First Chainfire

[WV_Hillbilly]

I think the only way that a company would donate pistols or supplies for this kind of testing is, if it were going to generate more business for that company, or generate a lot of publicity or prestige, or come up with a new revolver design that would eliminate the possibilities of a multiple ignition. The thoughts of some of us just blowing up a couple revolvers isn't going to make them anxious to provide the means of possible injury. Too many liability suits already causing big problems for the gun industry.

I seriously doubt that too many companies are going to want to retool/redesign the replicas into something that is significantly different. If it were that just a small modification to the cylinder was the answer. A big problem too, is that there is still no control over how a user loads their revolver(s),(and that will never change). That is probably where the problem starts--a component that is out of tolerance, BUT, if the possibility for multiple ignition is inherently there, AND it can't be "engineered" out of the design; then nothing is going to change or be resolved by any discoveries.

There'd probably be little blurbs or an article or two in some of the more poplular gun magazines, maybe even a mention in the next version of the "black powder handbook". BUT the main reason I'm interested is to virtually eliminate the "hazard factor" to prevent someone from needlessly getting injured or injuring a bystander... because ANY inherent hazard is fuel for the "anti crowd" to get something dangerous removed from sale to the public--or they'd just scream for the outright banning of these "unsafe" things. One of the best things about muzzleloading is that it is not regulated as harshly, and it should never be! Enough about that! PYAH! PTUI! PYUK! PTOOEY! Make sure to spit and rinse after talking about that stuff!

FYI, there is considerable flash at the nipple and at the face of the cylinder... but the amount of flare up at that cylinder gap is just almost unbelievable unless you've seen high speed photography or a picture from a high speed camera. It's no wonder that every source of information warns about sealing the chambers with some kind of grease or a lubed wad. Just look at the back cover of Lyman Black Powder Handbook Volume One if you've wondered what it looks like. It's almost frightening to think that's what it's actually doing while you hold on to it!

No, how ever we solve it and what ever the cause is (and maybe there are multiple causes?), we are probably going to just have to be satisfied with the knowledge that "we did it", rather than publicity or remuneration of some type. At least it's a pretty hot topic, and we're hopefully generating enough interest in safety to get most persons to thick carefully about what they do when they load up.

Keep on thinkin'!
WV_Hillbilly

 

:sorry: I was...uh...being facetious about a gun company donating guns :kid: and was just fantasizing about all of us getting free Uberti Colts for a "test"...

At any rate, I hope everyone stays safe and has no more multiple discharges.

 

[Mr Nick]

Has anyone been injured by a chain fire?

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

The crushed powder between the ball and the cylinder wall? With that in mind, seems to me there would be a lot of danger in simply pressing the ball down the chamber. I'm amazed at the number of people that load a ball into a chamber that has powder spilled around and on top of the cylinder. No accidental discharges there?

Boy! you're making this guy do a lot of thinking!

I was just theorizing that it might be an issue if a "looser fitting" ball was used, that there "could" be some trapped granules of powder between the ball and the chamber wall. Nothing concrete, just trying to cover all the bases.

Yes sir! "Thinking is what keeps the mind working". I had a mini-stroke about 3 yrs ago, and still have some problems that I'll just have to live with (and deal with) till I die; but everyone (including myself) is amazed at how well I've recovered. It did force me to retire from working full time and to change my occupation to something better suited to the abilities that weren't diminished by the stroke.

Some of the rehabilitation was physical, but more astounding was "exercising" areas of the brain, as well as the body. There is hope for persons who've suffered strokes (if the stroke is not a major one, and it most certainly depends on what areas of the brain and body are affected and by how much; but I am thankful every day. I do not want anyone to suffer needlessly, or be injured if the event could be prevented by simple means. I guess that has a lot to do with my attitude towards safety with just about everything.

It still bothers me greatly that the multiple ignition/disharge issue remains unsolved, but IF it is that the design is "inherently flawed" such that "chain fires" are a certainty... then we will all just have to be exceptionally cautious and mindful when we are using the cap-n-ball guns. If it's preventable by changing a loading step or two, that would be awesome.

BUT, regardless of where it occurs, I have read TOO many warnings in many different books, loading instructions, and user manuals, et cetera, about sealing the chambers at the front by wad or grease. Also, the advice about pinching slightly "loose caps" is accepted as a normal occurrence. I've even read warnings about "losing caps during recoil" if they aren't tightly fitting the nipples. So obviously leaving a nipple uncapped wouldn't be the wisest thing to do.
But I am thoroughly convinced that recoil is somehow involved, irregardless of what else happens.

I AM going to order a pepperbox on Tuesday, and do some experimenting, as there is nothing interfering with it's projectile paths during a multiple discharge. With it I ought to be able to (at least with that design) prove or disprove if loose caps come off during recoil AND if uncapped adjacent chambers can fire because of it. I may then shorten the barrel cluster to where it becomes a very short pepperbox, OR a very long "cylinder"--so that I can do some other testing about the front end of the gun. It may be a few weeks til I get the thing here and put it through some testing. I will be posting what I find out.

When I think about the name - CHAIN FIRE. I picture that the fire "jumps" from one adjacent chamber to the next and to the next and so on... but NOT skipping around the cylinder randomly. The old timers usually were very accurate about choosing names for things. Despite a lack of formal education, (which sometimes can block seeing the obvious), the term probably describes exactly how the event looked or happened, but not the cause of it.

I appreciate any and all comments, replies, rebuttals, whatever... and especially I want you all to stay safe! That is my FIRST priority!

Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly

 

[Wes/Tex]

Well, I'll be the new-commer to this thread. Been out of state a while and you guys have a good one gong. Let me add these feew thoughts,

I've been shooting cap & ball revolvers for about 35 years and have a very few chain-fires. They're always scary enough to suck up about a cubic foot of Fruit & Loom! Haven't hurt a gun or myself yet but have had it happen on first shot once, third shot once & fifth shot once...yes, I kept a record...just a little anal! The one thing I do know is that the guns that have done this are lesser priced and quality. Not sure if there is a definite link here but it's just my experience.

A couple of the old timers have put the blame on poor quality with the actual culprit either long nipples or too tight a tolerence between cylinder back and recoil plate face. If true, the recoil of each shot would be causing the capped nipple to impact the recoil shield face which would cause the other chambers to ignite. Can only say that my own experience would seem to bear this theory out. Just someething else to toss in the mix! :m2c:

 

[dodgecity]

I am sure that multiple discharges have ocurred from any or all of the reasons that have been presented on this thread, the relationship between the recoil shield and the percussion caps seems likely to be a common cause of the problem. The following figures will certainly vary between individual revolvers, but, they are representative of some of the models under discussion. On the 1862 Pietta Colt that I checked, there is ,059 clearance between the cap and the recoil shield. There is cylinder play of .003, thus giving a cap to shield clearance of .056 or less under recoil. The 1861 Uberti Navy I checked had a cap to shield clearance of only .030, and cylinder play of .004, thus resulting in a cap to shield clearance under recoil of only .026. The 1858 Rem. was much more generous because of the way the cylinder is machined. Cap to shield clearance on it was .114, with cylinder play of .003. Finally, the Ruger OA had .040 cap to shield clearance, with cylinder play of only .002. Fro these figures, it is obvious that if a cap backs off the nipple of an unfired chamber by even a small amount due to recoil, it can wind up being against the shield when the next round is fired, and the concussin/recoil from that round may be enough to detonate the unseated cap. Assuming that the nipples and caps being used are a perfect match, having a cap move rearward on the first loading could be due to something as simple as grease or oil on the nipple. On subsequent loadings it might happen if the fouling on the nipple prevents a positive seal. All I know is that I always wear my St.Barbara medal when I shoot....hey, It's worked so far.

 

[brubincam]

maybe someone with original C&B revolvers could do the same measurements DODGE CITY did with the cap clearance from the recoil shield,,,i would think the farther the barrel wedge is inserted the closer the gap would be,,, :imo:,,,i think this should be considered farther

 

[unspellable]

Has anyone ever heard of a chain fire with a multibarrel arm such as a double barrel shotgun or double barreled rifle?

My double barreled rifle quickly taught me to keep my right wrist covered as the left lock would spit on the tender area on the underside of my wrist. Defintely proves the nipple is spitting something.

 

[crockett]

We need to sum up a few thoughts. Claude had a chain firing first time he didn't grease the chamber ends. Others report the same. It is fair to argue that those chain firings resulted from chamber ends not being greased.
Burnt out lube. Even if lube burned out after a shot or two, it would not be a factor since most/all chain firings begin with first shot.
Peperbox. The long barrels make a strong argument that at least some chain firing is cap related. Mark Twain in Roughing It commented on pepper boxes chain firing quite often.
Nightwind. His experiments must be considered, A squeezed on cap takes on an oval shape that could create tiny air conduits at the sides. Brushing a torch over the ends on several occations and getting chambers to fire is most important, especially since he did the same at the cylinder end for 5 seconds and couldn't get the chambers to fire. I think we all agree a percussion cap sends out a lot of flame and force, enough to ignite an unprotected nipple.
Loose fitting balls. I may be backing off this a bit- let's all keep an open mind. It seems that on some occasions a ball could move forward but not ignite, but still jam the cylinder. Has anyone experienced this??
To Date: Causes- poorly fitting caps, squeezed on caps, no lube, ball movement that exposes air passage/ignition.
Cures: tight fitting caps, wads instead of lube, MAYBE a chamber that swages a ball rather than shaves a ring?
One last thought, I considered manufacturing flaw- simply an occasional defective cap. This is possible but it would result in only one other chamber firing, not several.

 

Crockett,

:agree: In addition to your summary, if a flintlock can self prime to a certain degree when being loaded, a C&B may do the same - so loose powder might accumulate anywhere on the piece but more importantly on the recoil shield and related areas by falling out of the nipple. If the cap is loose and a bit of powder is in the area, it could ignite a main charge.

 

[Nightwind]

It seems that on some occasions a ball could move forward but not ignite, but still jam the cylinder. Has anyone experienced this??

Crockett, good thought. I seat my balls just under the edge of the cylinder. I still have good compression as I fill the gap between the powder and ball with cornmeal. I also use a combination/mix of beeswax and oil to seal the cylinder after the ball is seated (I do this to lube the ball as it goes through the barrel).

With the ball just inside the edge of the cylinder, you would think I would notice any movement of the ball going forward. After probably well over 20,000 shots with my reolvers, I cannot ever recall such a thing happening to me however, I do use balls that are 4 to 5 thousandths larger than the dia. of the chambers. Also recall that the chambers on my revolvers all miked out to be smaller in diameter the further down you measured. Don't know if that is the case with all revolvers manufactured.

So, if you have a revolver that is straight wall chambered and use an undersize ball.....hmmm maybe. If no chainfire, definately going to be a jam up.

How about those that do not use a filler and seat the ball all the ways down. The ball has wedged to a smaller size, moved forward, and possibly now has a circumferencial(SP) gap around the ball? I would think all that goop would do a pretty good job of sealing the cylinder anyways?

Aahhh, time to shut-up, or I'll be going on this way all night.
:sleep: :sleep:

 

[crockett]

I guess we are really getting down to any possible cause that we've missed. I also load so that the end of the ball is just under the clyinder, I was told it gave better accuracy. The "First Shot" Is that the first shot of the day or first shot of the cylinder after firing a few rounds? Why? What if some fouling, bits of powder, etc are on a nipple and then a cap put on- could that cause a problem? My impression is that most who have commented have had the trouble on the first shot of the day- on a clean revolver. Could any oil or grease, etc on the nipples of the revolver prior to the first shot of the day cause a problem? Could any oil left on the gun( that would be burned off after the first round of shots) cause a problem? Just thinking...

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Oil or grease on the nipples would tend to cause a misfire, I think. I load a full powder charge and a tight ball in all my revolvers--no wads or fillers. I lube over the ball and use the proper size caps on clean nipples. I've never had a chain-fire or a ball move forward, over many years of shooting. And that includes Walker Colts. If any C&B revolver has enough recoil to move a ball forward, it would be the Walker. A proper size ball in an undamaged or correctly made chamber simply cannot allow the gap flash into the powder charge. If, indeed there ever was a chain-fire caused bt the gap flash, then it would be due to using the wrong size ball or a damaged or out of round chamber.
As a youngster, I was told to always use proper components and to load carefully. Basically, if you use the largest ball that can be loaded with reasonable pressure from the rammer and use the right size cap, firmly fixed on the nipples, I don't believe you need concern yourself with chain-fires. At least this system has always worked for me.

 

I saw something interesting in an old original Colt Dragoon 2nd Model - one cylinder was eroded quite a bit on the bolt side. The owner thought the pistol had been stored with loads at one time and one had gotten damp so the powder began the corrosion process. He was afraid that a chamber which got larger under the ball would allow fire to get to the powder so he marked that chamber by removing the nipple and did not load it (I was more afraid that a thin outer wall might rupture, which would have been catastrophic). That pistol had very large chambers (perhaps from wear?) and he cast balls from an original Colt mold that went somewhere over .460 in diameter. They DID NOT shave lead when he loaded them but we never experienced a chain fire (he used lube over the ball). That pistol was remarkably accurate and shot to point of aim at about 50 yds.

I bring this up because if modern manufacturers are using a parallel reamer instead of a slight taper for the chambers, repeated firing might erode a larger diameter near the powder chamber. In this case, you could load a large ball that did shave lead and still have the potential for a gap to exist. A wad or over-ball lube should help but even these might not seal if the gap is large enough. I would therefore be concerned if a ball got easier to seat as it was being rammed home - especially on a piece that had seen a lot of use.

 

[dodgecity]

Rusty, As you pointed out, oil or grease "in" the nipple would certainly result in a misfire, but, oil or grease "on" the nipple might prevent a firm cap to nipple seal. "On" the nipple was what was being referred to.

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

Folks,

The following post contains some information that is merely theory and conjecture, and to attempt to do any of it in actuality would be dangerous and perhaps deadly.

PLEASE, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TEST ANY OF THESE "THEORIES"!!!

I am seeing some very good "out of the box" thinking going on. Even though we are just still theorizing and it appears that MANY of these theories could cause a multiple disharge under the right conditions (or should that be - "the wrong conditions"?). Still, it seems like there ought to be something very, very obvious that jumps out, and bites us on the nose--figuratively speaking of course.

----------------------------------------------------------

WARNING! The FOLLOWING procedures should NOT be tried by anyone who wants to stay healthy and whole. It is merely a theory about multiple discharges, and the path that the flare from the cap under the hammer takes upon ignition. So again I say, DO NOT ATTEMPT the following... THANKS!

To purposely leave a cap OR a nipple out of a loaded adjacent chamber--one that the ball should clear the side of the barrel assembly or any protruding parts, IF it should fire! I think everyone would agree; and expect that this adjacent "cap-less" or "nipple-less" chamber would indeed fire at almost the same instant as the chamber under the hammer.

Another test would be to load a .440 or .445 ball in an adjacent chamber, and IF it would stay in the gun long enough, to see whether that chamber would fire from the powder flare at the front of the chamber under the hammer. It could be tried with grease and without grease. I suspect that the grease would burn out and the powder flare would make it past the "loose fitting" ball and ignite the adjacent chamber.

WARNING! The ABOVE procedures should NOT be tried by anyone who wants to stay healthy and whole. It is merely a theory about multiple discharges, and the path that the flare from the cap under the hammer takes upon ignition. So again I say, DO NOT ATTEMPT the preceeding... THANKS!

----------------------------------------------------------

I am kind of doubtful about the recoil shield impacting additional caps on the cylinder, at least from my initial inspection of several different styles of cap-n-ball revolvers. It is a good theory though--because it triggered more thoughts and theories... like just how much impact force does it take to cause a percussion cap to ignite? That test CAN be done safely with a spare nipple threaded into a metal plate and placed on the ground; and by dropping known weights from specific heights onto the capped nipple and then using the calculator to find the force required. I have a chemical engineer friend who may already know the answer to that force question though.

I do think the chances of a multiple discharge are more likely in a worn/well used revolver, than in a brand new (tight) gun. The cylinder would probably have some fore and aft motion on the cylinder pin if the gun were shot often with heavy loads.

As far as contaminants in the nipple such as grease or oil... they could actually foul either the cap, the powder load, or BOTH, so that it won't ignite at all. That would seem more likely to happen on a clean gun too.

What about the extra granules of powder that inevitably end up in just about every nook and cranny when you're loading the powder charges? Could there be enough to cause even just a little extra flare up--enough to cause another chamber to light off?

Do any of you have any long time, muzzle loading, cap-n-ball shooting friends that have been shooting for over 50 years? I'm wondering what their take on it is? Tomorrow I am going out to a shop where I can ask two sagacious gentlemen about the problem of multiple disharges.

I think this thread is a worthy cause--so I'm continuing, if everyone else is still for it...?

Shoot Safely, and Sleep Soundly!
WV_Hillbilly

 

[crockett]

WV-Hillbilly: I threw out the oil idea for reaction. I have tried to ignite Crisco with a match/lighter and it just melts. If somebody was reloading with greasy fingers and got some dust of black powder under a cap while reloading- maybe a cause but once again it seems most misfires are with clean guns- first shots of the day. The Pepper box. I took a look at a few. The caps are pretty far apart but they look, to me, like they fit into a hooded area on the frame that could direct flash and flame around to them. With a Pepper Box recoil wouldn't be an issue if the nipples are sticking outward. Balls moving forward wouldn't be an issue unless it was simply an indication of space that could suck in hot gas and ignite. I believe firefighters say that flame seeks oxygen, if the firing of one chamber surrounds the gun with no oxygen them the slightest opening at either the nipple or cylinder end could suck in flame/heat. Seems to me, at this point, we have pretty much established chain firing can occur at either end from poor fitting caps or chamber ends that emit gas/flame from no lube and/or undersized balls.

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

It seems odd that in this "safety" concious society where liabiilty suits are common place, that there has NOT been an in depth study done with complex test setups and high speed digital photography; with the accumulated data as proof of the actual cause(s) of the "chain fire".

I agree in that we have exhausted most of the logical and some not so obvious potential causes... yet we still only have the following:

A "Chain Fire" or "Multiple Discharge" or "Multiple Ignition" - would seem to be able to occur at the front of the cylinder--due to loose fitting balls and/or lack of a positive sealant (grease or lubed wad)which may let fire the fire of the intended chamber light off one or more additional chambers,

OR it might occur at the rear of the cylinder--due to a loose fitting cap that has been distorted by pinching to fit better and allows the cap that is struck by the hammer to somehow flare into these small spaces, OR that the loose fitting caps fall off and the hammer struck cap lights off the additional chamber(s) through the open nipple, being very similar to a vent hole.

It is also very possible that the recoil (particularly that of a full or near maximum powder charge) would cause the loose fitting balls and/or caps to move/or fall off, thereby initiating the whole "chain fire" sequence of events.

"Almost all" loading manuals or gun maker supplied information warn of "chain fires", and state that sealing the chambers from the front end by lubed wads or grease is the preferred method for preventing "chain fires"... and that this practice has been the prescribed manner since the invention of the cap-n-ball revolver.

The brand of propellant or of the percussion caps does not seem to be a direct factor in causing a "chain fire".

Most of the guns involved are .44/.45 caliber guns. Whether the balls were cast or swaged type does not seem to make any difference--even though cast balls can vary in size due to difference in the lead alloys used.

"Chain fires" do NOT seem to occur in blank loadings that are concocted for re-enactments, living history, or practice use.

An inordinate amount of "chain fires" seem to occur on the first shot of the shooting session and generally in clean revolvers that have been freshly loaded, though it is not known if an empty chamber has been left as a safety position in these instances.

Most of the "chain fires" that are happening do not seem to happen in overly worn or heavily used guns. Some "chain fires" have been reported in brand new guns.

It seems that more "chain fires" occur in open top frame revolvers than in the closed frame revolvers that have a top strap over the cylinder.

It seems that no one here that has reported a "chain fire" during this thread, has indicated any type of serious injury to themselves or others.

In the cases reported... the gun does take damage, but it is not nearly the magnitude and atypical of what would be expected in the case of the additional chambers firing.

There also must be some large pressure relief occurring, as the projectiles from the extra chambers that fire do not seem to strike with any great amount of force.

The grease applied to seal the chambers would seem to almost be burned away from all chambers upon the firing of the first shot of the loaded cylinder.

The lubed wads between the powder charge and the ball would seem to seal the chambers of a revolver at least as good as grease use over top of the loaded balls.

Percussion caps seem to vary in size even in the same brand and # size. Quality control in keeping variances in nipple size and cap size appears to be very poor--relative to tolerances in other firearm areas, despite advanced manufacturing methods and measuring technology that is available to makers.

The brand and type of lubricant or grease used to seal the balls does not seem to influence "chain fire" frequency.

Pepperboxes were purported to be notorious bad for having "chain fires" occur, but they are not in common use today and the designs are significantly different in many respects to modern replica cap-n-ball revolvers.

No one mentioned any involvement of home-made percussion caps in a "chain fire" event. Those are a completely different composition of an Aluminium cap body and Potassium Chlorate as the igniter compound. Percussion caps were original charged with Mercury Fulminate which is extremely sensitive to impact and highly corrosive (or erosive). The modern cap is non-corrosive, but does anyone know about their chemical composition? or how much impact force is required to initiate detonation in a percussion cap?

Even shooters with many years of experience and thousands of rounds fired may NOT have ever had a "chain fire", and those who have had; it's only been just one event in many cases.

Is there anything left out? I realize that there are some "chain fire" events reported that are NOT typical of the above statements or fit those circumstances. Also, I am certain that some shooters would NOT report that they experienced a "chain fire" for whatever reasons--and that is their prerogative... Unfortunately for us, it hinders the study of additional and perhaps different information, that could provide conclusive evidence in our quest to find what causes a "chain fire" event.

Maybe there isn't just a "single" answer... but could it be a combination of several factors that may seem or actually be unrelated? Yet, when the appropriate conditions are present, they start off this "chain fire" event...?

I think it might be a good time for a poll... but what to ask... we need to figure that one out too!

Regards, and Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly

 

[unspellable]

One point of disagreement. Mercury fulminate priming compound is not corrosive. It was in wide use in cartridge primers until after the end of the BP era. With BP, the crud picked up most of the cap residue and its effects went unnoticed. With the advent of cleaner smokeless, the mercury would be driven into the brass case and weaken it, spoiling it for reloading. The chlorate type primer was developed to avoid this problem, but brought on a new one. It's the chlorate primer that's so nasty for causing corrosion.

Today mercury would be banned because of its toxicity.

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

One point of disagreement. Mercury fulminate priming compound is not corrosive. It was in wide use in cartridge primers until after the end of the BP era. With BP, the crud picked up most of the cap residue and its effects went unnoticed. With the advent of cleaner smokeless, the mercury would be driven into the brass case and weaken it, spoiling it for reloading. The chlorate type primer was developed to avoid this problem, but brought on a new one. It's the chlorate primer that's so nasty for causing corrosion.

Today mercury would be banned because of its toxicity.

Thanks greatly for the additional/corrected information. :agree:

Yes, I should've qualified my comments better. My choice of wording (and poor memory) was the culprit.

Mercury Fulminate was/is "erosive" to iron. Those early guns had rather soft metals used to make them.

Also, the Mercury is "corrosive" and toxic to human beings. The old methods of preparing fur into felt for hats used to severely affect the minds of the workers. I'm sure those who are familiar with "Alice In Wonderland" will remember the "Mad Hatter" character. :youcrazy:

Potassium Chlorate is both corrosive and hygroscopic which are very bad for muzzleloading and black powder use.

I'm glad you replied, 'cause now you've prompted me to do some more "detective work" and research; as I must admit that I did seem to recall that mercury could affect iron/steel as well as other metals and alloys. (but it's been a long time since I've sat in a chemistry class!):shake:

Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly