages on the internet: "Miscellaneous papers on Mechanical subjects" by no one less than Joseph Whitworth F.R.S. printed in 1858. For those who are interested: http://books.google.com
 
May I use this occasion to ask you some further questions:
1. The P1862 and P1863 Enfield-Whitworth rifles were heavy. Can you tell me the exact weights?
2. Was the high weight of the rifle needed for the high pressure, or what else was the reason. It's remarkable because committees of all countries demanded rifles that did not exceed a certain weight. Soldiers could otherwise not march long distances. It seems stupid of Joseph that the military Whitworth was so heavy.
3. Whitworth patented the strong Fluid Compressed Steel in 1874. As you know, this steel was stronger than �normal� Bessemer steel. You published "Miscellaneous papers on Mechanical subjects, Guns and Steel� by Joseph Whitworth F.R.S. printed in 1858 on the website of research press. I would like to have the chapters about artillery and fluid compressed steel also. Is there a possibility to get these chapters?
 
With regards,
 
Jan van Gelderen
http://OldMilitaryRifles.EU
 
 
Quote from Bill_Curtis on 09/22/07 at 4:09pm:

David,
 
You were also the one who advised me to buy the �The British Soldiers Firearm�. I told you that it wasn�t for sale. Actually, that was a very easy answer for someone who claims that he is really interested. I will take closer look for buying it, starting at the Internet.
 
Some years ago I already had visited your website several times and I already noticed your resource lists about Whitworth. I even paid a minor sum for getting �Guns and Steel�. It�s a good and informative site, congratulations. I also especially like �your� story about Metford! Again, perhaps I am lazy but I don�t know were to find these gun magazine articles from years ago. Do you perhaps have any suggestions?
 
Jan van Gelderen
http://OlMilitaryRifles.EU
 
 
If you are researching Whitworth and looking for a list of hard to find papers and articles on him, then have a look at the Resource List on my Long Range Muzzle Loader web site. Tracking them donw will give you some entertainment!
 
David
[/quote]