burning wet BP

[Onojutta]

What potential sources of spark would you propose?

Ever heard of a fellow named Murphy? Perhaps some fluke situation where the gun is dropped and lands in such a way as to cause the frizzen to strike an object that produces a spark. Use your imagination. I take no chances when it comes to something that could blow my head off in a split second.

We now know that wet powder can ignite. At the time, I thought adding water to the bore was cheap insurance, certainly not a substitute for adhering to the general rules of firearm safety. If nothing else it had a psychological affect. I find the act of trying to screw a metal ramrod into the ball of a loaded rifle is rather unnerving (wet powder or dry), even when common sense is applied.

 

[George]

The answer has to be that just the powder at the touch hole was wet in the example and the rest of the load was still granular with air present between the grains. When the "paste" was removed and replaced with dry powder, ignition occurred as usual.

There's no way to know what the conditions were for Spencer Records, but there were no granules in the breech in my experiment, I guarantee. It was all wet mud. From watching it out in the open, on the paper, it seemed obvious that what was happening was that the intense heat from the train of dry powder burning was evaporating the water and drying the wet powder when it came in contact. In most instances the flame front traveled quickly through the wet powder, drying it as it went, very quick but not as a flash. When I did it in the breech it seemed obvious that the same thing was happening, because once the prime did manage to ignite some powder inside the breech the first thing which happened was a jet of flame shooting out of the touchhole for 1-2 seconds before the rest went foop.

I agree with Black Hand, this demonstration in no way means it's is unsafe to pull a ball. Black powder, wet or dry, is never going to ignite without a heat source.

Spence

 

[George]

I suggest that some of you who are interested in this experiment repeat it for yourself. It's dead easy, everyone has powder, water, paper and fire. You will learn something for yourself, you won't have to depend on my report, you may see something I didn't and teach us all something interesting or important. Every experimental result needs skeptical testing, because none of them are worth squat if they can't be repeated by other experimenters.

It takes only a few minutes, what do you have to lose?

N.B. If you try it, use a long match. :wink:

Spence

 

[Black Hand]

What potential sources of spark would you propose?

Ever heard of a fellow named Murphy? Perhaps some fluke situation where the gun is dropped and lands in such a way as to cause the frizzen to strike an object that produces a spark. Use your imagination. I take no chances when it comes to something that could blow my head off in a split second.

We now know that wet powder can ignite. At the time, I thought adding water to the bore was cheap insurance, certainly not a substitute for adhering to the general rules of firearm safety. If nothing else it had a psychological affect. I find the act of trying to screw a metal ramrod into the ball of a loaded rifle is rather unnerving (wet powder or dry), even when common sense is applied.

There are no such thing as "accidents". Caused occurrences happen because people do something stupid.

If working with firearms, one should pay attention and do things the proper way. There are NO excuses.

As to the rest - magical thinking...

 

[Artificer]

Very much agree that there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge." When a firearm goes off when not intended, there is only one of two things that happened. Either 1. There is a mechanical malfunction or 2. There is a shooter/operator negligent discharge.

With a flintlock and with the frizzen forward/down and the cock forward/down; there is no way to set the BP off inside the barrel when pulling a ball unless someone does something terribly stupid.

Gus

 

[hunts4deer]

What concerns me about this experiment is in shifting from the table top to a closed breech with a tight-fitting ball, access to oxygen is eliminated.
Oxygen (air) is necessary for anything to burn. It supports the combustion. Now you take a slurry, paste, whatever of black powder and place it into the breech. Then you compress (not possible with a liquid) the ball-patch combo and attempt to ignite it. Logic tells me that it will not be capable of igniting and burning except at the touch hole where air can reach it. Since there is no air trapped between the granules anymore because there are no granules, it is absolutely inert and safe.

The answer has to be that just the powder at the touch hole was wet in the example and the rest of the load was still granular with air present between the grains. When the "paste" was removed and replaced with dry powder, ignition occurred as usual.

One of the ingredients of BP is Potassium Nitrate which, when heated by a spark, readily gives off oxygen. So in fact, BP will go off just fine in the vacuum of outer space

 

[Ames]

And how might this slower burning mix of powder and oil work with a flint as a fire starter on a drizzly cold night in camp? :hmm:

 

[George]

It would be lousy. But then, the test was only to see if wet powder in the breech could be ignited by poking dry powder through the touchhole. It can.

Spence

 

[coloradoclyde]

One of the ingredients of BP is Potassium Nitrate which, when heated by a spark, readily gives off oxygen. So in fact, BP will go off just fine in the vacuum of outer space

Or soaked in water, provided the "ignition source" is hot enough to overcome the water.......but!, given enough time the potassium nitrate will dissolve into a solution. and become totally ineffective....

 

[coloradoclyde]

What's got me scratching my head is;
Does the BP absorb or adsorb the water?.... :hmm:

 

[RonRC]

What's got me scratching my head is;
Does the BP absorb or adsorb the water?.... :hmm:

When a material binds to the surface of a solid particle, it is adsorbed.

Absorption is the case in which a fluid permeates or is dissolved by a liquid or solid.
Ron

 

[smoothshooter]

Tough tests are often best, but not always.

In the example quoted from the historical account, we don't know how the loads in the guns were wetted. If they were submerged in the water for a fair length of time, it is possible the charges were thoroughly wetted.

If the wetting was the result of being exposed to rain only, it is very possible that only a small percentage of the powder just ahead of the breech and around the vent was dampened, and so would be much easier to remedy in the manner described in the historical account.

I have come across a couple of different accounts, one from a soldier with a musket in the Continental Army, the other a frontiersman with an unidentified gun, where they and some of their companions held the breech and lock areas of their wetted guns close to a campfire for some time, the idea obviously being to get the breech area hot enough to evaporate the moisture from the loads.

 

[smoothshooter]

It looks like the burning characteristics would be changed at least some, because the powder's appearance has been changed from a somewhat consistent granulated form to an assortment of various-sized and shaped chunks, granules, and dust.

 

[smoothshooter]

Pulling the charges may have been a preferred way of dealing with the problem, but it has been documented that many hunters, soldiers, frontiersmen, farmers, etc., neither owned or carried worms, screws, or any other attachments for pulling loads.

 

[coloradoclyde]

What's got me scratching my head is;
Does the BP absorb or adsorb the water?.... :hmm:

When a material binds to the surface of a solid particle, it is adsorbed.

Absorption is the case in which a fluid permeates or is dissolved by a liquid or solid.
Ron

Yes Ron! I know the difference between the two....However My question is can a material do both?....and does BP do both?

 

[Artificer]

Pulling the charges may have been a preferred way of dealing with the problem, but it has been documented that many hunters, soldiers, frontiersmen, farmers, etc., neither owned or carried worms, screws, or any other attachments for pulling loads.

And there are also original accounts of the lock not "catching fire" or going off when needed, sometimes to the dismay or ultimate/final regret of the owner.

I'm sure there were some to perhaps many British American Militia or even some American Military in the AWI who did not have a worm for their musket. No doubt they had to borrow one and the rod or rammer from someone else, when needed. Ball Screws or Ball Pullers may have only been provided to American Sergeants or remained solely with the Artificers.

I admit I have been surprised to read how even some frontiersmen who went into hostile country, wound up with their rifles or guns in deplorable or broken condition in the 18th century - that was due to neglect or no forethought.

With a flintlock gun and one used only for hunting, one did not absolutely have to have a worm or ball screw. Piercing the vent hole with the pick and placing some fresh powder would cause the charge to go off eventually or shoot out a ball that was loaded without powder. A separate wiping rod could be/was used to clean the barrel.

Gus