Or as I've seen in videos of young reenactors, especially in British units; you can turn your face away and close your eyes as you pull the trigger!! ;-)
Eye injuries from flintlock?
- Thread starter Louisk
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 297
I have found that my Charleville fires reliably with a smaller, rather than larger mound of 3F priming powder.
If I am aware of heat from the flash, and bits of burning powder hitting my cheek — I used too much.
If I am aware of heat from the flash, and bits of burning powder hitting my cheek — I used too much.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 538
- Reaction score
- 796
I've been cut on the cheeks and arms by pieces of percussion caps back in the day. I have only had flintlocks for the past 30 years or so. I've never had a problem with a flintlock, knock on wood. I mostly shoot lefty and no issues with RH or LH guns. I do wear prescription glasses and probably would wear safety glasses if I didn't.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,911
- Reaction score
- 6,214
Make a list of your historical mentors (pre 1850) who either wore safety glasses or had an eye put out by either a flint or percussion gun.
I'll start............
I'll start............
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2020
- Messages
- 823
- Reaction score
- 1,228
The only injury I ever witnessed with a flinter, was when I fried my supporting hand fingers supporting the stock too close to the lock! I had a great tatoo for a while...
BEP
40 Cal.
Of course I wear eye protection. It's not just the pan flash - small bits of flint break off as well. Hence the dulling of flints. And it happens while that pan explosion is in progress. Those flint bits are blown forcibly somewhere.
Shooting glasses a must for me. Only injury I've ever got from shooting a flintlock was deer hunting quite a few years ago, Had a couple of doe working towards me right before dark, but had little cover so gun was already shouldered as I waited for them to give me a good angle. After holding for ever (seemed like it) and after continually sliding my fore hand in towards me cause it was getting tired, a shot was finally presented. When I pulled the trigger, I failed to realize that my fore hand was holding the gun under the lock, and my pointing finger was up along the frizzen spring. When pan went off it felt like something took the end of my finger off so I flinched terribly, missing the deer. Thankfully other than a little flash burn and a couple of pieces of black powder embedded in my finger, no real damage occured. Learned that lesson really quick.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2019
- Messages
- 8,498
- Reaction score
- 9,983
The modern-required Flash Guards were not used back in the day; I bet many soldiers were injured during volleys!!
Most ranges I’m aware of require eye and ear protection as a matter of protocol. It’s not the r
RSO’s fault, he’s just doing his job much like a police officer pulling someone over for running a red light. Maybe there wasn’t an accident but it certainly wasn’t safe……
The level of safety a person employs for their own safety should be their own personal choice and responsibility. It's only when their choices adversely affect the safety of other individuals that the rules for all should be uniformly enforced for all. Hearing and vision protection are individual choices. What the individual does for their own personal hearing and vision safety has no adverse effect upon the hearing and vision safety of other individuals.
I've been on a range where an individual was not wearing any hearing protection at all. That disregard of the hearing protection requirement didn't adversely affect my hearing. I learned later that individual was already deaf and therefore needed no additional protection. Enforcing a range regulation requiring hearing protection for him would have been, IMO, pretty stupid.
Protocol and rules require some common sense application.
Agreed to a point but ranges have to pay for insurance and the cost of the insurance varies with the number of accidents incurred and I would think that the policy states that eye and ear protection must be worn on the shooting line.
Not trying to be obstinate but it’s kind of like seat belts in vehicles. The law or rules state that you have to wear them for your protection not another driver or passenger.
If you frequent a range that doesn’t have these rules in place then more power to you and you do whatever you like.
Though you have a valid point, an injury to an individual due to their own disregard of the range rules doesn't accrue to the range's liability, it accrues to the individual as personal consequence for their disregard.
There has to be some flexibility and common sense in range rule enforcement. If that deaf individual I mentioned in a previous post had been kicked off the range for not wearing hearing protection I would have considered going elsewhere to do my shooting.
As an example of common sense rule enforcement, it's the rule about not shooting over the berm. That's common sense because who knows where the projectile goes and ends up and so could easily adversely affect some other person than the shooter or some other person's property. Someone that shoots over the berm should be kicked off the range. It's not a matter of a choice that affects only the shooter.
WRT to seat belts, that's a law, and laws are to be obeyed. IMO it's a stupid law as whether or not someone wishes to have their skull crushed in a crash should be a matter of knowing the facts and making a personal choice to wear seat belts or not. Personally, I wore a seat belt long before it was required by law because I chose to protect myself as best I can. But because wearing or not wearing only affects the individual, I think making it a law is an overreach. The law should require seat belts be installed, yes, but usage should be an individual choice.
There's too much shifting of blame from individuals' responsibilities to any other insured targets of litigation opportunity in today's world. It's nuts.
Last edited:
Safety glasses are fine, they will provide sufficient protection, Worst Case scenario, flint chips or breaks the glasses will protect as others have stated if you are getting flash burns over charged flash pan, cut back a little
Sidney Smith
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 2,313
I wear safety glasses while at the shooting range, but when I'm out hunting, I rarely do. I'm not firing the gun as much when I'm afield so I'm not worried. I'm left handed and all my muzzleloaders ( including the matchlock I'm building) are left handed.
Supposedly many British soldiers often had tell-tale powder marks on the left side of their faces.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 297
I have often thought also about soldiers in close ranks firing volley after volley. Perhaps some got excited and double charged their pieces and filled the pans to overflowing. Imagine the flash and the boom of such an overcharged musket right beside your ear!
And if somebody REALLY over did the loading and his musket EXPLODED —
- Joined
- May 28, 2021
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 500
I wonder how they handled these problems "back in the day"?
BJHabermehl
40 Cal
I’ve always worn percription glasses. I’ve normally had my glasses get dirty shooting flintlocks. When i bought polycarbonate lenses I found that one days shooting destroyed the lenses. I’ve used plain plastic lenses since. I have shot with my contact lenses in with no discomfort. I normally shoot with my glasses on. Something definitely destroyed the poly lenses. BJH
Safety eyewear every time. Why take any risk?
Hmmm ... thanks for mentioning that. Might explain why my prescription shooting glasses seem to be getting fuzzy.
