David, Peter et al
Here is some tests data comparing the AnXI and Gribeauval cannisters. M1765 deliniates Gribeauval, M1803 System AnXI for brevety. It is taken from tests carried out at Strasbourg over the summer of 1802 see SHAT 2w 84-86. I have more data from these tests for shooting round shot and shell as well as more specific data for cannister effect of each gun.
M1765 12-pdr. 41 ball cannister. 7 balls hit target at 200m 11 at 180m
M1803 12-pdr 41 ball cannister. 7hits at 500m 16 at 470m 25 at 420m
M1765 8-pdr 41 ball cannister. 8 hits at 180m 10 at 160m
M1803 6-pdr 41 ball cannister. 5 hits at 470m 14 hits at 400m
M1765 4-pdr 41 ball cannister. 8 hits at 160m
From this it is clear that the Gribeauval cannister was of shorter range than the AnXI cannister, it having more than twice the effective range. In these tests, each gun type was firing one round on its own service charge (i assume as this is not given) and using 41 ball cannister of Gribeauval and AnXI design. The target measured 35m wide and 5.7m high. I need to check the weight of each cannister and weight of each ball as I think if memory serves a difference in ball weight between the Gribeauval and AnXI, though ball numbers are the same. I think AnXI has smaller lighter balls, thus would have travelled further.
Even taking into consieration this potential bias, the AnXI cannister had a longer range, and would have had a great number of hits at close range. The Gribeauval design had a much more limited range, had a shorter range, and lost more balls to the ground than its replacement.
This I assume reflects the design of the cannister?