The British version fired a 14.4-kilogram projectile at about 487 meters per second, for a muzzle energy of over 1.7 million joules.

Such a powerful gun with a large weight of shot posed serious damage to enemy ships.

[4] With regard to the upper calibers he thought that cannon over 36 (French) pounds were too slow and bulky.

(le calibre du canon le plus gros de la batterie principale des vaisseaux de ligne peut être adopté comme calibre unique) [5] The result would be the maximum effectiveness and simplified means.

As a practical implementation Paixhans proposed to retain the 36-pounder firing with 12 pounds of gunpowder on the lower deck of the ships of the line.

For the uppermost decks of the ships of the line and the frigates, and for small vessels, he proposed to retain the 36-pounder carronade, that weighed only 2,500 French pounds.

If the service charge was reduced to limit the recoil, the power of penetration was lessened, thereby obviating the purpose of boring up.

It works extremely easy, its recoil is not too severe, it does not wear its vent away quickly, its precision is equal to the new Monk A, B, and C guns, which work heavily, and wear the vent away rapidly, and which have reduced windage.

[9] In 1829–1830 Melville had planned for 4 different weights of 32-pounders with which to realize the ambition of uniform caliber: the 63, 56 (existing), 48 and 25 cwt.

[10] In the end the admiralty decided on the expedient to bore up lighter guns in order to achieve uniform caliber as cheaply as possible.

A technical reason for this economy was that at the time, the advent of shell guns threatened large broadside armaments with extinction.

[11] The net effect was that the existing 32-pounders (those of 56 cwt) on the lower decks tended to stay in place.

It measured 9 feet 7 inches (292 cm), and weighed 63 cwt (3200 kg), considerably more than Blomefield's 32-pounder.

[10] The 32 pdr 63 cwt was not mentioned in Douglas' table of artillery in use published in 1855, so it might have dropped out of general use on ships by then.

It was noted that the 63 cwt could fire indefinitely at 6 degrees of elevation (giving a more or less horizontal recoil).

[15] Lieutenant-Colonel William Dundas designed a new heavy 32-pounder gun in 1847, aware that a fresh supply of 32-pounders would soon be needed.

[16] In 1829, or in the early 1830s, Millar designed a medium 32-pounder, 8 feet (240 cm) in length and weighing 48 to 50 cwt (2438 to 2540 kg).

[19] In 1830 the Royal Navy started to bore up a number of 24 pdr guns in order to get lighter 32-pounders.

[19] It had been intended to bore up all the 6-foot and 9-foot 24-pounders to 32-pounders, but, in the trials made with several, they failed, partly through a diminution of the windage from .21 inch to .15 inch, and partly from the increase of the weight of the shot; on which accounts, though the diminution of the weight of metal was inconsiderable in itself, the strength of the guns was so much reduced that they could not resist the charges; it therefore became necessary to provide new 32-pounders, medium guns, as they were called, in order to complete the gradation to the old standard, the 32-pounder, 56 cwt., and 9 feet 6 inches long.

[20] Note that the caliber (as in width of the barrel) of Monk's guns was less than that of the old 32-pounders, reducing windage.

[17] At first he was also named as the designer of a 32-pounder of 5 feet 4 inch and 25 cwt, but later this gun was attributed to Alexander Dickson.