Tom:
Yes, I am interested in your article for The Gettysburg Magazine. Please keep us posted when it will appear. Your figures and mine, although differing in the percentages, both point out the disparity between the casualties inflicted between firearms and artillery fire. Most CW readers are not aware how few losses were inflicted by the artillery and proves the psychological effect the big guns had on the infantry. Hancock may have been right about this in his argument with Hunt but I still think Hunt was right in the end. Your figures seem to use more categories than mine which may partly explain the differance between us.
Referring to General Hunt again, I believe his handling of the union artillery at the battle of Gettysburg to be the finest hour of the artillery of either side during the CW. You point out that 26% of confederate casualties were caused by the union artillery while only 13% union casualties caused by the rebel artillery. This can only be better tactical handling, organization, better equipment and better officers. This last from one who always favored the south in his studies, but lately expanding to wider horizons.
YES, THE 3" ordnance rifle is the answer I was seeking. I believe it to be be the most durable, long lasting (during and after the cw), accurate, light weight and economical artillery piece. It had all the advantages mentioned in the posts, for other guns except the long range of the Whitworth. Most important, it was just as trusted as the 12 pound Napoleon light gun by all of the soldiers especially the gun crews, because it did not burst like the Parrott rifle. Because of it's lightweight, it soon became the gun of choice for the horse artillery. Many of these guns were converted to saluting guns long after the CW by cutting the breech end and attached the mechanism for breech loading. This procedure ruined these examples of a fine gun and created a historical monster.
Thanks to all
Ron