Adye didn't believe so:
'The French system of artillery was established as far back as the year 1765, and has been rigidly adhered to through a convulsion in the country which overturned everything like order, and which even the government itself has not been able to withstand. We should, therefore, conclude that it has merit, and, though in an enemy, ought to avail ourselves of its advantages. At the formation of their system, they saw the necessity of the most exact correspondence in the most minute particulars, and so rigidly have they adhered to this principle that, though they have several arsenals, where carriages and other military machines are constructed, the different parts of a carriage may be collected from these several arsenals, in the opposite extremities of the country and will as well unite and form a carriage as if they were all made and fitted in the same workshop. As long as every man who fancies he has made an improvement is permitted to introduce into our service, this cannot be the case with us.'
Seems to me Adye is intimating that at the time of writing this critique, the British did not have a unified artillery system.
If you take a look at the production standards Gribeauval instituted, you'll find that all parts within a particular caliber were interchangeable and that the tolerances/standards for construction were very high, much higher than his contemporaries in other countries.