Do you bank prime away......?

[David W.]

I think the purpose behind that was to have a constant. Using flints to perform the test would have resulted in too many variables. The test was to show the timing in different pan locations, using a controlled ignition source.

In real life, this would be different, of course.

Most of us shoot "in real life", so our non-lab experience is very valuable. :grin:

And lab experiments are valuable. If one wants real life, refer to Pletch's experiments on different locks. In those tests, he showed the performance of different brands of locks and their timing. Note that in those tests, there were still constants to consider, namely using Null-B and precise charges which included the powder being in the same relative location every time. Statistics cannot be concluded under any other conditions.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

"I wonder if our fore fathers ,who used these things daily.Spent any time leaning against a fence pondering this."

I'll bet the guys who built and forged them did!

The switch from the short big caliber clunky lock Jaegers to the long lean small bore graceful much sought after Pennsylvania long rifles occurred in about 70 years right here on the east coast and pretty much within a five county area. They pondered such things as economy of powder and lead. accuracy of rifling etc. Lock speed was most likely one of the issues.

Consider the "half tear drop" shape of a Durrs Egg pan. was it better than a square pan? I think they, the builders, did ponder such things.

 

[roundball]

And lab experiments are valuable. If one wants real life, refer to Pletch's experiments on different locks. In those tests, he showed the performance of different brands of locks and their timing. Note that in those tests, there were still constants to consider, namely using Null-B and precise charges which included the powder being in the same relative location every time. Statistics cannot be concluded under any other conditions.

Agree.....and it's particularly troubling when articles are posted as if they're personally tested/experienced facts, when in many cases they are nothing more than repeated old wives tales.
An article about how to shoot flintlocks in the articles section could benefit from actual fact based hands-on experience.

 

[David W.]

Thanks Pletch!

 

[David W.]

"I wonder if our fore fathers ,who used these things daily.Spent any time leaning against a fence pondering this."

I'll bet the guys who built and forged them did!

Of course they did. Reference to Manton and Noch, and as you stated, Durrs Egg. Also, it would be a wild guess that those who won turkey shoots thought about such things.

 

[Rifleman1776]

IMHO, less prime is better than more prime. The minimum amount that will work will give a faster ignition than lotsa prime. Filling the pan allows one (me) to have to listen and wait while the prime burns down and finally ignites the main charge. Wait = wiggle and wiggle = bad accuracy.
I put a thin line of prime, I use 4Fg, along the bottom of the pan. This gives me the quickest ignition with my rifles. For my new fowler, I am still experimenting to find the best method of priming. The touch hole looks properly located and I outside coned but it acts like it is too high. :idunno: I may end up with the prime banked up to, and just below, the touch hole.
BTW, when hunting, I frequently check the condition of my prime and am quite confident it is where I want it when I shoot. When target shooting, I know where it is.

 

[David W.]

This is totally unrelated to your tests, but one can consider another factor in (real life) ignition timing. Imagine a hot spark from the frizzen hitting the touch hole and setting off the main charge BEFORE the pan powder begins to develop. This can and has happened. In fact, it's possible for the main charge to set off the priming. That's why one must be careful when handling a flinter. They CAN be fired without any pan charge at all.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I wonder if our fore fathers ,who used these things daily.Spent any time leaning against a fence pondering this. :hmm:

I'm sure duels were faught over it. And since their seconds loaded the pistols we don't know if the matter was settled to anyone's satisfaction. :haha:

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Thanks for all your comments. Zimmerstutzen, you have laid out another couple years of research!

The vent configuration is one that will never be studied to my satisfaction. I did an earlier article on straight touch holes and found that 1/16 and larger work fine. Mild exterior cones improved a 1/16" vent with consistency and slight increase in speed. Larger vents are a compromise between speed and the amount of escaping gases a shooter is will to put up with.

I very much like internal cones. I belive that being able to see barrel powder through the vent is about perfect. Now, with prime up against the barrel, it's like igniting one charge instead ot two separate ones.

Imagine two piles of BP on a sheet of paper. The distance between the two piles is 1/16". Your job is to ignite one pile without igniting the other. Pretty tough to do.

In our gun, the opposite is what we want to do. If we have managed our locks well, have a clean vent, dry priming for sparks to land on, and prime and barrel powder close to each other, we've pretty much done our part. We all have our pet tricks to accomplish this. The old saying "Your mileage may vary certainly applies here."

Regards,
Pletch

 

[Mike Brooks]

I wonder if our fore fathers ,who used these things daily.Spent any time leaning against a fence pondering this. :hmm:

I'm sure duels were faught over it. And since their seconds loaded the pistols we don't know if the matter was settled to anyone's satisfaction. :haha:

This must be were the modern black gangsta sideways pistol hold came from......prime banked against the touch hole.... :hmm: :rotf:

 

[Macon Due]

Mike
HaHaHa......could be but I really think that was because it was in the box like that when they stole it!
Macon

 

[n8dawg6]

interesting discussion and good pics by the OP. I have always read to use less powder and bank it away from the vent. in my own informal tests with two flintlocks (lyman with RMC vent and a TVM), i found that i got much more consistent results if i used more priming powder and didnt try to bank it away. since this went against conventional wisdom, i resolved not to tell anyone and just keep quietly doing what seemed to work ....

 

[MSW]

late to the party again, but thanks to Pletch for keeping up his steadfast dedication to add repeatable experimental scientific method to what would otherwise be a plain old shouting match.

Here's to you, Pletch, for injecting common sense into the discussion.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

just one guy's opinion...

 

[ballandcap]

Fantastic research Pletch and thank you! Whether at the range, in the field, or hunting situation.... I twist the wrist towards the the touch hole quickly and snaply to make sure the prime is banked against the T.H., after Pletches research it all comes together now! Great job!!!! Thank you for your time and efforts :thumbsup:

 

[ebiggs1]

A wise man you are. Remember these differences are small, some barely measurable. And if an individual does just one than it probably isn't noticeable unless you are extremely aware. But if you do several, or all, of them, than there can be a noticeable advantage to do it correctly. :thumbsup: