-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
First Chainfire
- Thread starter gooddw
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I have never had a chain firing. I started out greasing the ends of the chambers but now use lubed wads under the ball. Until now I never thought about it but it seems really incredible that you can shoot for years without a problem but then have a chain firing inwhich all the chambers, or at least three or four, go off at the same time!!! I don't shoot flintlock but I am told you want the heat from the pan to ignite the charge rather than a flame going through the hole. If that is true then is a chain firing a similar situation. In other words let us say after years of shooting one other chamber is ignited from either a cap or loose ball. Does that second chamber increase the temperapure of the cylinder to a point that the heat alone igintes the other chambers? Just a thought.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
I don't know that this proves either way, but you make a very good point--that despite firing blanks (without ball) no one has had a chain fire... IF loose caps were the problem, then you would think that there would have been one or more instances of a chainfire in all those (blanks) shots fired.
Yes, the majority of the grease burns off on the first shot, but there is still enough left to lube the ball--in the case of loading a ball or bullet that is. You would also experience some recoil even with blanks, but not nearly what you would get if you fired a projectile. So I think that recoil might be a factor IF knocking off the loose caps theory is to seem valid.
I'm still not convinced one way or the other, but I'll still use grease (or lubed wad), a good/tight fitting ball (or bullet), and good fitting caps. Like I said, I've only experience the phenomenon once, and it will remain a mystery. I would think that someone out there should/ought to be able to "force the chainfire event" in a test situation and record the results.
So far, I haven't read where anyone can/has/had consistenly produce (or reproduce) a chainfire by omitting certain steps in the loading procedure, or by poor fiting components.
(I must have been really bored!) I wanted to dig through my odd collection of books and such, so I got out every little booklet that came with the various brands and models of cap-n-ball revolvers (that I've had over the years) and ALL of them have the WARNING about making sure to cover the loaded projectiles with sufficient grease to negate the chances of a chainfire.
Not one of the little information packets referred to loose caps, or caps that fall off during firing, as the cause of a chainfire. I know that still doesn't prove anything either, but from that info. and what I've read (history books) it does tell me that "greasing the chambers" is something that has been going on since the onset of cap-n-ball revolvers in the mid 19th century.
Let me pose another (actually it's more like 3 or 4!) very important question(s) to those of you who have experienced a chainfire.
I really do think these factors might have a bearing on things.
1. WAS the gun brand new, slightly used, well used, "loose as a goose" or what?
2. ALSO... was the revolver an open top style (most all Colts, etc...) or did it have a top Strap (Remington, etc...)?
3. WAS the chainfire on the FIRST shot fired?
4. AND was it a full cylinder? (i.e. 6 of 6 chambers loaded, 5 of 5 chambers loaded... you get the drift...)
Thanks for your help. I'm gonna get to the bottom of this, one way or another--even if I gotta wreck a new gun, or ding it up pretty badly.
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
"... I am told you want the heat from the pan to ignite the charge rather than a flame going through the hole...."
______________________________________________________
I would disagree with whoever told you that.
IMO, it is the burning "flame front" from the burning pan powders "explosion" that travels thru the touch hole to set off the main charge.
That's why a properly charged flintlock will fire almost instantly.
As others have mentioned, when a C&B gun fires, there is a similar flame front both at the front and the rear of the cylinder if the cap fragments during detination.
______________________________________________________
I would disagree with whoever told you that.
IMO, it is the burning "flame front" from the burning pan powders "explosion" that travels thru the touch hole to set off the main charge.
That's why a properly charged flintlock will fire almost instantly.
As others have mentioned, when a C&B gun fires, there is a similar flame front both at the front and the rear of the cylinder if the cap fragments during detination.
Zonie:
I got that out of Muzzle Blasts a few months back, the Bevel Bros. Column. Now I don't know a thing about flintlocks but I think the discussion was about the location of the flash hole in relation to the pan. They said(I think) that the hole shouldn't be too low because then the powder would have to burn through to ignite the main charge; that the hole should be higher and the intense heat from the flash in the pan would be enough to ignite the main charge. IN ANY EVENT, let's get back to the chain firing. I am just throwing out an idea for discussion. Doesn't it seem odd that you can fire a C n B revolver for years and never have a problem but if a chain fire does occur there is often several chambers that fire. You would think that only one other chamber may catch a flame and fire. What is the probability, after firing hundreds or thousands of rounds that several rounds in the same cylinder will all have faulty caps or loose balls in the chamber, etc? So that got me to thinking... is there something else occurring? Off hand, it doesn't seem possible that two instant firings would generate enough heat to cause three or more chambers to go off, but maybe there is enough heat. In other words, nearly all chain firings should only involve one other cylinder. What happens to make all the other cylinders go off??? If the gun is new, if new caps or balls were used, etc- Okay- I'll buy that but if someone is shooting the same loads as always, with no prior trouble, and a chain firing occurs- what caused it?.
I like the idea of creating a data base- that's the only way to really get an anwser. Anyone who has ever had a chain firing ought to put in the data. Maybe we can discover something!!
I got that out of Muzzle Blasts a few months back, the Bevel Bros. Column. Now I don't know a thing about flintlocks but I think the discussion was about the location of the flash hole in relation to the pan. They said(I think) that the hole shouldn't be too low because then the powder would have to burn through to ignite the main charge; that the hole should be higher and the intense heat from the flash in the pan would be enough to ignite the main charge. IN ANY EVENT, let's get back to the chain firing. I am just throwing out an idea for discussion. Doesn't it seem odd that you can fire a C n B revolver for years and never have a problem but if a chain fire does occur there is often several chambers that fire. You would think that only one other chamber may catch a flame and fire. What is the probability, after firing hundreds or thousands of rounds that several rounds in the same cylinder will all have faulty caps or loose balls in the chamber, etc? So that got me to thinking... is there something else occurring? Off hand, it doesn't seem possible that two instant firings would generate enough heat to cause three or more chambers to go off, but maybe there is enough heat. In other words, nearly all chain firings should only involve one other cylinder. What happens to make all the other cylinders go off??? If the gun is new, if new caps or balls were used, etc- Okay- I'll buy that but if someone is shooting the same loads as always, with no prior trouble, and a chain firing occurs- what caused it?.
I like the idea of creating a data base- that's the only way to really get an anwser. Anyone who has ever had a chain firing ought to put in the data. Maybe we can discover something!!
pepperbelly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2004
- Messages
- 895
- Reaction score
- 4
I don't have a c&b pistol yet, but this thread has me very interested.
If I had one I would try this idea. Could someone load one round, put a light charge of powder under a wad in the other cylinders, and only put a cap on the cylinder with the full charge and ball? If loose caps are the culprit then the other capless cylinders shouls fire. With no ball in them, only a wad, it should be relatively safe?
Or is this dangerous in a way I haven't thought of yet?
Jim
If I had one I would try this idea. Could someone load one round, put a light charge of powder under a wad in the other cylinders, and only put a cap on the cylinder with the full charge and ball? If loose caps are the culprit then the other capless cylinders shouls fire. With no ball in them, only a wad, it should be relatively safe?
Or is this dangerous in a way I haven't thought of yet?
Jim
I still have a hard time believing in chainfires being caused from the front of the cylinder with a properly seated ball. In other words, a ring of lead shaving from seating a slightly oversized ball in the chamber of the cylinder, will definately seal the chamber.
So here's the test I did today. I took my workbench vise to the club, and clamped in a leather covered revolver cylinder that was properly loaded with a typical charge and ball. I then plugged the nipple with a toothpick and proceeded to light my propane torch. Yep,..... I directed the flame across the business end of the cylinder for a full five seconds and nothing happened!! I waited about ten minutes to make sure the cylinder had cooled off and then I pulled the toothpick and kinda' brushed the flame nearby the nipple without a cap and the charge went off.
I ran out of time to try my next experiment, which is to put a "squeezed" cap on each empty cylinder nipple, and brush the propane flame quickly by to simulate the flash from a nearby discharged cap to see if any of them pop. I'll give that report tomorrow evening
So here's the test I did today. I took my workbench vise to the club, and clamped in a leather covered revolver cylinder that was properly loaded with a typical charge and ball. I then plugged the nipple with a toothpick and proceeded to light my propane torch. Yep,..... I directed the flame across the business end of the cylinder for a full five seconds and nothing happened!! I waited about ten minutes to make sure the cylinder had cooled off and then I pulled the toothpick and kinda' brushed the flame nearby the nipple without a cap and the charge went off.
I ran out of time to try my next experiment, which is to put a "squeezed" cap on each empty cylinder nipple, and brush the propane flame quickly by to simulate the flash from a nearby discharged cap to see if any of them pop. I'll give that report tomorrow evening
I remember reading a discussion where they loaded a cylinder similar to the manner Nightwand describes, then sprinkled loose powder on the face of it and touched it off. None of the loads went off, the conclusion was that in that case they couldn't simulate a chainfire from the front, with a properly loaded cylinder.
unspellable
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2005
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 3
In my case I got three for one with all six chambers loaded. The two extras were on the right side of the revolver as viewed by the shooter. As mentioned above, it does seem odd that so often one gets three for one instead of two for one. One the other hand I've never heard of a four for one. There's a clue here if we can figure out what it means.
Idea: Given that a second chamber goes, there is no hammer behind the cap which is easily blown off, or the second chamber went because the cap was missing to start with. This would allow a greater quantity of hot stuff to exit the nipple and be available to light the next chamber.
Idea: Given that a second chamber goes, there is no hammer behind the cap which is easily blown off, or the second chamber went because the cap was missing to start with. This would allow a greater quantity of hot stuff to exit the nipple and be available to light the next chamber.
ValleyForge
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2004
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 0
This has been a great thread. You guys are good.
This is kind of helping me decide whether to use #10 or #11 caps on my new 1861 Navy Uberti-Colt. I've used #11s on my Remington forever, but the Uberti feels like it could use either. But given this info, it's probably better to have a tight fit and less risk of a cap falling off.
Thanks, all.
This is kind of helping me decide whether to use #10 or #11 caps on my new 1861 Navy Uberti-Colt. I've used #11s on my Remington forever, but the Uberti feels like it could use either. But given this info, it's probably better to have a tight fit and less risk of a cap falling off.
Thanks, all.
I have a couple of C&B revovlers, but have not shot any of them. Keep that in mind while I speculate. In looking at the Colt style revolvers, there is a groove milled/cast into the right hand side of the frame that appears to be to allow the cap fragments to keep from jamming the action. Since that channel is on the side that has the chain fires as described. Logic to me is that when the cap is fired, it is blowing out on the right side. The flame path is being directed to the two that fired in the chain fire. The flame path is then blocked somewhat by the frame again. For the odd times that the left side upper cylinder fires, it is still close enough that flame travel could get to it without much problem.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Here is something else that may help to shed more light on the cause of the chain fire event.
Do any of you use the Forster Tap-O-Cap and the home-made caps that you can produce from aluminum soda cans and the potassium chlorate charges from the paper rolls of "caps" for toy cap guns?
The reason I ask is that I've used them somewhat and those caps vapourize upon ignition. If there ever was a chance of the flame/blast of the first shot going to cause a chain fire, these kind of caps would be a good candidate for the culprit.
However, what I have used of these aluminum caps, I've had ZERO problems with chain fires. The don't clog the works with fragments, because I've never recovered any from the fired caps. Sometimes a ring of aluminum is left on the nipple... for whatever that's worth. The other thing is that these are extremely corrosive. This is THE corrosive priming that people warned you about with older centerfire cartridge ammunition.
Well, I've got some experimentin' to do today... if my home-made test stand and fixtures are ready. If not, I'll have to wait till next week to start my tests.
One theory I have to check out:
Is having to do with the clearance gap between the hammer face and the nipple--which could allow an excess blast at the "breech end" during ignition. It's a possible area for the chain fire to begin it's work.
Here's my other theory that I believe could be the solution:
You need to remember your physics class for this one. This is dependent upon having looser fitting balls, and perhaps a looser tolerance chamber(s). Upon the recoil of (usually) the first shot, this "looser ball" wants to stay put while the gun is moving backwards away from it. So while all this happens in fractions of a second, the residual flame and blast at the face of the cylinder has a free and clear shot at the powder charge in that chamber where the ball has slid forward. (Remember the mouths of the chambers are beveled somewhat to make loading easier?) And obviously any chamber that does chain fire from the front is going to blast backwards through the nipple and ignite that cap and/or blow it off the nipple too!
I will point out that I have noticed on older revolvers that have been fired a lot with heavy loads (particulary Colt open top guns) that I've had to (rarely, BUT still have had to) reseat some balls between shots (and re-grease them too!). These balls all seemed to fit good during loading, but loosened up during recoil. Think about it... the bearing surface is pretty small on a round ball.
Another Important Question? Has anyone had a chain fire where all the extra chambers that fired were NOT adjacent to the first shot under the hammer? In other words, did it skip over a chamber (or two even)?
So...
IS it possible that a chain fire may well be a very unusual combination of factors which are: a well used gun, a ball that isn't the best fitting--like using a .451 ball when a .454 ball would be better--though harder to load, a chamber(s)that are on the looser side of tolerance, heavier powder charges, and so forth.
Anyway folks,
I am using a well used .44 cal revolver (Haven't yet decided on a Remington or a Colt). It will most likely will be the gun that has the least chance of the ball hitting the gun on the path of it's unplanned firing.
I am going to run a ball through a sizer die and deliberately create a looser fitting ball and purposefully attempt to chain fire what would be the #2 chamber. #1 being under the hammer and #2 being immediately adjacent to the left--aspect of looking at the cylinder from the shooter's position.
I will be using a 30gr (by volume) charge of FFFg in the chambers and Crisco shortening over the loaded balls. I will be using a homemade vise and fixture setup so that the revolver can be fired remotely from a safe distance, BUT the gun will be allowed to freely recoil upon firing. I will also try some looser caps on my second series of tests, IF I need to further check other data.
I hope to come back to y'all within a few days with a successfully reproduced chain fire event. If you are of a religious affiliation or background and desire to, would you please add a few prayers for my safety in this situation?
As both the gun and myself--we'd like to have no injuries or damage4 from the experimentation.
DISCLAIMER: None of the loads or procedures mentioned in this post are recommended for ANYONE else to try in part or in whole. I assume NO responsibility for ANY ONE else's actions or loads. You, the shooter, are liable and responsible for your own choices, equipment and any bystanders, onlookers, or test assistants. The safety of you and your firearms is dependent upon YOU and YOU ALONE! Please do NOT attempt to duplicate ANY thing that was posted here!
Thanks Everyone, and Please Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
Do any of you use the Forster Tap-O-Cap and the home-made caps that you can produce from aluminum soda cans and the potassium chlorate charges from the paper rolls of "caps" for toy cap guns?
The reason I ask is that I've used them somewhat and those caps vapourize upon ignition. If there ever was a chance of the flame/blast of the first shot going to cause a chain fire, these kind of caps would be a good candidate for the culprit.
However, what I have used of these aluminum caps, I've had ZERO problems with chain fires. The don't clog the works with fragments, because I've never recovered any from the fired caps. Sometimes a ring of aluminum is left on the nipple... for whatever that's worth. The other thing is that these are extremely corrosive. This is THE corrosive priming that people warned you about with older centerfire cartridge ammunition.
Well, I've got some experimentin' to do today... if my home-made test stand and fixtures are ready. If not, I'll have to wait till next week to start my tests.
One theory I have to check out:
Is having to do with the clearance gap between the hammer face and the nipple--which could allow an excess blast at the "breech end" during ignition. It's a possible area for the chain fire to begin it's work.
Here's my other theory that I believe could be the solution:
You need to remember your physics class for this one. This is dependent upon having looser fitting balls, and perhaps a looser tolerance chamber(s). Upon the recoil of (usually) the first shot, this "looser ball" wants to stay put while the gun is moving backwards away from it. So while all this happens in fractions of a second, the residual flame and blast at the face of the cylinder has a free and clear shot at the powder charge in that chamber where the ball has slid forward. (Remember the mouths of the chambers are beveled somewhat to make loading easier?) And obviously any chamber that does chain fire from the front is going to blast backwards through the nipple and ignite that cap and/or blow it off the nipple too!
I will point out that I have noticed on older revolvers that have been fired a lot with heavy loads (particulary Colt open top guns) that I've had to (rarely, BUT still have had to) reseat some balls between shots (and re-grease them too!). These balls all seemed to fit good during loading, but loosened up during recoil. Think about it... the bearing surface is pretty small on a round ball.
Another Important Question? Has anyone had a chain fire where all the extra chambers that fired were NOT adjacent to the first shot under the hammer? In other words, did it skip over a chamber (or two even)?
So...
IS it possible that a chain fire may well be a very unusual combination of factors which are: a well used gun, a ball that isn't the best fitting--like using a .451 ball when a .454 ball would be better--though harder to load, a chamber(s)that are on the looser side of tolerance, heavier powder charges, and so forth.
Anyway folks,
I am using a well used .44 cal revolver (Haven't yet decided on a Remington or a Colt). It will most likely will be the gun that has the least chance of the ball hitting the gun on the path of it's unplanned firing.
I am going to run a ball through a sizer die and deliberately create a looser fitting ball and purposefully attempt to chain fire what would be the #2 chamber. #1 being under the hammer and #2 being immediately adjacent to the left--aspect of looking at the cylinder from the shooter's position.
I will be using a 30gr (by volume) charge of FFFg in the chambers and Crisco shortening over the loaded balls. I will be using a homemade vise and fixture setup so that the revolver can be fired remotely from a safe distance, BUT the gun will be allowed to freely recoil upon firing. I will also try some looser caps on my second series of tests, IF I need to further check other data.
I hope to come back to y'all within a few days with a successfully reproduced chain fire event. If you are of a religious affiliation or background and desire to, would you please add a few prayers for my safety in this situation?
As both the gun and myself--we'd like to have no injuries or damage4 from the experimentation.
DISCLAIMER: None of the loads or procedures mentioned in this post are recommended for ANYONE else to try in part or in whole. I assume NO responsibility for ANY ONE else's actions or loads. You, the shooter, are liable and responsible for your own choices, equipment and any bystanders, onlookers, or test assistants. The safety of you and your firearms is dependent upon YOU and YOU ALONE! Please do NOT attempt to duplicate ANY thing that was posted here!
Thanks Everyone, and Please Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
WV Hillbilly- don't go killing yourself over this issue. Think long and hard about your experiment. If Claude is reading this, maybe we can set up a poll about chain firing and then try to determine if there is anything definate that can be concluded. While I never had a chain firing I heard that the bottom chamber often was the culprit and that a blown off cap allowed flame or fire to travel down the inside of the hammer to the bottom chamber. To keep matters clear we ought to number chambers,for example the fired chamber at high noon could be number one, going clockwise from a shooter's position, one, two, three, four at the bottom, five and six.
The survey could ask:
1. If you had a chain fire, what other cylinder(s) went off?
2. Was this the first time you fired the gun?
3. Did you try a new loading method? wads, balls, or different caps?
4. How long have you been firing the particular revolver?
5. After the chain fire, did you continue to use the revolver and have you had any other trouble using the same loading technique you used that had the chain firing.
We can then try to determine if everything is random or if there is any common denominator.
The survey could ask:
1. If you had a chain fire, what other cylinder(s) went off?
2. Was this the first time you fired the gun?
3. Did you try a new loading method? wads, balls, or different caps?
4. How long have you been firing the particular revolver?
5. After the chain fire, did you continue to use the revolver and have you had any other trouble using the same loading technique you used that had the chain firing.
We can then try to determine if everything is random or if there is any common denominator.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Oh, my goodness NO... PLEASE don't think I'm planning on creating some kind of small scale suicide machine. That is definitely NOT on my list of things to do. I'm more worried about losing a gun at the worst, and at best discovering if I can create (and hopefully re-create) a chain fire event. If I can't get it to repeat itself at least twice, giving me a total of three consecutive events, then I will consider that phase of the experiment as finished.
No really folks, I used to work in an R&D environment testing various ballistic systems and that's all the further I can tell you about it; other than I know what safety measures and precautions to take, and I have a near perfect barricade for the test sight.
I do think I can prove OR disprove at least one of the theories, not necessarily trying to validate just my own opinions, but wanting to get at the truth of the matter. My goal is actually to find out what causes the problem and try to eliminate the conditions from occurring to someone else, IF they follow the procedures that come about from my findings. I figure that in itself is reward enough, as this kind of information should be "free to all"
I have run into some snags with a few things, which might delay my test schedule by a month or two. BUT, please know that I will document the entire test and results and everyone here that replied or commented has contributed to helping out. I also have a few friends,(former co-workers), who can assist in the testing process and verification of the findings and production of the resultant reports.
However in the interest of having more data BEFORE attempting to start testing or experimenting... I think a poll is an good idea--more like a GREAT IDEA, crockett! We will need to agree on maybe 5 or so points of commonality for the polling. I do think the chamber numbering should go "anti-clockwise" though, since the cylinder rotates clockwise in just about all the commonly owned replicas, it would make the numbers come up in order 1 thru 6, or 1 thru 5, then...
Let me go help the wife with dinner and think about those 5 or 6 things. Anyone else interested? NO, You don't have to help your wives with dinner, (though I'm sure they would appreciate the kindness)... if figure that if I can help eat it, then surely I can help cook it (and help clean up afterwards). Ponder the things that you want for the poll and we'll all pool our knowledge and put the questions together for our "pollster" to generate our poll.
This topic has obviously generated a LOT of interest and theories and ideas and questions and more questions, yet very few hard & fast answers. Maybe we're wasting our time, but remember that it's our hobby, and whatever we can do to make it safer is ALWAYS going to help our side in the continuing struggle to keep our guns, and for our children, and future generations. The life that may be saved could be the one who comes up with a cure for cancer or invents some fantastic new means of harnessing solar energy... who knows what benefit(s) this seemingly insignificant little poll and test might provide for all mankind. Think positive, and think BIG!
Shoot Safely! Gotta go wash up now!
WV_Hillbilly
No really folks, I used to work in an R&D environment testing various ballistic systems and that's all the further I can tell you about it; other than I know what safety measures and precautions to take, and I have a near perfect barricade for the test sight.
I do think I can prove OR disprove at least one of the theories, not necessarily trying to validate just my own opinions, but wanting to get at the truth of the matter. My goal is actually to find out what causes the problem and try to eliminate the conditions from occurring to someone else, IF they follow the procedures that come about from my findings. I figure that in itself is reward enough, as this kind of information should be "free to all"
I have run into some snags with a few things, which might delay my test schedule by a month or two. BUT, please know that I will document the entire test and results and everyone here that replied or commented has contributed to helping out. I also have a few friends,(former co-workers), who can assist in the testing process and verification of the findings and production of the resultant reports.
However in the interest of having more data BEFORE attempting to start testing or experimenting... I think a poll is an good idea--more like a GREAT IDEA, crockett! We will need to agree on maybe 5 or so points of commonality for the polling. I do think the chamber numbering should go "anti-clockwise" though, since the cylinder rotates clockwise in just about all the commonly owned replicas, it would make the numbers come up in order 1 thru 6, or 1 thru 5, then...
Let me go help the wife with dinner and think about those 5 or 6 things. Anyone else interested? NO, You don't have to help your wives with dinner, (though I'm sure they would appreciate the kindness)... if figure that if I can help eat it, then surely I can help cook it (and help clean up afterwards). Ponder the things that you want for the poll and we'll all pool our knowledge and put the questions together for our "pollster" to generate our poll.
This topic has obviously generated a LOT of interest and theories and ideas and questions and more questions, yet very few hard & fast answers. Maybe we're wasting our time, but remember that it's our hobby, and whatever we can do to make it safer is ALWAYS going to help our side in the continuing struggle to keep our guns, and for our children, and future generations. The life that may be saved could be the one who comes up with a cure for cancer or invents some fantastic new means of harnessing solar energy... who knows what benefit(s) this seemingly insignificant little poll and test might provide for all mankind. Think positive, and think BIG!
Shoot Safely! Gotta go wash up now!
WV_Hillbilly
unspellable
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2005
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 3
An added thought. While playing with my Rogers & Spencer I used CVA and Remington caps. It dawns on me that the Remington caps had a liner made of paper or something that covered the charge. The CVA's on the other hand did not, leaving the bare charge visible. Would the liner act as a barrier to any hot stuff making this type of cap less likely to chain fire?
This won't add much info but here's a story. A lady bought an old but well maintained brass framed .44 Colt style. I and several others offered to help here and show her how to load it but she went out alone and at the first shot all 6 chambers fired and destroyed the gun with, luckily, no harm to the shooter. Since I don't know how she loaded it I really can't add much info.
Some say they can't see how fire gets past a ball and others say they can't see how it gets past a cap but somehow it does still happen.
That is the only chainfire of which I have ANY knowledge and that ain't much.
Some say they can't see how fire gets past a ball and others say they can't see how it gets past a cap but somehow it does still happen.
That is the only chainfire of which I have ANY knowledge and that ain't much.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Thanks for the info... it is helpful, in that it is starting to confirm that it's generally the first shot of the cylinderful that usually causes the chain fire.
I also have neglected to ask about this one out of sheer forgetfulness... hope no one feels left out, but there aren't too many people who own or shoot one anymore.
Does anyone own and shoot an original or replica pepperbox style revolver? Has ANYONE of you experienced a chain fire event using one a gun of this design?
I ask this, because, the originals were supposedly prone to "flash over" and multiple discharges. Though in this type of gun--which was pretty weak ballistically--having a few more shots hit the offending target at the same instant might well be needed for an effective stop.
Also a pepperbox's nipples and caps have virtually nothing between them as far as cylinder material goes. I can believe that a chain fire might initiate from the rear of the gun... but I still think the caps have to fall off from recoil on the first shot to cause the event to occur.
I still believe that recoil plays a very big part in the process... it's just getting the dang thing to repeat the process that is going to make the proof acceptable to all.
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
I also have neglected to ask about this one out of sheer forgetfulness... hope no one feels left out, but there aren't too many people who own or shoot one anymore.
Does anyone own and shoot an original or replica pepperbox style revolver? Has ANYONE of you experienced a chain fire event using one a gun of this design?
I ask this, because, the originals were supposedly prone to "flash over" and multiple discharges. Though in this type of gun--which was pretty weak ballistically--having a few more shots hit the offending target at the same instant might well be needed for an effective stop.
Also a pepperbox's nipples and caps have virtually nothing between them as far as cylinder material goes. I can believe that a chain fire might initiate from the rear of the gun... but I still think the caps have to fall off from recoil on the first shot to cause the event to occur.
I still believe that recoil plays a very big part in the process... it's just getting the dang thing to repeat the process that is going to make the proof acceptable to all.
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
You've just earned the nickname, "Dr. Science" and best of all, you can still play the piano (or learn to).
Consider this my fellow enthusiasts. We all know that Colt's revolver was not the first blackpowder revolver ever made. There have been earlier revolvers predating the flintlock era and in the flintlock era and yet we've never heard of early chainfires with them, have we? True, revolvers were not commonplace weapons back in the flintlock era, but if we were concerned about the "flash" jumping from the mouth of one cylinder to another, then should this have been the case with flintlock revolvers too? It could have happened to the flintlock arquebus (ca 1620) or wheellocks carbines (ca 1600) too. WV_Hillbilly's mention of the pepperbox is right on point too. In light of Dr. Science's experiment, are we to continue believing that the flash jumps from the mouth of one cylinder to another? I should hope not.
Thank you Dr. Science. :applause:
note: all guns referenced may be found on page 101 of M. L. Brown's Firearms in Colonial America.
Okay, here's what I did............"Dr. Science"? (Weird science maybe? I just try to stay alive when I do these things).......today. I used the same cylinder as in previous test. I put on snug fitting CCI #10 caps on each nipple and made several passes with the propane torch. Not a single cap went off. I then made some slower passes and a couple went off. I believe the slower passes of the torch heated up the caps more than what the caps are exposed to doing a chainfire. So, I can't really count those.
I then used looser fitting CCI #11 caps, making sure they were fully seated on the nipples, and had the same results.
Final test was with the CCI #11 that were pinched out of round applied to the nipples and BINGO!!! One went off immediately as I passed the torch close enough to simulate cross flame in a revolver. I put another bent cap on that nipple and hit it with the torch again. A different cap went off.
Tried it again with bent caps, only this time they were loosely applied to the nipple as if they were jarred loose from a previous shot. I did a swift pass with the torch and two of them went off. Did the same test again with new bent caps loosely applied and the pass of the torch and one of them went off.
My conclusion is: chainfires are a twofold problem. One, loose fitting caps falling back or off during a shot and getting crossflame from the rearward end of a nearby cylinder.
Another thought that crossed my mind today was worn nipples.
Just about all of us have seen the results of worn out nipples on caplock rifles that have enlarged holes which causes the hammer to blow back when fired. I'm wondering if blowback from the cylinder charge, is pushing the revolver hammer back far enough to allow enough flame to ignite a loose fitting cap. Or worse yet, the same blowback is igniting the next cylinder with a missing cap?
One last statement; In no way am I badmouthing CCI caps. I've had very good luck with them, have set records with them and will continue using CCI brand caps. It's just that CCI caps were the only brand I had on hand to try this experiment.
My tests were very basic entry level stuff, I'm sure the more intellectual members of this board will be able to contribute a more scientific finding on things I have no way of testing. Such as concussion, I'm not about to beat on my cylinders with a hammer! :shake: :shake: :shake:
I then used looser fitting CCI #11 caps, making sure they were fully seated on the nipples, and had the same results.
Final test was with the CCI #11 that were pinched out of round applied to the nipples and BINGO!!! One went off immediately as I passed the torch close enough to simulate cross flame in a revolver. I put another bent cap on that nipple and hit it with the torch again. A different cap went off.
Tried it again with bent caps, only this time they were loosely applied to the nipple as if they were jarred loose from a previous shot. I did a swift pass with the torch and two of them went off. Did the same test again with new bent caps loosely applied and the pass of the torch and one of them went off.
My conclusion is: chainfires are a twofold problem. One, loose fitting caps falling back or off during a shot and getting crossflame from the rearward end of a nearby cylinder.
Another thought that crossed my mind today was worn nipples.
Just about all of us have seen the results of worn out nipples on caplock rifles that have enlarged holes which causes the hammer to blow back when fired. I'm wondering if blowback from the cylinder charge, is pushing the revolver hammer back far enough to allow enough flame to ignite a loose fitting cap. Or worse yet, the same blowback is igniting the next cylinder with a missing cap?
One last statement; In no way am I badmouthing CCI caps. I've had very good luck with them, have set records with them and will continue using CCI brand caps. It's just that CCI caps were the only brand I had on hand to try this experiment.
My tests were very basic entry level stuff, I'm sure the more intellectual members of this board will be able to contribute a more scientific finding on things I have no way of testing. Such as concussion, I'm not about to beat on my cylinders with a hammer! :shake: :shake: :shake:
Nightwind, you are indeed Dr. Science :master: and thanks for the additional information. Best of all though, you still have ten fingers (but no discount) and a possible career as a concert pianist :blah:
