I experimented with the plastic seals, but gave them up as (a) non traditional, and (b) inconvenient. As has been mentioned, they were to primarily prevent jams, not as a cure for a loose fitting cap. If you want to make some up, go to a larger hardware store and buy a couple of feet of the clear flexible tubing like they use for aquarium pumps, etc. Some of the hardware stores sell it by the foot off of rolls. It comes in different diameters though, so take a cap with you to make sure you get the right size.
-
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:
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Yes, I too had suspicions that a slightly sooty or a very dirty or even somewhat rusty nipple might hold onto a cap better.... which would make a "clean gun" not just a coincidental condition for a chain fire. The only problem I can see with that, is that how much effort do people take with cleaning the nipples on their revolvers? Notice that I worded that last statement very cautiously to avoid tempting someone from coming back with an human anatomical joke.
Still, it doesn't give any concrete evidence, yet there still "could" be a problem with caps slipping off the revolver. That's why I am certain that recoil (somehow)has a lot to do with starting the process either directly or indirectly.
In the 19th century, when people depended on the cap-n-ball guns for their job, protection, or gathering food/hunting--I would imagine that they often didn't have time in a tense environment to really take the time to clean up the revolver.
And some well-know shooters, were deadly accurate shots and continued to use the cap-n-ball guns until their untimely demise, or death by natural causes. What about Hickok's parir of '51 Colt Navies in .36 cal, or Buffalo Bill's Remington '58 New Army about which he said, "it never let me down". They never swayed or converted to cartridge guns. I'm sure the new guns and new fangled cartridges were way more expensive than keeping their old cap-n-ball guns.
Probably it was easier to find powder, ball, and caps in the "out of the way" places, rather than finding cartridges for your guns 500 miles for any settlment big enough to stock them as regular inventory. Since their lives depended on the cap-n-ball guns, I'm sure that they knew some little tricks and secrets about them that others did not know. And if you wanted to keep your edge in a gun fight, you don't tell secrets about your weaponry.
I'm gonna have to cut this short... electric storm here and the lights are dimming frequently. Thanks again for the information Nightwind.
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Did you just use those plastic seals on percussion rifles? or did you also try them on a cap-n-ball revolver? I can see where they would be very inconvenient to add another complicated step to loading the cylinder, BUT if they prevent a "chain fire", well, they might be worth while to try.
As others and I have stated, it may just be that a chain fire is a "necessary evil" and is inherent in the design of the typical cap-n-ball revolver. I'm not going to stop shooting them if it is, but I will try to take whatever steps I can to prevent a chain fire from occurring too.
Thanks for the info. I think there's an Ace Hardware store in town that might carry that aquarium tubing (Believe it or not there's a big pet store right beside it in the plaza they both are in. I'm sure between the two shops that I'll be able to find what I need. Thanks again!
Gotta run now, lightning is getting VERY close!
Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
I made them up just for cap n ball revolver use. I made a lot more than I ever used, but unfortunately, I didn't keep them, or I'd just send them to you to try. I am likewise of the opinion that despite every precaution, an occasional instance of multiple discharges may occur. It's a fluke, but, like the man said, "never say never". If one uses a good quality firearm in good condition, matches the components to the revolver and exercises care and attention in its loading, such an occurence will be extremely rare, and the vast majority of shooters will probably never experience one.
Nightwind:
I don't know how you conducted your first test but could you do it exactly the same but with clean nipples versus fouled nipples? If I recall your first experiment, a quick pass on an uncovered nipple automatically ignited the charge but on a covered nipple a very slow pass was needed. If a cap was loosely put on, how would that perform? I think we cannot forget that there must be something that is causing this problem on the first shot.
I don't know how you conducted your first test but could you do it exactly the same but with clean nipples versus fouled nipples? If I recall your first experiment, a quick pass on an uncovered nipple automatically ignited the charge but on a covered nipple a very slow pass was needed. If a cap was loosely put on, how would that perform? I think we cannot forget that there must be something that is causing this problem on the first shot.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Yes, though we need the rain, it has put a damper on how much I can do here as well. That, and explaining what I'm doing firing out of the basement door all the time to my wife.
Your data will be of great value, and could possibly prove that it's better to let the nipples alone during cleaning, OR that nipples might be better made from a different material, or maybe perhaps with a cross hatch pattern stamped on them?
Good Luck, and most of all... STAY SAFE!
WV_Hillbilly
arcticap
54 Cal.
Nightwind, Please accept my apology for suggesting an experiment about percussion caps on July 11 (page 7) when you had already performed the same experiment as described in your post on June 25 (page 3).
Since I started reading all the posts at one sitting such a while ago, I had forgotten all about reading about your experiment. (At the time of my first reading, I selected the 5 star rating for the thread.) Then later I further failed to recall about all the work and accomplishment you had already so successfully performed. I am very :sorry::master:!!!!
Since I started reading all the posts at one sitting such a while ago, I had forgotten all about reading about your experiment. (At the time of my first reading, I selected the 5 star rating for the thread.) Then later I further failed to recall about all the work and accomplishment you had already so successfully performed. I am very :sorry::master:!!!!
Articap, no apology needed as this is turning into a big book sorta'speak. There are so many good ideas and suggestions flowing through here, one could hardly be expected to remember it all. In fact, your suggesting it gives me confidence that I'm not too far off track. :thumbsup:
I believe tomorrow, I'll be able to try the next step with clean and dirty nipples. Only this time I'll try it with the revolver. A single chamber loaded with a ball and just caps on the rest of the chambers to see if any falls off the clean nipples. After several rounds of that I'll do the same thing without cleaning the nipples and go through it again. There's some more tests I'll be doing, but I hope to report those tomorrow evening.
Thanks,
Nightwind
I believe tomorrow, I'll be able to try the next step with clean and dirty nipples. Only this time I'll try it with the revolver. A single chamber loaded with a ball and just caps on the rest of the chambers to see if any falls off the clean nipples. After several rounds of that I'll do the same thing without cleaning the nipples and go through it again. There's some more tests I'll be doing, but I hope to report those tomorrow evening.
Thanks,
Nightwind
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Of course, I will be very interested in your findings. I think maybe some people don't realize that there are some very easy and safe "tests" that can be done by anyone who has a "pro-active" mentality about safety. That "should be" EVERYONE who even picks up a firearm--regardless of what type it happens to be.
If we gain nothing more than just a few of us doing some testing and ending up with inconsequential results, BUT rather if someone who "might've" gotten hurt, is spared the pain and suffering of a needless injury and the tears from a damaged (or destroyed) piece of hardware.
Indeed, this has grown far beyond what I had envisioned, as I had (wrongly) surmised that someone (more wise than I) on this forum would already have tried, and found out, something more definative about "chain fires" and how to prevent them. I don't think we're wasting time though, but if we run into too many unsolvable situations with testing, it could quickly terminate further interest. I feel that some posters may have already lost the interest that they once had.
In any case, I will trudge onward with what I can do as far as testing, I think a few kindred spirits here will also. Just stay safe and keep in touch--I will endeavor to do likewise. I REALLY look forward to the next post with findings about the clean/dirty nipples and how that might affect the retention or loss of percussion caps.
Take care and safe shooting! (or testing as the case may be)
WV_Hillbilly
PS Dang! This is one of the shortest posts I think I've written in a while... :yakyak: :crackup: :hmm:
Whew, boy have I gottalotta guns to clean tonight!
It's a little long winded, but I hope I covered more possibilities this time. So here we go;
Instead of using the shop vice as before, I decided to try to simulate actual shooting conditions by using a revolver. First test was with a clean pistol, just shooting unbent caps straight out of the tin, 30 shots. Nothing, all caps stayed on the nipple. I then cleaned the cylinder like I always do after a shoot, and tried the 30 shots with pinched caps. Again nothing, everything seemed to work like they're supposed to.
I cleaned the cylinder again and loaded one chamber of the cylinder with 25 grains of 3f Goex, cornmeal filler and a ball, then used unpinched caps on the other four nipples. Shot the loaded cylinder to see if any of the caps on the other nipples would fall off; one nipple hung in there loosely, but nothing. I cleaned the cylinder and tried it again. AHA! 2 nipples came off and a third one was loose! Now keep in mind, I shot the pistol in a horizontal position as if shooting at a target, and not downward like a person would shoot off caps to clear the oil out of the chambers before shooting for the day. I did the test again and only one came loose but didn't fall off.
I cleaned the cylinder again and did the same test as above but used pinched caps. Not one of the 30 caps came loose.
The next test was to load one cylinder with powder, filler and ball as normal. Then load the other four cylinders with powder filler and two each of Traditions Wonder Wads. Using unpinched #11 CCI caps. ( I did the following tests wearing a thick pair of leather gloves to protect myself from any possible flash from the cylinders loaded with wads). First round, nothing. Reloaded the first chamber with powder filler and ball, and got a loose cap this time. I reloaded again, fired and BABANG! The # 2 cylinder with the double wad went off too! "GOll-LEE Sargent Carter, my very first chainfire with a pistol guwn!"
Tried it two more times and got one loose cap.
The next five times, I did the same test as above with pinched caps and every one of them stayed on tight, no chainfires.
All of the above tests were done with a Pietta Remington '58, using clean nipples everytime.
Then I did the whole thing all over again with dirty nipples and not one single cap came loose and there were no chainfires.
I used another one of my Pietta Remingtons, a model '58 deluxe (As Issued). and did ALL of the above tests. The results gave me two loose caps on clean nipples with the single chamber loaded with a ball and the other chambers loaded with wads. No chainfires.
I also (whew!), did the whoooooole thing all over again with a Euroarms Roger and Spencer. Four loose caps and three caps falling off during a single loaded (with a ball) and only caps on the nipples, and two caps coming loose during the tests with a cylinder loaded with a ball and the others being loaded with wads. Again with clean nipples. Only one of the caps came loose when I did the tests with dirty nipples.
I don't think the chainfire I did get, came from the front end because everytime I reloaded, the wads seemed to be stayng in the chamber relatively tight. But I have no real proof of that thought. My conclusion so far points to the backside of the cylinder during the first shots as that's when the nipples were most likely to loosen or come off.
OKAYY, I'm tired and need to clean my guns and go to bed,
but I feel good about doing this.
Hopes this helps.
Nightwind
It's a little long winded, but I hope I covered more possibilities this time. So here we go;
Instead of using the shop vice as before, I decided to try to simulate actual shooting conditions by using a revolver. First test was with a clean pistol, just shooting unbent caps straight out of the tin, 30 shots. Nothing, all caps stayed on the nipple. I then cleaned the cylinder like I always do after a shoot, and tried the 30 shots with pinched caps. Again nothing, everything seemed to work like they're supposed to.
I cleaned the cylinder again and loaded one chamber of the cylinder with 25 grains of 3f Goex, cornmeal filler and a ball, then used unpinched caps on the other four nipples. Shot the loaded cylinder to see if any of the caps on the other nipples would fall off; one nipple hung in there loosely, but nothing. I cleaned the cylinder and tried it again. AHA! 2 nipples came off and a third one was loose! Now keep in mind, I shot the pistol in a horizontal position as if shooting at a target, and not downward like a person would shoot off caps to clear the oil out of the chambers before shooting for the day. I did the test again and only one came loose but didn't fall off.
I cleaned the cylinder again and did the same test as above but used pinched caps. Not one of the 30 caps came loose.
The next test was to load one cylinder with powder, filler and ball as normal. Then load the other four cylinders with powder filler and two each of Traditions Wonder Wads. Using unpinched #11 CCI caps. ( I did the following tests wearing a thick pair of leather gloves to protect myself from any possible flash from the cylinders loaded with wads). First round, nothing. Reloaded the first chamber with powder filler and ball, and got a loose cap this time. I reloaded again, fired and BABANG! The # 2 cylinder with the double wad went off too! "GOll-LEE Sargent Carter, my very first chainfire with a pistol guwn!"
Tried it two more times and got one loose cap.
The next five times, I did the same test as above with pinched caps and every one of them stayed on tight, no chainfires.
All of the above tests were done with a Pietta Remington '58, using clean nipples everytime.
Then I did the whole thing all over again with dirty nipples and not one single cap came loose and there were no chainfires.
I used another one of my Pietta Remingtons, a model '58 deluxe (As Issued). and did ALL of the above tests. The results gave me two loose caps on clean nipples with the single chamber loaded with a ball and the other chambers loaded with wads. No chainfires.
I also (whew!), did the whoooooole thing all over again with a Euroarms Roger and Spencer. Four loose caps and three caps falling off during a single loaded (with a ball) and only caps on the nipples, and two caps coming loose during the tests with a cylinder loaded with a ball and the others being loaded with wads. Again with clean nipples. Only one of the caps came loose when I did the tests with dirty nipples.
I don't think the chainfire I did get, came from the front end because everytime I reloaded, the wads seemed to be stayng in the chamber relatively tight. But I have no real proof of that thought. My conclusion so far points to the backside of the cylinder during the first shots as that's when the nipples were most likely to loosen or come off.
OKAYY, I'm tired and need to clean my guns and go to bed,
but I feel good about doing this.
Hopes this helps.
Nightwind
nightwind is on the right track...he got a chain fire using powder,,,filler,,,ball...i dought that fire from the front of the cylinder could get through a ball and filler to get to the powder,,,must be from the cap end,,GOOD JOB,,, :m2c: :m2c: :m2c:
[/quote]
The next test was to load one cylinder with powder, filler and ball as normal. Then load the other four cylinders with powder filler and two each of Traditions Wonder Wads. Using unpinched #11 CCI caps. ( I did the following tests wearing a thick pair of leather gloves to protect myself from any possible flash from the cylinders loaded with wads). First round, nothing. Reloaded the first chamber with powder filler and ball, and got a loose cap this time. I reloaded again, fired and BABANG! The # 2 cylinder with the double wad went off too! "GOll-LEE Sargent Carter, my very first chainfire with a pistol guwn!"
Tried it two more times and got one loose cap.
[/quote]
When I wrote this last night I was hot and tired. I "proof" read it a couple of times and still missed an error.
In the above paragraph, everytime i used the word "cylinder", it should have read "chamber". Sorry for the confusion. I've had a long hard day at work today and there's probably still some more misused terms. But I hope y'all can make sense of it.
The next test was to load one cylinder with powder, filler and ball as normal. Then load the other four cylinders with powder filler and two each of Traditions Wonder Wads. Using unpinched #11 CCI caps. ( I did the following tests wearing a thick pair of leather gloves to protect myself from any possible flash from the cylinders loaded with wads). First round, nothing. Reloaded the first chamber with powder filler and ball, and got a loose cap this time. I reloaded again, fired and BABANG! The # 2 cylinder with the double wad went off too! "GOll-LEE Sargent Carter, my very first chainfire with a pistol guwn!"
Tried it two more times and got one loose cap.
[/quote]
When I wrote this last night I was hot and tired. I "proof" read it a couple of times and still missed an error.
In the above paragraph, everytime i used the word "cylinder", it should have read "chamber". Sorry for the confusion. I've had a long hard day at work today and there's probably still some more misused terms. But I hope y'all can make sense of it.
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
This should be of interest to all...
I'm not disputing or refuting any of Nightwind's test results--which are very useful in helping to determine what causes these events. AND I greatly appreciate what he is doing to try and solve the mystery.
That test, however, still does NOT address the issue of a loose fitting ball--one that slides forward upon firing (thus) letting the powder charge have a direct opening to the powder flare at the cylinder gap. That test can't be done with just "blank" charges with wads on top of the powder. It has to be done with a ball that will virtually slide back out of the chamber AND without an overpowder wad, but using only a grease of some kind over the ball.
That kind of test (which I am looking at doing) is going to be very difficult to do from EVEN some type of moveable rest (and definitely not a fixed platform).
I have NEVER had any doubts that "an open nipple" could easily allow the fire from the cap under the hammer to set off an adjacent chamber's powder charge. That obviously can occur from caps that ARE too loose and fall off during recoil... BUT can a properly fitting cap, one that stays on the adjacent chambers during recoil) be ignited that way...? That would be much harder to replicate in a test.
Nightwind,
I was hoping that your test pistols included an open top frame like a '51 Colt Navy, but it appears that you only have revolver designs with top straps. (That's why I'm trying to find a nice, but USED, open top gun to do my "front end theory--as I only just own the top strap design guns as well at this point in time.)
I've been postulating too, that top strap designs "might" actually increase the chances of a missing cap/open nipple chain fire--due to the fact that the "cap fire is blocked" from going upward; and that heat and flame "may" be getting refocused towards the remaining chambers adjacent by virtue of the guns' better recoil shield and different design???
I'm just wondering about it, but have you considered that in your testing? Again, it's merely a theory, an idea that I've been bouncing around while attempting to come up with a safe means of doing my "front end tests" without destroyed the gun or injuring anyone.
While considering various means, I've come upon MANY test scenarios for finding out about the potential danger of the adjacent balls being fired from "just" the chambes without going through the forcing cone/barrel. Without having access to some very expensive and not readily available protective materials and setups--most of the test scenarios are too dangerous to even attempt. Like I said, I'm REALLY NOT looking for a shortcut to the "Pearly Gates". I have come up against too many "road blocks" to justify continuance without well-financed backing--a sponsor of sorts. I will always strive to promote safety and using our heads in a clear calm manner to solve difficulties that may occur.
I also have been considering and rehashing the fact that NO major manufacturer or component maker has done ANY kind of similar testing. It does imply that there is a good possibility that there's an inherent flaw of some kind in the design that "could" allow a chain fire to occur, IF one or more conditions take place simultaneously. That would basicly exonerate them from liability suits--IF they do NOT possess actual test results. Seems to be like it's just another evasion of responsibility.
TO ONE & ALL!
Thanks again for all you've done AND are doing. The data is VERY helpful. It is my sincere wish that no one ever have a chain fire or multiple ignition/discharge event. I have enjoyed the discussion immensely, and I hope that it has stimulated our minds to do some thinking about how our equipment works and ways we can improve upon it, et cetera. Please stay safe in all you do,
Regards, and Shoot Safely!
WV_Hillbilly
PS If I suspect an inherent problem, I WILL STOP MY FURTHER ATTEPTS to test for the cause. My reasoning should be obviously clear. I think you probably understand why.
The answer lies within the thread somewhere.
Guest
I think it's going to be tough to get a ball to move forward unless you use one that fits with just a thumb push and that is not a typical scenario unless a neophyte is shooting a C&B revolver with absolutely no instruction. That could occur but chain fires as discussed here have happened to both beginners and very seasoned shooters who are accustomed to their guns. Several people have commented on ball size and they appear within the recommended ranges for a particular caliber.
I might also add that a technician can create a lot of different variables and conduct tests in almost any situation to get a desired result to occur. However, one must determine how often that character set might logically happen in the right order. In other words, if the vast majority of people shoot Colt or Remington replicas with properly sized factory swaged balls, factory caps and either BP, Pyrodex or 777, then employing those typical components will cover most shooters in most situations. If a chain fire can't be done that way, then creating special circumstances to try and make it happen is not a valid test.
A proper methodology is to create a set of conditions with certain pieces of recorded data. For example, measure and record the length and taper of each nipple, M&R the stack height of the recoil shield, cylinder and forcing cone gap, M&R total runout of each chamber to check for an oval condition, M&R the force of the hammer spring, M&R the major and minor diameters of the caps, M&R the pressure to seat the caps on the nipple, M&R the force required to seat the ball, etc., etc. After all this is done, a shooting session commences where a series of shots are taken and results tabulated. If the average shooter fires 50 rounds in a range session and he goes once a month for 20 years, he has fired 12,000 times - so 1200 shots is probably a reasonable sample size. Good data sets allow more accurate conclusions on root cause and effect.
I don't know about you but I have better things to do... ::
I might also add that a technician can create a lot of different variables and conduct tests in almost any situation to get a desired result to occur. However, one must determine how often that character set might logically happen in the right order. In other words, if the vast majority of people shoot Colt or Remington replicas with properly sized factory swaged balls, factory caps and either BP, Pyrodex or 777, then employing those typical components will cover most shooters in most situations. If a chain fire can't be done that way, then creating special circumstances to try and make it happen is not a valid test.
A proper methodology is to create a set of conditions with certain pieces of recorded data. For example, measure and record the length and taper of each nipple, M&R the stack height of the recoil shield, cylinder and forcing cone gap, M&R total runout of each chamber to check for an oval condition, M&R the force of the hammer spring, M&R the major and minor diameters of the caps, M&R the pressure to seat the caps on the nipple, M&R the force required to seat the ball, etc., etc. After all this is done, a shooting session commences where a series of shots are taken and results tabulated. If the average shooter fires 50 rounds in a range session and he goes once a month for 20 years, he has fired 12,000 times - so 1200 shots is probably a reasonable sample size. Good data sets allow more accurate conclusions on root cause and effect.
I don't know about you but I have better things to do... ::
WV_Hillbilly
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 707
- Reaction score
- 3
Actually the technician doesn't typically create the test conditions, but the research engineer DOES. The poor ol' tekkie is the engineer's equivalent of "cannon fodder" or PBC
(just ask if you don't know what PBC means) in most R&D firearms testing procedures and scenarios. Believe me when I tell you, I know this from first-hand experience and have the scars to verify it. :shake: It was getting painfully obvious, that despite the apparent zeal & interest in the findings--that those "more specific details" that you referred to, were sadly omitted from most descriptions & accounts of "chain-fire" events. Not blaming anyone for that. A "chain-fire" has a person thinking about more important matters--like do I still have all my fingers?, or are there now THREE .45 caliber holes in my tool shed door?, et cetera...:cry:
Regarding your final statement: You are very astute and intuitive... Give that man a "dollah"!
eace::thanks:
Regards, and Safe Shooting!
WV_Hillbilly :front:
WV Hillbilly,
My test was strickly for the results on the rear side of the cylinder. And with only one chamber loaded with a ball. I really haven't figured out a way to feel safe doing a revolver with all chambers of the cylinder loaded with powder, fill and ball. That's why i used double wads on adjacent chambers. I have an idea of how to do it with live round ball loads,using a secure rest and pulling the trigger from a safe distance with a string. But my budget doesn't allow me to afford using and possibly messing up one of my revolvers because they're all used in competition matches. And therefore, they've been reworked and hot rodded up for such performance.
Like you, I only have top strap framed revolvers. I've never felt confident to use the Colt type for long term competition matches. I do feel the Colt types are very appealing in their own handsome ways, just not built to take the thousands of rounds I put them through every season.
Another thought that crossed my mind regarding chainfires. I do have some confidence in the idea of chainfires happening during first shots from a clean pistol. Having watched many pistol shooters during a match, I've noticed that most folks "ride the recoil". That is; they allow the pistol to fly upwards after the shot breaks. If a cap is loosened by the recoil, they might likely fall off while the muzzle of the pistol is in the upward position. But I'd like to think, the chainfire would then happen during the second shot of that cylinder. The argument against that theory is; most chainfires seem to happen very quickly after the first shot and before the muzzle really gets a chance to recoil upwards much. But maybe that's all it takes?
So a ransom rest that allows the muzzle of the pistol to rise as much as 22 degrees after a shot might help simulate actual shooting dynamics.
I have to agree with Anvil about keepng the test valid by not creating variables that deviate from normal use or manufacturer recommendations. Some of the unsafe conditions can be easily created by using wrong sized replacement nipples, undersized and severly wrinkled balls, using 4f powder (no kidding, I've reaaly seen this, WOW!) overcharging the chambers and etc. etc.etc. Seems that those that have reported chainfires, are sane pistoleers and follow basic safety guidelines. I think we should continue conducting these tests accordingly.
Let me know if there are any more tests that I can help with.
Nightwind
My test was strickly for the results on the rear side of the cylinder. And with only one chamber loaded with a ball. I really haven't figured out a way to feel safe doing a revolver with all chambers of the cylinder loaded with powder, fill and ball. That's why i used double wads on adjacent chambers. I have an idea of how to do it with live round ball loads,using a secure rest and pulling the trigger from a safe distance with a string. But my budget doesn't allow me to afford using and possibly messing up one of my revolvers because they're all used in competition matches. And therefore, they've been reworked and hot rodded up for such performance.
Like you, I only have top strap framed revolvers. I've never felt confident to use the Colt type for long term competition matches. I do feel the Colt types are very appealing in their own handsome ways, just not built to take the thousands of rounds I put them through every season.
Another thought that crossed my mind regarding chainfires. I do have some confidence in the idea of chainfires happening during first shots from a clean pistol. Having watched many pistol shooters during a match, I've noticed that most folks "ride the recoil". That is; they allow the pistol to fly upwards after the shot breaks. If a cap is loosened by the recoil, they might likely fall off while the muzzle of the pistol is in the upward position. But I'd like to think, the chainfire would then happen during the second shot of that cylinder. The argument against that theory is; most chainfires seem to happen very quickly after the first shot and before the muzzle really gets a chance to recoil upwards much. But maybe that's all it takes?
So a ransom rest that allows the muzzle of the pistol to rise as much as 22 degrees after a shot might help simulate actual shooting dynamics.
I have to agree with Anvil about keepng the test valid by not creating variables that deviate from normal use or manufacturer recommendations. Some of the unsafe conditions can be easily created by using wrong sized replacement nipples, undersized and severly wrinkled balls, using 4f powder (no kidding, I've reaaly seen this, WOW!) overcharging the chambers and etc. etc.etc. Seems that those that have reported chainfires, are sane pistoleers and follow basic safety guidelines. I think we should continue conducting these tests accordingly.
Let me know if there are any more tests that I can help with.
Nightwind
Sorry Boys- been gone a couple of days. I think we have a few break throughs.
1. Nightwind. If I understand what you proved, it is that a cap is more likely to become loose or fall off of a clean nipple than a fouled nipple. This would help explain why chain firings usually occur on the first rounds of the day. I always snap a couple of caps per nipple to clear out any oil but this practice may also offer a modicum of fouling. I think our discussion group has come up with something no one else has discovered: don't shoot a loaded cylinder with caps on clean/ unfouled nipples!!! I have never heard or read anywhere about that before- a real break through!
2. WV_Hillbilly. We have to get some closure on the loose ball theory. How about this: Load just one chamber and cap it. On the other five chambers take out the nipples and don't put in any powder, just balls. Sand, scrape, etc to get the balls a little undersized. If you have a caliper and can mike them- so much the better. Now ram the balls to preset depths( caliper) and shoot the one loaded chamber. Keep loading and shooting that one chamber to see if the balls move. If the balls don't move you can take a nail, etc and run it from the nipple to push out the balls and then trim 'em a bit smaller and test again, continuing this procedure until the balls move from recoil. This would determine how undersized the balls must be inorder to move from recoil. If it is only a few thousands of an inch- then that would confirm balls can move from recoil and obviously expose the powder charge.
1. Nightwind. If I understand what you proved, it is that a cap is more likely to become loose or fall off of a clean nipple than a fouled nipple. This would help explain why chain firings usually occur on the first rounds of the day. I always snap a couple of caps per nipple to clear out any oil but this practice may also offer a modicum of fouling. I think our discussion group has come up with something no one else has discovered: don't shoot a loaded cylinder with caps on clean/ unfouled nipples!!! I have never heard or read anywhere about that before- a real break through!
2. WV_Hillbilly. We have to get some closure on the loose ball theory. How about this: Load just one chamber and cap it. On the other five chambers take out the nipples and don't put in any powder, just balls. Sand, scrape, etc to get the balls a little undersized. If you have a caliper and can mike them- so much the better. Now ram the balls to preset depths( caliper) and shoot the one loaded chamber. Keep loading and shooting that one chamber to see if the balls move. If the balls don't move you can take a nail, etc and run it from the nipple to push out the balls and then trim 'em a bit smaller and test again, continuing this procedure until the balls move from recoil. This would determine how undersized the balls must be inorder to move from recoil. If it is only a few thousands of an inch- then that would confirm balls can move from recoil and obviously expose the powder charge.
A few more thoughts. I just finished reading an article in Muzzle Blasts about worn and enlarged nipple vent holes(the tiny opening in the bottom). If they get too large they permit enough back force to re-cock the hammer on a percussion rifle! There is certainly enough heat from flame and gas to ignite an open nipple and I still remember reading somewhere that the gas/heat will get "sucked in" an open nipple.
I'm going to figure out a way to modify a Colt for testing. I think I can fit a washer against the end of the cylinder and then slide a tube over the cylinder post. If this tube has a slot, I can make a wedge to hold the tube in place which in turn forces the washer up against the cylinder so I can shoot the gun without the barrel.
I'm going to figure out a way to modify a Colt for testing. I think I can fit a washer against the end of the cylinder and then slide a tube over the cylinder post. If this tube has a slot, I can make a wedge to hold the tube in place which in turn forces the washer up against the cylinder so I can shoot the gun without the barrel.
Guest
Crockett,
Your idea about no barrel had occurred to me but that changes the mass of the firearm considerably and it removes the forcing cone, which may be an important part of the equation if ignition at the front of the cylinder is possible. However, taking a standard Colt design and removing the rammer completely would provide a relatively safe test gun. For example, just use a pivot pin on an 1851 while loading, then remove the pin and the rammer. If any chamber fires, it's not likely to hit much (maybe the wedge) but it shouldn't wreck anything.
A Ransom Rest is good but it needs to approximate the flip in the wrist you referred to, which is natural in a human shooter.
You could roll a few balls into a slight cylinder shape with two pieces of steel plate if you want to use smaller size slugs at some point to try a thumb-fit.
A good friend of mine who has shot C&B as long as I have, told me he had a chainfire about two years ago. His best recollection was that it was early in the session (first or second cylinder full) and it was BOTH chambers adjacent to the one in the barrel. He actually dropped the pistol because the third shot was somewhat delayed - like BOOM..BOOM......BOOM and it startled him. It did not harm the gun. This is an 1860 Army replica and I know he uses .454 balls because I've shot alongside him and had to watch that we didn't 'swap spit' because I prefer to use the .457 size. Next time we went out, he let me shoot it first and didn't tell me about the chain fire until this past weekend (nice guy). :crackup:
Your idea about no barrel had occurred to me but that changes the mass of the firearm considerably and it removes the forcing cone, which may be an important part of the equation if ignition at the front of the cylinder is possible. However, taking a standard Colt design and removing the rammer completely would provide a relatively safe test gun. For example, just use a pivot pin on an 1851 while loading, then remove the pin and the rammer. If any chamber fires, it's not likely to hit much (maybe the wedge) but it shouldn't wreck anything.
A Ransom Rest is good but it needs to approximate the flip in the wrist you referred to, which is natural in a human shooter.
You could roll a few balls into a slight cylinder shape with two pieces of steel plate if you want to use smaller size slugs at some point to try a thumb-fit.
A good friend of mine who has shot C&B as long as I have, told me he had a chainfire about two years ago. His best recollection was that it was early in the session (first or second cylinder full) and it was BOTH chambers adjacent to the one in the barrel. He actually dropped the pistol because the third shot was somewhat delayed - like BOOM..BOOM......BOOM and it startled him. It did not harm the gun. This is an 1860 Army replica and I know he uses .454 balls because I've shot alongside him and had to watch that we didn't 'swap spit' because I prefer to use the .457 size. Next time we went out, he let me shoot it first and didn't tell me about the chain fire until this past weekend (nice guy). :crackup:
