In view of the range Collado ascribes to the culverin, some remarks on gun performances are in order. "Greatest random" was what the old-time gunner called his maximum range, and random it was. Beyond point-blank range, the gunner was never sure of hitting his target. So with smoothbores, long range was never of great importance. Culverins, with their thick walls, long bores, and heavy powder charges, achieved distance; but second class guns like field "cannon," with less metal and smaller charges, ranged about 1,600 yards at a maximum, while the effective range was hardly more than 500. Heavier pieces, such as the French 33-pounder battering cannon, might have a point-blank range of 720 yards; at 200-yard range its ball would penetrate from 12 to 24 feet of earthwork, depending on how "poor and hungry" the earth was. At 130 yards a Dutch 48-pounder cannon put a ball 20 feet into a strong earth rampart, while from 100 yards a 24-pounder siege cannon would bury the ball 12 feet. But generalizations on early cannon are difficult, for it is not easy to find two "mathematicians" of the old days whose ordnance lists agree. Spanish guns of the late 1500's do, however, appear to be larger in caliber than pieces of similar name in other countries, as is shown by comparing the culverins: the smallest Spanish _culebrina_ was a 20-pounder, but the French great _coulevrine_ of 1551 was a 15-pounder and the typical English culverin of that century was an 18-pounder. Furthermore, midway of the 1500's, Henry II greatly simplified French ordnance by holding his artillery down to the 33-pounder cannon, 15-pounder great culverin, 7-1/2-pounder bastard culverin, 2-pounder small culverin, a 1-pounder falcon, and a 1/2-pounder falconet. Therefore, any list like the one following must have its faults: _Principal English guns of the sixteenth century_ Caliber Length Weight Weight Powder (inches) of gun of shot charge Ft. In. (pounds) (pounds) (pounds)