Can you use bar stock Ferroceum

[shootrj2003]

Years ago, I saw a wheelock in a magazine , that would use this.It was a homemade non traditonal action ,quite well made however.It was similar to a large zippo wheel and probably worked very well.It. Was probably when I was young in the late 60's that I saw it.For our purposes,say in a flintlock- not usable ,I don't THINK,unless you made the frizzen with horizontal ridges(out of a file) definitely not traditional,and only if you could get this material in 1/2" slabs to fit a ****.OR,conversely,make the frizzen out of the material or make it hold the material.Either way not within my realm of expertise!

 

[Dphar]

Has anyone ever used or thought of using bar stock ferroceum in place of using a flint?

And what would be the point?
You can use depleted Uranium for frizzen faces too and its been done btw, but its not a good idea.
If people insist on making the flintlock into something "better" or "new and improved" I would suggest they instead consider a Colt or Armalite AR in 5.56. But these are mostly sold out right now. Along with reloading components and magazines for them.
Dan

 

[cynthialee]

I do not understand why in the world you guys have to talk down and discourage an idea. Fine you don't want to do it yourself. So don't do it, but do you really need to invest so much energy into bad mouthing an idea just because it isn't traditional?
Because if you keep that attitude up, you old guys will be the last of the frontstuffers and there won't be many more young folks trying it out.

 

[RAEDWALD]

It has been the subject of at least one US Patent, 4682434 28 July 1987. Also 3744169 July 10 1973.

patent genius.com has it noted together with a drawing showing the ferrocerium fixed to the hammer and recommending a serrated piece of hard steel in the **** (eg piece of old file).

So it has been done and it does work. Probably even in the rain, if you have waterproof powder....

I have a copy of the drawing etc. but this is probably copyright but I daresay I can PM it for your legitimate research.

One suggestion was to fix the ferrocerium to a leather or rubber sleeve and this can be pushed over the hammer as required.

 

[shootrj2003]

I merely told the gentleman how he would have to modify a flintlock to use this material and explained it was not my realm of expertise as I am mostly into traditonal designs,I also gave him an idea on how to follow up on that idea,It would definitely be more mechanically sensible to use it in a wheel lock,even a traditionally designed wheelock would need very little mods to work-as a matter of fact I would on further thought even encourage that as it would update the desig n and bring a wonderful design right up to date getting rid of its biggest weakness the fragile pyrite. Sparking material,However it would be problematical and expensive to make a flintlock work with it,.the wheelock would remain traditional,the flintlock would not.

 

[simeon england]

Has anyone ever used or thought of using bar stock ferroceum in place of using a flint?

And what would be the point?
You can use depleted Uranium for frizzen faces too and its been done btw, but its not a good idea.
If people insist on making the flintlock into something "better" or "new and improved" I would suggest they instead consider a Colt or Armalite AR in 5.56. But these are mostly sold out right now. Along with reloading components and magazines for them.
Dan

Howdy!
Plus me. The magic of a flinter is knowing one is firing a gun with the same technology copied from 240 years ago. I suppose one could rig up an electronic trigger on one, but whats the point?

IMHO, SOME of us moderns who have a good mind and skill set to make things themselves do not do well recreating the past because, we can do it so much "better" nowadaze.
I know, I used to be one of them.

 

[hounddog]

yes i have, years ago i was given a flint lock rifle minus the bbl. i put a new bbl on the gun the frizzen had quit sparking i tried everything i knew and any suggestions that were made. finally i totaly ruined the frizen, the lock was a import and i could not find a replacement i could have used a siler gunsmith lock but i didnt have the money so i took the striker off of a military magnesium fire starter, i cut a notch in the frizzen and epoxied the striker in. it works outstanding. no it is not pc correct and i dont use it at ml shoots but when i hunt carry that flintlock rifle it never failes to spark and fire. and dependability to me is more important that being period correct when hunting. so yes it does really well eeach person can determine whether to use it or not. but in a true survival situation i will choose the striker over a flint any day. if your life depends on it you better use the best. well thats my opnion you all are most certainly entitled to yours. yours hounddog

 

[leslie]

Theres an idea do away with the hammer and frizzen and ignite the powder with an electric spark ie sparkplug.Of course the batteries and coil might get a little heavy,but maybe there is some space age technology available to solve that problem.Sorry but put me with the "old guys who are ruining the sport because we are unreceptive to new ideas".The reason I went to flintlocks in the first place was because of the tie to my ancestors who survived using flintlocks using[horrors]rocks likely picked up from a streambed.

 

[Dean2]

I do not understand why in the world you guys have to talk down and discourage an idea. Fine you don't want to do it yourself. So don't do it, but do you really need to invest so much energy into bad mouthing an idea just because it isn't traditional?
Because if you keep that attitude up, you old guys will be the last of the frontstuffers and there won't be many more young folks trying it out.

x1 Very well said. I well know this forum is all about sidelock muzzle stuffers but I didn't think it meant we were to be completely closed minded about them. Many of our lubes, ramrod material, ways of heating lead to make balls etc are far from PC/HC. As long as we aren't advocating going to inlines, sabots and all that stuff I think the rest of the discussions should be at least available.

It is fun to experiment and play, that is a big part of the reason I like to shoot. Trying something different in the old sparker guns doesn't seem like heresey to me.

Those that don't want to, don't do it, but don't poop on the free thinkers either please. (Can you imagine what they would have said to old Ben Franklin if he was posting on a forum).

 

[LRB]

Only to play devils advocate, but there are many references to mis-firing flintlocks getting folks killed or in deep do-do. Just saying. Personally I will stay with flint ignition for sport and recreation, but were it life or death I would choose better if available. It is my opinion that tricks like the ferroceum are, for the most part, just another solution for an almost non-existant problem. Assuming a good lock and well made gun, the major cause of most FL mis-fires trace back to the shooter.

 

[LRB]

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you want to experiment in better ignition, try a traditional cap lock. There is a reason they made the FL obsolete, and there is a reason that cartridge guns made them obsolete. Most that shoot FL do it for the challenge of over-coming it's short comings by learning how to, and to feel that time in history while gaining a closer understanding of what our ancestors had to deal with. Aside from that, to many, they are just more fun. For better or worse. A physcologist might say we are closet gamblers at heart, but do not like stacking the deck much beyond historical accuracy.

 

[jdkerstetter]

....Most that shoot FL do it for the challenge of over-coming it's short comings by learning how to.....

...and there's the Pennsylvania game laws and a bunch of guys looking for a better "rock" to skirt the rules. :shake:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[simeon england]

Howdy!

I would not discourage any feller from shooting what he wanted, improving it if he wanted, or purchasing a $5000 rifle to display on his mantle and never shoot. I would suggest however, that one keep modern technology from 18th century technology. There are no rules against it, and whatever this man wants to do is just fine with me. Just suggesting if he wants a primitive gun, keep it primitive. And likewise, theres no rule against suggesting.

And, for the record, I am 37.

 

[JCOPE]

...and there's the Pennsylvania game laws and a bunch of guys looking for a better "rock" to skirt the rules. :shake:

Enjoy, J.D.[/quote]
+1 :thumbsup:

 

[Matt85]

Howdy!

I would not discourage any feller from shooting what he wanted, improving it if he wanted, or purchasing a $5000 rifle to display on his mantle and never shoot. I would suggest however, that one keep modern technology from 18th century technology. There are no rules against it, and whatever this man wants to do is just fine with me. Just suggesting if he wants a primitive gun, keep it primitive. And likewise, theres no rule against suggesting.

And, for the record, I am 37.

im with this statement! its one thing to create a gun that uses primitive tech but is not historically correct (think TC hawken). its another story when you try to "upgrade" primitive firearms with modern tech (think inlines).

if you want to use modern tech... use a modern gun (and stay outa our muzzleloading season).

-matt

 

[ebiggs1]

"... just because it isn't traditional? ..."

Yes!
I am not all that strict on traditional, as many here will readily admit, and I don't like that idea.
There is a point when "traditional" is too diminished even for me. :shocked2:

 

[hounddog]

ladies and gentlemen, the mans ideal for using the formecium is valid like i said in my previous post it does work because i have done it, shucks you dont even have to have a flint, just to see if it would work i took a piece of a file and put in the jaws and tried it on my formeciun frizzened gun guess what it also works outstanding. i too have several flintlock and percussion gun so going period correct in not a problem. but i also am a gunsmith and we are curious creatures and like to experiment . i most definately do not have a problem with the folks who prefer the original old time way that is your right. however i must remind to not refuse me my right to experiment if i so choose so lets all of us realize that everyone has a right to thir opnions and preferences, and show some maturity and tolerence for our fellow enthuisists. so play nice this aint no political forum lets leave the mud throwing to the idiots in washington d c yours hounddog

 

[simeon england]

Howdy!

however i must remind to not refuse me my right to experiment if i so choose so lets all of us realize that everyone has a right to thir opnions and preferences,

Im not sure who is denying anyone the right to modify ones own gun???
In fact I believe I (for one) said

I would not discourage any feller from shooting what he wanted, improving it if he wanted, or purchasing a $5000 rifle to display on his mantle and never shoot.

Then followed by

I would suggest however

Then further down,

There are no rules against it, and whatever this man wants to do is just fine with me.

And finally

And likewise, theres no rule against suggesting.

So I dont see where I have suggested a law be passed that no one "improve" on their own gun.

and show some maturity and tolerence for our fellow enthuisists. so play nice this aint no political forum lets leave the mud throwing to the idiots in washington d c yours hounddog

I believe I have covered the tolerance issue, but to say I am not mature for speaking my suggestion is a bit far. You said yourself we each have a right to our own opinion. Saying I cant share mine is, just not fair. Plus, throwing mud???
I dont know, maybe you were not directing what you said to my post, but it sure seems like "all the above" comments were thrown into your post.
I always suggest lads play at their own game, and travel as far down that path they want to.
And believe I play nice doing it.