How exactly do you define 'best'? What is your Empirical assessment based upon and its criteria? to come to the conclusion that the Russian artillery was technically and educationally inferior to Austria, France, Britain assumes their must be a level of assessment to say who is above this or below this. What is the bench mark example for your conclusions other than your own prejudice which is very clear in your statement about russia being 200yrs behind the rest of Europe which is frankly racist and has no place in historical endeavour?
In general terms, by 1800 all of Europes artillery was made virtually the same way, and operated the same way. The French had lots of men carrying little bits, the English a few men not carrying the little bits as the bits were on the gun. I argue no one national had a technological or educational edge.
I do not know enough about Russian economy at the time, material production for iron, bronze, or the educational establishment to say anything about the Russia artillery's effectiveness. I also admit i do not know enough about the technology of France or Austria at the time to make any assumptions on technological advantages over other nations