Yet another committee (!) which deliberated in 1870 declared '... the majority of Royal Artillery Officers were convinced that no system of breech-loading artillery was necessary in the field'. The Director of Artillery backed them up, and news that the breech mechanisms of 200 Krupp guns had failed during the Franco-Prussian War further hardened the opposition to breech-loading. On the other hand the Germans did not give up so easily; they persevered with their breech mechanisms and overcame their defects. Their reward was a head start in the armament race about to begin.

Whatever may have been its faults the Armstrong had demonstrated in no uncertain manner the superiority of rifled ordnance over smooth-bored, but strangely many Officers still stubbornly insisted rifling was unnecessary. Some even saw it as a handicap. The following anecdote will serve to illustrate their beliefs: Sir Andrew Noble (1831 - 1915), who contributed greatly to the progress of gunnery, in trying to convince an eminent artillery Officer that rifled guns were more accurate than smooth-bored, drew a diagram showing that shot from a rifled gun fell into a much smaller area (the 100% zone) than those from a smooth-bore. 'That only proves what I have always maintained', relied the eminent Gunner. 'Our smooth-bore is the best in the world. With your new-fangled gun firing at me I have only to keep outside that small area and I shan't be touched. But with the smooth-bore firing at me I'm not safe anywhere!" This argument apparently floored Sir Andrew!