Chainfires - the skinny? Maybe....

[M. De Land]

The weak hammer spring is an interesting variable to consider...

If one use heavy charges regularly and the nipple orifice burns out enough I believe even full strength hammer springs eventually will not seal off the back blast. When a hammer is blown back to half **** you are way past nipple change time. It is leaking fire long before that happens.
It takes much longer in a revolver than a rifle as the charges are generally less than half as much but when my accuracy starts showing unexplained fliers in my under hammer match rifle the first thing I check is the nipple orifice for roundness and a numbered drill bit for diameter. If either are much out of spec It's time to change it out.

 

[nick_1]

I suspect if chain fire was going to happen from the rear it would involve heavy loads and worn out nipples. Again this is just speculation. To know what it actually is would require creating the problem one step at a time and fixing it one step at a time and then repeating the process with the same results.

 

[Pratt]

I have a Navy 36. I have never had a chain fire. I do the grease in the chamber face, and crip the cap on to the nipple. Never any problems. I can see a missing cap could be a problem.

 

[springfield art]

Here's one that showed up on facebook today:

That ain't Clint Eastwood holding that hogleg!

 

[TrophyGuy]

I read opinions about chain fire causes with a close eye on physics and mechanics. Hot gas and incandescent particles travel in one direction only, towards a lower pressure zone. For a flame front to get inside the cylinder recess cut for a nipple then run up under a cap skirt to ignite either the priming compound or powder through the nipple it would have to turn at least two acute angles. It doesn't happen and never will as long as Newtonian physics govern the hot gas molecules' trajectories. On the other hand the front of the cylinder presents several ways to ignite a chain fire. Spilled powder presents the first line of ignition and flame propagation. Fouling and chamber lube are pretty good adhesion sources. Even tight fitting balls can trap powder between ball and chamber I.D. And lastly there is the very effective kinetic bullet puller action tugging on even the tightest fitting ball to spill powder. I've never experienced a chain fire, but if I did I would examine the cap from the chain fired charge hole to see if the priming material had burned. If un-burned the evidence would be clear. I believe in physics.

 

[TrapperDude]

I read opinions about chain fire causes with a close eye on physics and mechanics. Hot gas and incandescent particles travel in one direction only, towards a lower pressure zone. For a flame front to get inside the cylinder recess cut for a nipple then run up under a cap skirt to ignite either the priming compound or powder through the nipple it would have to turn at least two acute angles. It doesn't happen and never will as long as Newtonian physics govern the hot gas molecules' trajectories. On the other hand the front of the cylinder presents several ways to ignite a chain fire. Spilled powder presents the first line of ignition and flame propagation. Fouling and chamber lube are pretty good adhesion sources. Even tight fitting balls can trap powder between ball and chamber I.D. And lastly there is the very effective kinetic bullet puller action tugging on even the tightest fitting ball to spill powder. I've never experienced a chain fire, but if I did I would examine the cap from the chain fired charge hole to see if the priming material had burned. If un-burned the evidence would be clear. I believe in physics.

I think you're spot on. The article I read in which the writer experimented to cause chain fires determined that poor powder management was the cause of chain fires. From his experiments, he did determine that lube could trap powder, causing it to be entrained from the chamber mouth, between the bullet and chamber wall, and then all the way back to the main charge.

I also don't buy the idea that flame will magically direct itself in a u-shaped trajectory to crawl into an adjacent nipple. I mentioned in an earlier post that there's a reason that it takes the heat and pressure of a cap directed right at a charge to ignite it. Mere residual heat from a discharge of flame from an eroded nipple shouldn't be enough to ignite an adjacent chamber through its nipple.

 

[Pratt]

And smoking around black powder?

 

[TrapperDude]

And smoking around black powder?

Smoking around black powder causes fires when a burning ember from the cigarette ash directly touches the powder. The mere presence of a lit cigarette isn't sufficient to ignite it as the video posted in this thread shows.

 

[M. De Land]

I read opinions about chain fire causes with a close eye on physics and mechanics. Hot gas and incandescent particles travel in one direction only, towards a lower pressure zone. For a flame front to get inside the cylinder recess cut for a nipple then run up under a cap skirt to ignite either the priming compound or powder through the nipple it would have to turn at least two acute angles. It doesn't happen and never will as long as Newtonian physics govern the hot gas molecules' trajectories. On the other hand the front of the cylinder presents several ways to ignite a chain fire. Spilled powder presents the first line of ignition and flame propagation. Fouling and chamber lube are pretty good adhesion sources. Even tight fitting balls can trap powder between ball and chamber I.D. And lastly there is the very effective kinetic bullet puller action tugging on even the tightest fitting ball to spill powder. I've never experienced a chain fire, but if I did I would examine the cap from the chain fired charge hole to see if the priming material had burned. If un-burned the evidence would be clear. I believe in physics.

Is not gas leak at the cylinder gap making the flame/plasma turn a 90 degree angle to ignite the adjacent chamber from the front as well ? How is it you believe in redirected flame physics at the front and not the back end. ? Why would not hot gas , flame and fouling be redirected off the recoil shield from a poorly sealed igniting chamber and into an open and often burned out adjacent nipple ?
Why would any powder be in the lube in front of the ball?
Seems to me that there is every bit as much exposure to ignition from the back end as there is the front !

 

[TrapperDude]

Is not gas leak at the cylinder gap making the flame/plasma turn a 90 degree angle to ignite the adjacent chamber from the front as well ? How is it you believe in redirected flame physics at the front and not the back end. ? Why would not hot gas , flame and fouling be redirected off the recoil shield from a poorly sealed igniting chamber and into an open and often burned out adjacent nipple ?
Why would any powder be in the lube in front of the ball?
Seems to me that there is every bit as much exposure to ignition from the back end as there is the front !

There's typically stray powder on the outside of those adjacent chamber mouths to begin the secondary ignition.

 

[Blitz]

look at the still shot. there is absoluty zero fire around those nipples. none! if chain fires happened at the nipples you would get one every time a cap fell off or every time you only capped 5 cylinders. the only folks claiming chain fires come from the nipples are folks who have never had one and never replicated one but they read about it.

 

[Blitz]

You are opposed to Sam Colts opinions as a recognized expert on Colts revolvers ? Colt did not recomend over powder wads rither. What is your qualifications and experience ?

Blitz

 

[nick_1]

I am not into opinions on this subject. either you have experienced the chain fire, corected it and replicated that process or you havent and you just have an opinion. we have several folks on here myself included and a video who have had chainfires from the cylinder mouth. we have many folks on here who have fired with caps missing either intentionally by loading six and only capping 5 or accidentally by caps falling off, myself included without chain fires occuring. we have one person with chain fires in a pocket pistol that they claimed came from the nipples but not sure if they documented their fix properly so that other factors were eliminated and that proof of the nipples being the culprit was established.

 

[M. De Land]

I am not into opinions on this subject. either you have experienced the chain fire, corected it and replicated that process or you havent and you just have an opinion. we have several folks on here myself included and a video who have had chainfires from the cylinder mouth. we have many folks on here who have fired with caps missing either intentionally by loading six and only capping 5 or accidentally by caps falling off, myself included without chain fires occuring. we have one person with chain fires in a pocket pistol that they claimed came from the nipples but not sure if they documented their fix properly so that other factors were eliminated and that proof of the nipples being the culprit was established.

That's the same logic as not having blown up a gun an so there is no possibility of knowing how and why it can happen.
You can experience a problem and completely misdiagnosing cause and effect so now it is reduced to an opinion as well.
Looks like we have testimony of it happen from both ends to me and logical explanation of how it can be stopped from either end as well,.

 

[TrapperDude]

That's the same logic as not having blown up a gun an so there is no possibility of knowing how and why it can happen.
You can experience a problem and completely misdiagnosing cause and effect so now it is reduced to an opinion as well.
Looks like we have testimony of it happen from both ends to me and logical explanation of how it can be stopped from either end as well,.

Evidence and physics are the best foundations for an opinion. If the physics don't support a nipple-end caused chain fire, and if multiple experiments on chain fires can only duplicate them from the front, then there is little foundation to support the idea that a chain fire can come from the rear.

All we have right now is "if x, y, and z align properly, then a chain fire could come from the rear. No one has ever caused a chain fire to happen from the rear with any deliberate, duplicatable results, but people have duplicated results with chain fires from the front.

The idea of a chain fire from the rear is a neat idea, but it's based all on untested hypotheticals that violate the laws of physics.

 

[nick_1]

Thank you! we have science and process producing repeatable results and then we have people like Mr deland with opinions trying to say the science is just opinion... as for your silly comparison I have never blown up a gun but I do know the science behind blowing up guns. there is a nice video sticky on this site that shows you actual blown up guns and lists the exact process used to blow them up. We do Not have anything even close to that showing how to reliably make a chain fire occur through the nipples. all we seem to have is opinions. so yes until one of you actually makes it happen and documents all the steps taken to repeat the results you are all just talking opinions.

 

[nick_1]

Blitz. my qualification is that I experienced a chain fire from shooting under sized balls with no lube. I added lube to chamber mouths and no chin fire. I loaded up again without lube and then had another chain fire. loaded up with lube no chain fire. Years later I experimented with correct size balls and no lube with no chain fire. many thousands of rounds fired with all different sizes of caps and missing caps and the only Chain fire I was ever able to produce was with under size balls, no lube and heavy loads. that is fact , not opinion.

 

[M. De Land]

Evidence and physics are the best foundations for an opinion. If the physics don't support a nipple-end caused chain fire, and if multiple experiments on chain fires can only duplicate them from the front, then there is little foundation to support the idea that a chain fire can come from the rear.

All we have right now is "if x, y, and z align properly, then a chain fire could come from the rear. No one has ever caused a chain fire to happen from the rear with any deliberate, duplicatable results, but people have duplicated results with chain fires from the front.

The idea of a chain fire from the rear is a neat idea, but it's based all on untested hypotheticals that violate the laws of physics.

View attachment 251519

If you have a good seal on the firing chamber nipple via a strong hammer spring and fresh nipple then there is no fire from back blast to get into the open uncapped nipples! Change scenario to weak hammer spring and worn nipple and we have a new dynamic of ignition exposure. Since your in a testing mood, weaken your hammer spring and put in burned out nipples in all chambers and give it a new round of tests.
I recommend firing it remotely for safeties sake.

 

[TrapperDude]

Ok. since your in a testing mood, weaken your hammer spring and put in burned out nipples in all chambers and give it a new round of tests.
I recommend firing it remotely for safeties sake.

Well, given that I didn't know any better and shot my Remington NMA with the spring at the lightest setting because that's how it was when I first got it, that test has already been accomplished. I even had one round actually knock the hammer back to the half-cocked position. Guess what? No chain fires.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Chainfires were part of the evolution of Cap and Ball revolvers. Like it it was meant to be. That's why we now have Cartridge weapons. Remember 1836 to 1876 is a short time to deal with the problem. Now we have an endless debate over front or back for something that wasn't really mentioned that much in history. There are two types of shooters, those who have had a chainfire and those who lie about it