flameproof valves?

[taylorh]

Hello,
I am considering purchasing a finished powder horn from TOTW that comes with a sykes-hawksley flameproof, adjustable valve. Has anyone here ever owned one of these valves? Are they really flameproof? And while were talking of flameproof, how about those Italian flasks with the pushbutton cylinder valves with the replacable spouts? Wouldn't those also be considered flameproof?
What do you think?
Taylor in Texas

 

[WV MZL HUNTER]

NO MATTER HOW THEY ARE MADE I DON'T THINK I WOULD LOAD FROM A POWDER HORN!
TOO BIG OF A RISK. :bull:

 

[George F.]

No I haven't heard of flameproof valves. One should avoid charging powder down the bore directly from a flask or a horn, the results could be catostaphic, especially combined with blowing down the muzzle.When I was a pilgrim this was my technic until the hazzards were explained to me.Blowing dowm the bore is like blowing into the coals of a fire, then pouring powder down the bore directly from a container holding a large amount of an explosive, dangerous?... extremely so!!
I mean not to assume you do this,I'm directing this to the people that do. Our species hasn't learned regeneration yet... I've been waiting for 30+ years for my index finger to grow back
.......SAFETY FIRST.........George F.

 

[CrackStock]

The ones from Track, even they do not recommend loading from. These leave a gap that can be seen with a light.

Also, it only takes a bit of grit and you go bang.

Use a separate measure.

CS

 

[gordy]

I don't know that a "flameproof" valve would make the horn that much safer.A good fitting stopper has worked well for hundreds of years.When You are putting powder into Your measure or charger the valve is open and is as vulnerble as a plugged horn at this time.And flameproof or not never dump powder down the bore directly from the horn.

 

Flameproof, no such thing. Murphy's Law, nuf said. When they were patented in the early 19th century, they provided a spring loaded gate that closed over the powder to seal it off, prior to that there was only a stopper you put in manually to close off the flask. Powder also wasn't of the quality it is today. That being said they're fine to use, flask to powder measure, to barrel. Always safety first. Bil;l

 

[DCF]

I have one of the TOTW Hawksley style valves due to find its way onto a horn in the near future and also one of this type on a repro copper flask. The patent or flameproof top was designed to cut of the bulk of the powder from an ignition in the barrel whilst loading so that you didn't end up with a bomb in your hand. It differs from the common top (ie the type you find on standard repro flasks) in that there is a sliding shutter sandwiched between two plates - as the shutter closes it makes a more difficult track for the flame to make its way into the bulk powder. Note I said more difficult - not impossible! I have a Marsh flask (high quality english repro) and have handled a few originals and I would say that the shutter fit on these was a little better than the TOTW one and so you would assume more likely to prevent a mishap.
I guess there is only one way to be squeeky clean and not connect a charge of burning powder with a flask full - load from a charger/plastic file/ speed loader - in most european muzzleloading competitions loading directly from a flask is prohibited.
Hope this helps.

 

[taylorh]

Have any of you ever actually heard of a "flameproof" valve not preventing an unexpected pre-ignition from turning ones flask into a bomb?
Taylor in Texas :shocked2:

 

[Dave K]

Fortunately, I have never had a powder charge ignite pouring it down the barrel. But I do know it can happen. I have a book right here that talks about the old flasks and about a 14yr. old boy who mangled his hand in the late 1800's. I will say, of all the new flasks out there that I have seen, the new Hawlsey flask is the very best I have personally seen. But, I haven't seen them all and I still wouldn't send a charge down directly from the flask. I would hate to be written about as an example.

 

[CrackStock]

No, but the reason is likely that the use of separate measures is almost uniformly required by ranges across the US. The NMLRA addresses this in their rules which are generally adopted by most ranges because the range officers are certified by the NMLRA.

Besides, there are a lot of things that I have not seen and have no desire to see. :shocked2:

CS

 

[DCF]

I've come across a story in my area of a chap who had the habit of holding his (patent top) flask in his right hand whilst discharging his flintlock.....guess what, a stray spark set it off. Now I would say that is a much less likely condition for an unexpected ignition but still got through the allegedly "flame proof" design. (Thats apart from it being a crazy thing to do anyway).
I reckon "flame proof" was a good selling point back then but not an absolute term.

 

[JackAubrey]

It is my considered opinion that Mr.Murphy was an optimist.Best regards,J.A.