Flintlock pistol

[roundball]

Would appreciate any first hand experience and advice on flintlock pistols.

Can't hunt with a BP pistol here in North Carolina, so I suspect a .45cal would be more than enough to experiment at the range, already have .45cal accessories, etc.

I have huge hands and on every modern pistol I own I've installed the biggest oversized grips available, so I would probably want a flintlock pistol design that happened to have the largest size stock possible.

And I don't have the time, patience, or skills to consider a kit, so I'd be looking for a completed, large framed, .45cal flintlock pistol...sort of S&W quality...ready to use out of the box...thanks !!

 

Most of what I have seen that fits with what you ask is of bigger cal.60-67, such as a tower or a sea pistol. There is no reason you couldn

 

[roundball]

Yes, for example I've handled a TC Patriot percussion and while they seem to be a terrific pistol, they're not very large in the grip area, particularly with the 'set' trigger being in the front, and the main trigger being in the rear with an even shorter LOP...just the opposite from ML rifles I'm familiar with...do you know if that reverse trigger configuration is standard practice with all double set trigger pistols?

 

Roundball- I'd think one of the Loyalist or MilitaryHeritage pistols, lined with a .45 rifled sleave would serve quite well. That would give you the weight and size needed. Check out the new Dragoon from MH with the curved grip. It does look to be nicely done. The bores on the MilHer are .62, while the barrel liners from Track are 5/8"(.625") - perfect, in other words. It will take very little turning or boring to make things fit right.
; One of many solutions, perhaps. I have the same trouble with large mitts, however find I shoot the ML pistols very well with their standard frames.
:

:

: This is the one I built this spring.

 

[roundball]

I have the same trouble with large mitts, however find I shoot the ML pistols very well with their standard frames.

Nice looking job on your pistol...
And I'm not married to a .45cal, just figured if I can't hunt with it why have a big caliber...but even with what little looking I've done I have noticed that the calibers do seem to run fairly large on BP pistols;
And I may find that stock size is not as big an issue as I worry that it will be...really need to get my hands on several before I make any decision.

 

Nice job Daryl
The barrel is lined? Did I get that right?
As to the set trigger I don

 

Don't rule out revolvers on accuracy grounds. We've successfully alterd sevral Uberti's and EuroArms Remingtons and m1860's to where they shoot into less than 2" at 25yds.
: All that was necessary was to bore the cylinders to .001" to .002" larger than the groove dia of the barrel. After that, they becasme target revolvers with full power loads.
; As well, on the barrel liner thought, I bought the .430" liner from Track, having an 18" twist which is perfect for patched RB. These are hammer forged barrel liners, made from 4140 Chrome Moly alloy, the same metal as modern steel firearms.
; A good .45 to .43 cal will shoot as well as any modern MATCH pistol at 25yds. and further. There are few handguns today that will shoot better than patched RB in a pistol with real BP.
: The Dog Lock English Civil War Period pistol gives you a 14 or 16" barrel to start with for lining, so it could be shortened to whatever sight radius you wanted. As well, it is a very intriguing weapon to begin with, being out of the normal line of flinters. Another is the Potsdam pistol.
.

 

[roundball]

Thought about the Ruger Old Army but it's a revolver and too much like a modern one at that, at least for my interests right now.

The whole attraction of a flintlock pistol is that it would be a flintlock...think it would be fun to try one, get proficient with one, etc.

Hummmmm...14-16" barrel you say?
Wonder how well a cut-down 1:48" TC Hawken flint barrel would shoot...

 

48" is too slow for best accuracy in a pistol- according to all that's been written on the subject- however - my above pictured pistol has 2 barrels. The one in the picture is a piece of .54 rifle barrel with 66" of twist and will shoot into 2 1/2" to 3" at 50yds. off the bags using 526RB with .018 patches. No, it is't lined as it is the original .54 cal. At close range, out to 15 yards, it shoots buck and ball very well indeed, the total spread is 6" for the 4 balls in the load. The other barrel is a .45 with 20" twist and it is more accurate than the short rifle barrel is. Hold the gun and it will cut a small hole for 5 shots at 25yds., in the 1" range.
: Lining was merely a suggestion for converting a dragoon .62 to an accurate flint pistol. I do have a liner, for lining a 20 bore English Fowler barrel/breech I have. The barrel was rotted through about 20" up from the breech, so it was cut off at 15". As the breech and breech section of the barrel are in reasonable shape, it will be lined with the .43 cal. liner with it's 18" twist- sometime in the future. at this time, I really don't want a caplock pistol, although the original lock is also in good condition. I had to solder a cup back onto the hammer, as the original was broken/rotted off. Due to the engraving on the hammer and lock plate, a new hammer was out of the question.

 

[Herb]

Here is a .54 pistol I made from a kit my friend Randy had. It may be 20 years old, don't know who made it. Spanish lock? Parts fit awful. Had to rebuild things to fit. BUT-it did shoot. This is 4 balls at 25 yards from rest, .520 Hornadys, 35 grains of Goex 2F, at 659 fps.

 

Roundball, Why don't you build a pistol that fits your hands? I'm going to do the same thing whenever I get some time. Something that's bugging me is the rifling twist rate on pistols. Maybe combining the short barrel and small amount of powder it makes a difference but using 30 grains of 2F Goex in my 25" barrel rifle will plop ball after ball in the same hole at 25 yds with 1:48 twist. Now, having spent months collecting data on the .62, suggested twist on these is 1:90 or slower and is directly related to powder charge you intend to use. I plan on having my flint pistol to hunt with even if I have to get a special permit or whatever. I'm looking at using a 14" to 16" barrel and putting some fire under that ball with 70 grains of 2F. I shoot hot CF pistols so why not crank up the flinter too?

I'm not up on the PC of building but I have seen pics of originals with more modern style heavy grips very similar to that found on the Remington XP-100 or T/C Contender. I have problems with grips and stocks myself, if they don't fit I can't shoot worth a hoot. I get busted all the time about my "mauser-loaders", they may not be PC but they are flint and work for me. If you are going for something PC, do a lot of research before buying anything because there are PC designs that can work. Don't get me wrong, I love my Lyman deerstalker but had I known more sooner, I would have build a Jager in .58 instead. Speakng of which, I think that heavy grip pistol may have been german or spanish made for a polish prince or king? Saw it on the history channel so may be able to find something there, most likely on "tails of the gun". If I catch it again, I'll write it down and email you.

 

[roundball]

Because I don't have the skills, patience, or time to cut a straight line on a 2x4 with a skillsaw :: ::

 

I have shot my .54 Flint pistol with up to 50gr. 3F and it does bark with that load. That puts a 230gr. RB out at 1,200fps, about the same smack at close range as a .44 mag. in a short barrel, but of course, the flinter has a much larger dia projectile & threfore hits harder on game.
; It does kick a bit with that load, but is very accurate.

 

[roundball]

I need to go to some gun shows, etc, and see if I can find any, handle some different styles, different makes to get a feel for a good fit

 

[capnwilliam]

To what extent did hunters and farmers, or for that matter infantry soldiers, carry pistols during the 18th century? They were mighty heavy objects to lug around when weight was a consideration. Seems to me thay'd have been popular with sailors and cavalrymen, but not with someone who had to move about long distances over rough terrain, on foot.

(?)

Capt. William

 

According to the big book I have on this subject, from 1803 to 1865, travellers,hunters, mountain men, etc, sometimes carried as many as 5 or even 6 pistols in addition to a rifle and sometimes a smoothbore as well. Some on their person, some on pack animals. On their person, the Average was probably only 1 EXTRA pistol, but with saddles commonly being holstered for 2 flint martial pistols, packing them, even flinters, was common due to single shot rifles and smoothbores being poor self defence weapons against indians who seldom rode alone.
: With the advent of the cap-lock, pistols became much more common on the scene, and that's when packing 3,4 or even 6 became more popular & some of them would be revolvers or pepperbox pistols as well. Having 20 or more shots before having to reload, was good defense when you were alone on the frontier. One pictured individual had 7 firearms including his rifle, and totaled 36 shots before a reload was necessary. I don't suppose he walked on thin ice, often.
: Big bored flint pistols were not only common for running buffalo form horseback, they were preferred by some, right through the cap-lock revolver period.

 

[capnwilliam]

That's interesting, Daryl; of course, the horse / mule would be carrying much of the load there. Can you find out the title of that book?

Capt. William

 

There are two books, the first, is "Firearms of the American West, 1803 - 1865" and the second is "Firearms of the American West 1866 to 1894. BOTH are a must for anyone interested in the history of the firearms used during these periods. Many are the quotes from letters, government files, other books, etc.
; Written by Louis A. Garavaglia & Charles G. Worman
: It is well written and well documented with many photos. These are large texts, being 12" X 9 3/8" in size and 400 pages including Notes, Bibliography and Index.
: ISBN 0-87081-483-4

 

And there are several errors of omission and commission in both books by Garavaglia. At least from the book that I have by him.

Vic

 

They aren't perfect, but then no book is tht I've read. They are still very good books to have. I know of no other books of their magnatude on this subject.