at all, I am at a loss to know, unless it is to tickle the fancy of the dandies.

I one day tried a coast-gun with fine powder, - it shot miserably; then with large-grained powder, (such as Joe used for detonaters,)-it shot but so so*; and then with unglazed cannon-powder, and it shot admirably. Here is the thing proved at once! I therefore requested Messrs. Curtis and Mr. Harvey to make me a sample of superior powder, unglazed, and of that sized grain. This I have tried for the last fifteen winters, and particularly in the hard winter of 1838, and, although the severe weather, by cutting off all communication, obliged me to keep the gun and punt constantly afloat for several weeks, I had not one missfire. Of all the powder used, I never had any so good as this; and, in order to know what to ask for, I proposed that it should be called my "sea-gun" powder. [But, remember this is only for large punt-guns, that carry about two ounces of it.]

When using cannon-powder for small guns, you must regulate your measure by weight; because the grains are so large that your common flask-top, if filled up, would contain as much vacuum as powder, and consequently give you scarcely more than half a charge.

Messrs. Curtis and Mr. Harvey now serve only the trade, which is perhaps no more than just: but I confess I regret this; because, whatever powder came direct from them was of superior excellence; whereas a retail dealer may receive his powder good, and then

* I once stated this to be the best of all; but I have since had to apologise for an error, which I was led into by the bad quality of the cannon-powder against which I tried it.

completely spoil it by damp, or too long keeping. I will be answerable only for gentlemen at the fountainhead; so let them be answerable for their retail dealers. It may be right, however, to say that the gunmakers are by far the best deputy powder-merchants, and take great pains in the management of their powder; because on that the killing of their guns must depend; and therefore we must readily forgive any innocent little bit of "bam" as to putting their own names to it, &c. This is all fair; and it is really a charity to let them earn a trifle, now that they have been halfruined by getting caught in their own trap - the detonating guns; and then sadly troubled with the "shorts," from gentlemen finding it impossible to "cash up," owing to the failure of their farming

tenants.

SHOT.

MANY select their shot in proportion to the size of the bird, when it ought to depend more on that of the caliber; for it is not so much the magnitude of the pellet, as the force with which it is driven, that does the

execution.

For instance, a common-sized gun (well breeched, and properly bored,) will shoot No. 7.* better than any other shot; and although a deviation, according to circumstances, may be sometimes necessary, yet I am confident, that had you, for a whole season, no other sized shot in your possession, you would (taking every thing, from mallard and hare to quail and jacksnipe,) find that you had shot with more universal success, killed more game, and brought down your birds in a handsomer style, than you had ever done while whimsically following other plans.

For my own part, I should scarcely ever, with a small gun, use any other shot, except for killing snipes in February and March, when other birds should not be fired at. In this case, unless I had a very closeshooting gun, I should use No. 8., the difference between which and 7. is more than that of any other

* This size was always used by Joe Manton; and I recommended it, thirty years ago, in my 1st edition. But, of late years, No. 6. has been made about the size that No. 7. then was; and is now, what may be called, the "regulation" size for game shooting.

two numbers, from 1. upwards. All sizes above 3., or 2. at largest, I shall bring under the head of duckguns, with which only they will lie compact in the caliber; though, if I went out solely for the purpose of shooting wildfowl with a small gun, then I should of course prefer No. 3. to No. 7.

No. 9. is rather too small, and the use of dust shot absurd, except for small birds; as, at any distance snipes will fly away with it, if shot in the body; and, to break a bone with it, the bird must be very close: add to which, its disadvantage in windy weather, and the impossibility of manufacturing it so well as the regular numbered shot.

The reason why small shot answers best is, that it lies more compact in the barrel; and, consequently, receives more effectually the force of the powder than large shot, which can only have this advantage in a proportionably large caliber. Thus it is, that a grain of small shot, from a small gun, will kill far better, in proportion, than one of large; and, with it, you have not only the chances multiplied in favour of taking a vital part, but the same advantage of penetrating feathers, that a pin would have (with a moderate pressure on it) over a nail; and it shoots so regular a surface, that a bird at forty yards could very seldom* get away; whereas the large shot, from the objection before named, will often fly so wide and irregular, that the game will escape between the void spaces of the circle.

* I say, very seldom, instead of never, by reason, that the best gun in England, tried (although regularly cleaned) two hundred times at pieces of paper the size of birds, may once, or more, not put a single grain in, although properly loaded and well directed.

It must, however, be admitted, that, with No. 3. or 4., a few more accidental shots, at immense distances, may be made, than with No. 7.; but then let it be recollected, that, for the sake of killing one bird now and then at seventy yards, we are not only wounding many others, by being tempted to fire large grains at such distances, but sacrificing the almost certainty of killing fair shots, for the mere chance of making long ones; as well as uselessly dirtying and wearing our guns.

Now, as I have recommended small shot, many persons may say, "Suppose we go out in November, we may then possibly get twenty shots in a morning, provided we choose to take our chance at fifty or sixty yards, and perhaps during the whole day may not have one opportunity of firing our guns within thirty yards; do you mean to argue that, in this case, small shot is best?" In answer, I should say, "If you go out with the prospect of getting shots only at long distance, or through thick wood, you certainly may succeed better with No. 2. or 3. than 7.; but if you wish to avoid occasionally missing the fairest shots, although with the most accurate aim, you will, for this purpose, lay aside your double gun, and take the largest single gun that you can possibly manage, as you may then use No. 1. 2. or 3. shot, without any risk of throwing it in patches."

All those who prefer No. 4. or 3. in common-sized guns, contend, that as large shot will kill at a long distance, it must kill at a short one. Kill it may, when it hits; but is it always so sure of hitting? And, if it does take a bird, is not a vital part more likely to

I