Flint vs Cap

[paulvallandigham]

Ernie; As you know I have a lifetime history with music as a player, too. As I indicated about my feelings of the first club member's comments about me shooting a percussion gun rather than my flintlock- being kind-- this was based on the fact that all he was reporting was what he "HEARD", or thought he heard. He was down the firing line from me to my right, so he could not have SEEN my gun fire, being a LH flintlock.

However, when he grilled me on how I loaded and primed my gun, Then Watched the gun fire a couple of times, and persisted in his comments, I had to give him the benefit of the doubt. When other members watched my gun fire, and made similar comments on what they SAW, rather than what they heard, I began to take real notice.

Later when I tuned Pete's lock, and he reported getting the same comments on visual observations, that I had gotten at my club, and he had discussed the issue with Phil, I began to be persuaded that something was possible.

These observations match the comments made in the 1978-79 Guns & Ammo Black Powder Annual article on Tuning flintlocks, which involves an interview Wiht Robert Traurig, of St. Paul, Minnesota, a friend of Dave Ripplinger, the owner of Track of the Wolf. The article was written by Buz Fawcett, and describes in detail how Bob tunes flintlocks to provide the fastest ignition.

I have no stake in this argument. I believe that my differences with Larry Pletcher's work is highly technical, and a matter of deciding when ignition begins in the barrel- not when the ball exits the barrel. I respect Larry's work, and freely advise folks to view it for what it is.

I simply do not believe that we have found the proper equipment to use to test the speed of ignition in a flintlock. Until we do, comparing flintlock speed of ignition to that of percussion locks remains an "apples vs. Oranges " dispute. :hatsoff:

 

[Larry Pletcher]

I simply do not believe that we have found the proper equipment to use to test the speed of ignition in a flintlock. Until we do, comparing flintlock speed of ignition to that of percussion locks remains an "apples vs. Oranges " dispute. :hatsoff:

The information sited above is from more than one source, but all have one thing in common. They all use human senses as their method to identify very small differences in ignition speeds. Until 1988 when computer/physics interfaces were made available to me, I judged flint performance the same way. In 20+ years of computer timing and testing of locks, priming powders, etc, I find that human senses are not adequate for judging these small differences in time.

I contend that we do have techniques to measure flint and percussion ignition differences, and will try to site three experimental results that, to me, leave no doubt that percussion ignition systems are measurably faster than flint. Two of these involve high speed digital video systems, where counting frames gives very definitive results. The third is actual timing of comparable small Silers using the same mechanics and fixture.

First, Lowell Gard (Bevel Up in MuzzleBlasts) and Keith Lisle (on this Forum) brought locks to Friendship in 2009 that were video taped at 5000 fps. Lowell’s lock was a small Siler percussion on which he welded a percussion drum. This is the first time I have been able to drop a hammer on a percussion for a video. Keith’s lock was a very well tuned small Siler flintlock. One feature was a bronze bushing tumbler ”“ a very impressive lock. (Use the links below to view each lock.)

Siler Percussion in slow motion

(Notice that there is a length of time before the percussion hammer begins to drop. Lowell did not realize the video cam was recording. Watch for the hammer begin to move.)

Lisle Flintlock
(In Keith’s lock note that the ignition begins in the air above the pan.)

Keep in mind that the two locks were shot at the same video frame speed. The youtube videos are pretty clear as to which ignition type is quicker. However youtube allows no means to determine the time differences other than by eye. I have downloaded playback software that allows the view to count frames. With this I can determine an ET by doing frame counts.

The second youtube video is of a flint rifle firing. The frame rate has been increased to 15,000 frames/second. This was done in order to watch the patch separate from the ball as it left the muzzle. To my knowledge, never before has this extremely fast frame rate been used to video a flintlock. The ignition sequence is SO SLOW and drawn out that the gun appears to hang fire. I can assure you that it does not ”“ I fired the shot.

Since the frame rate was chosen to watch the muzzle, the unintended consequence is that you can see the time between the pan ignition and the jet from the vent (which marks the barrel ignition).

Flint Rifle ignition

(The jet from the vent comes well after the pan ignition. Now, watch for the jet from the vent and then the patched ball exit the barrel. Watch closely and you can see the patch separate.)

The third piece of evidence showing the difference between flint and percussion ignition started in Jim Chambers booth at Friendship. He asked if I had ever timed the difference between flint and percussion. He offered me a pistol stock that became a part of the fixture to time a small Siler flint against a small Siler percussion. This test measured the time from sear to the muzzle of a stub barrel. The only variable was the lock used.

The flintlock gave ignition times averaging around .0700 second. This was expected because of earlier work: About .0350 for the lock and .0350 for barrel ignition was not surprising. The percussion lock gave times averaging around .0200 seconds.

To conclude, I have confidence in the equipment used to determine these differences and stand by the results. While there are obvious differences in different locks and trials with a battery of tests, I feel confident in saying that a percussion lock will average .040 - .050 seconds faster than a flint. Your mileage will vary, but I feel this is a pretty good ballpark figure.

 

[roundball]

Larry, the past few years of your work, based on absolute controlled, disciplined approaches...and your unselfish willingness to share all the irrefutable results with the muzzleloading community at large...have been outstanding and very much appreciated.

Facts trump theory every time...
:hatsoff:

 

[Rifleman1776]

Very interesting videos. I'm not sure if they prove anything but still interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[ebiggs1]

I'm not sure if they prove anything but still interesting.

What is your reasoning why? It seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

[Zonie]

Pletch:

Your efforts and dedication in studying ignition times are commendable. The methods you have used can leave very little doubt to an open mind that the results are trustworthy and obvious.
This is born out by the repeatability of the answers when different methods of determining the ignition speed was used.

Your findings that a Percussion ignition system is twice as fast as a Flintlock system does not surprise me in the least. After all, less is required for the Percussion system to fire.

Does this mean a properly built and charged Flintlock is slow?
Not at all. They are just slower than a properly built and charged Percussion.

In the real world as humans know it, the small difference in ignition speed is hardly noticeable but it does have a small effect on a gun which is not held at the point of aim.

If the muzzle of the gun is moving off the desired point of impact at a speed of .33 inches per second the .045 of a second in ignition speed can change the point of impact 0.90 inches at 50 yards.

Is this a major problem? If your hunting the answer IMO is no.
If your target shooting the answer is yes.

Does this make the Flintlock unsuitable for target shooting? No. It only means that the Flintlock shooter must be more careful with holding the gun on target and using good follow thru.
If this is done the Flintlock will shoot just as accurately as a Percussion as has been proven by many of the Flintlock shooters who walked away with the prizes when the shooting match was finished.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Zonie,
Thank you for your comments. I’m sure you understand that my post was not meant to demean flintlocks. In fact, I shoot flintlocks exclusively. I did want to bring real world flintlock behavior into our discussions.

The first flintlocks ever timed (to my knowledge) were done in the ”˜80s at the Gunmaking Seminar in Bowling Green. Gary Brumfield and I made a crude fixture to hold a lock. Locks from Lynton McKensie were some of the early ones. Seems like a long time ago.

During these years a few characteristics show up again and again in timing locks, priming powder, and vents; and also in the high speed video done since 2007. Here are a few statements that apply to flintlocks in general:

The fastest locks I have timed are originals from the late flint period.

One third of a flintlock’s ignition time is finished when the flint edge comes to rest. Two thirds of the total time occurs after the flint stops.

During this final two thirds of the time, quality and quantity of sparks and the ignition characteristics of the powder affects how quickly the ignition builds.

In 80+ slow motion videos, no lock ignited the pan before the flint stops.

Sparks don’t accelerate away from a frizzen strike. We can see them “roll” down the frizzen face ahead of the flint.

While most flint edges slow as they travel down the frizzen, the geometry of some locks allows the flint edge to accelerate down the frizzen.

All frizzens rebound; some much more than others.

The fastest locks we videoed, ignited the pan about the time the frizzen rebounded once.

The granule size of the priming powder effects ignition time: Swiss NullB being the fastest powder timed and Goex Cannon grade the slowest. In one test, Goex Cannon granules were so large they had to be rolled around to close the frizzen.

ANY granule size of real black powder is far better in the pan than any sub powder.

Fastest barrel ignition times were recorded when priming powder was as close to the barrel as possible. This is true EVEN if the vent is covered.

As long as the prime was against the barrel, there was no statistical difference between a covered and uncovered vent. (I believe that hang fires are not caused by covered vents ”“ but by fowled vents.)

There are probably more things that could be listed here, but I’ve written too much lately.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[ebiggs1]

And to Zonie,

I think some of us get caught up in the romance or lore of flintlocks and it tends to cloud judgment some times. I love flintlocks but I love all guns and to me there is no bad gun. Just different guns but for some unknown reason flintlocks have a special place.
But even an individual like me that does not have the specialized equipment Mr. Pletcher has, can do some revealing photo evidence of how guns work.
Most of us have video cameras and even cheap ones are capable of shooting 20 to 30 frames per second. That is one photo in 1/20th or 1/30th of a second, still pretty quick! With some inexpensive, or free, software you can capture frame by frame photos. I have been playing around with this and may post some photos later on but with the fantastic work done by Larry Pletcher, mine would be superfluous.
It is not disparaging to determine flintlocks are slower firing than cap locks it is just what it is. That's all, we still love them and still love to shoot them. There is no necessity to make them what they are not!

 

[Pigman]

Sounds like something we need to get the Mythbusters to work on.

Foster From Flint

 

[ebiggs1]

A little common sense would be nice with maybe a little 101 Reading Comprehension.