2. Concurrentl\' with the above systems, the committee have had under their considera-
tion several other designs (ou paper) of multiple guns, alike in general character, but differ-
ent in respect to mechanical detail.
The names of the proposers are given in Appendix D., together with a brief description
of each of the systems referred to, the majorit}' of which were dismissed on the grounds
of their inapplicability to the service, while the remainder were rejected on account of
their apparent inferiority to the Montigny and Gatling guns.
3. The mechanical action and constructive features of the two machine guns actually
under trial, will be found detailed in Appendixes A. and B. Photographs are likewise
transmitted.
l!GO AMERICAN EREECH-LOADIXG SMALL ARMS.
4. The results of the comp.-irative experiments carried out by the committee are tabulated
in Appendix C, in which also is given the calibre and weight of the respective guns, as
well as of the ammunition used.
Previous to pi'oceeding to compare tiie relative merits of the two systems ofMitrailleuse
wliich have been under trial, the committee think it desirable to submit a few remarks upon
the general application of macliine guns of this nature for purposes of war.
5. Up to a very recent period tlie opinions of the majority of the great military Powers
were decidedly adverse to the introduction of these weapons for service in the field, and
the early experiments carried on in this country appeared also to justify their condemna-
tion.
G. The Prussians, who within the last eighteen months had instituted a searching enquiry
into the merits of these machine guns, came to the conclusion that the very narrow sphere
within which their eti'ect was restricted, did not at all compensate for the personnel and
material required in serving them.
