• 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

Interesting comment from Tip!

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I thought the OP's positioning of the conversation, which I'm sure ol' Tip will confirm, was carefully shared and his inquiry perfectly framed.

Understanding that it is not the flame, per se, that ignites the main charge and that a trail of powder crumbs from the pan will indeed slow the ignition by super-heated gas, too big a touchole could indeed slow down ignition Tip would probably say.
 
I have to agree with you, this discussion has nothing to do with any one individual but more so with myths and myth busting. As we all know too well a lot of misinformation has been handed down over time that haunts this sport till this day. With all the new technological advancement we have access to, it seems ludicrous to ignore the results of these tests when they are properly performed.

Those individuals who take the time to question and then test the excepted standards of the day are to be admired, both for their determined courage and for their thirst for knowledge. These myths are persistent with the close minded and truly hold back our sport. Period and historical correctness I can see the need, but to adhere to myths because thats how it was done back in the day is just plain stupidity in it's rawest form!

My vote goes for modern testing, and if it busts an old myth...well, so be it! Okay, let me git off this here soap box afore I trip and fall...hurt'n these old bones! :v
 
I would venture that not all things being equal, what works well for one may not work as well for someone else. I take great satisfaction in tinkering with my equipment, trying this and trying that until I finally land on the magic combination. At this point, I start to feel at one with my gun and knowing most, if not all of that weapons idiosyncracies makes me feel that much more confident that in a hunting situation and hopefully I will know just what to do to get that gun to fire reliably. For many, this is just too much work and not worth the effort.

I guess that it what makes us "flintlockers" a different breed. Personally, I'm proud to be a member of this fraternity. Guys like Tip Curtis inspire me and make me want to learn more. Admiring their work just brings me pleasure and makes me want to try harder to become more skilled. Above all, I try to be an ambassador to the sport and try to get others interested. Many who have never been exposed to flintlocks simply do not know what their missing and once exposed, they realize that, hey...this is big time fun.

Jeff
 
If you are hitting your target and your gun appears to be very fast, do you really care if someone can prove that it is 1/100th of a second slower than something in a lab? Some of you guys are worse than computer geeks. :haha:
 
I think your hole is large enough and not much will be gained by making it larger at this point. A very important thing with any vent is keeping it clean. Before loading, always pick your hole to be sure that no fouling is clogging the hole. Then, as you are loading, put something like a small feather or your vent pick in the hole to keep it open as you load. Lastly, bank most of your pan charge near the hole but not covering it. Let the rest trail out into the pan to better catch sparks. Larry Pletcher did a high speed photography study on the location of the pan charge and the speed of ignition. That is the spot that he found gave the fastest ignition. He posted his study on the forum and you can look it up or you can look him up by searching his Forum name, "Pletch" and asking him about it.

For now, hold what you've got and work on your technique for keeping the hole clean and open and your pan charge properly located.
 
Billnpatti said:
I think your hole is large enough and not much will be gained by making it larger at this point. A very important thing with any vent is keeping it clean. Before loading, always pick your hole to be sure that no fouling is clogging the hole. Then, as you are loading, put something like a small feather or your vent pick in the hole to keep it open as you load. Lastly, bank most of your pan charge near the hole but not covering it. Let the rest trail out into the pan to better catch sparks. Larry Pletcher did a high speed photography study on the location of the pan charge and the speed of ignition. That is the spot that he found gave the fastest ignition. He posted his study on the forum and you can look it up or you can look him up by searching his Forum name, "Pletch" and asking him about it.

For now, hold what you've got and work on your technique for keeping the hole clean and open and your pan charge properly located.

Wow Bill... You almost didn't read ANY of this thread after the first few posts did you? LOL
 
Jack Wilson said:
If you are hitting your target and your gun appears to be very fast, do you really care if someone can prove that it is 1/100th of a second slower than something in a lab? Some of you guys are worse than computer geeks. :haha:
My hard drive is .5 milliseconds faster than your hard drive - I win! :blah:
 
Billnpatti said:
I think your hole is large enough and not much will be gained by making it larger at this point. A very important thing with any vent is keeping it clean. Before loading, always pick your hole to be sure that no fouling is clogging the hole. Then, as you are loading, put something like a small feather or your vent pick in the hole to keep it open as you load. Lastly, bank most of your pan charge near the hole but not covering it. Let the rest trail out into the pan to better catch sparks. Larry Pletcher did a high speed photography study on the location of the pan charge and the speed of ignition. That is the spot that he found gave the fastest ignition. He posted his study on the forum and you can look it up or you can look him up by searching his Forum name, "Pletch" and asking him about it.

Look up. :grin:
 
Jack Wilson said:
If you are hitting your target and your gun appears to be very fast, do you really care if someone can prove that it is 1/100th of a second slower than something in a lab? Some of you guys are worse than computer geeks. :haha:


Jack, if someone is satisfied with their gun...so am I...but if someone tells me something derived from folklore or silly superstition and ignores scientific proof to the contrary, well then I'm obliged to speak up....as Uncle Si would say "that's the facts Jack!" :v
 
I think you are trying to inject a little levity into the discussion. However, you are pretty close to the truth of the subject... :thumbsup:

In the Nortern Henisphere a right twist to rifling and the helical twist would be proper.

The dynamics of liquid flow, the air mass and confined air pressure all act the same, in the northern hemisphere. And, just the opposite in the southern hemisphere.

For a practical and very easily understood demonstration of this, Look at which way the water flows when a toilet is flushed. It swirls to the right in the northern hemisphere, and swirls to the left in the southern hemisphere.

To visualize this imagine a column of air that is rotating to the right, when you look at it from the northern hemisphere (the top). Now imagine laying down on your back and looking at the bottom end of this rotating column of air, it rotates to the left. While the top of the column, is rotating to the right, at the bottom, it is actually rotating to the left. You're looking at it from a position 180 degrees different.

Now you know what a toilet has to do with a flintlock... :shocked2:

Bill
 
kaintuck said:
I find if I drill the touch hole with a helical sprial hole, the vortex creates a column of fire, then that intern, will light the main charge faster than a standard drilled hole flash.

The venturi touch hole has the second highest speed in lighting a charge of black powder.

I will do further studies as soon as my fingers heal up, the grafts are doing well, and doctors tell me i will have most of the feelings back after my re-hab.

The word Venturi came down to us from the Colonial days.

A man named Venturi was getting irrigation water from an irrigation system, which all had outlet holes of the same diameter. However, it was found that he was getting more water from his same size hole that anybody else was, but still paying the same fee, as all the other customers were.

An investigation found that he had coned his outlet hole from the inside, which allowed increased water flow in this instance. That coning procedure is now called a Venturi. All carburetors and fuel injections now have them on the air side of the vehicles fuel distribution system.

And Venturi is also used any place an increase in flow velocity is desired.

A Venturi, a coned hole or passsage, causes more flow by speeding the velocity of the air passing through the Venturi. The velocity increases the temperature of the flame front, in the case of our flintlock rifles. This should cause the powder charge to ignite more quickly due to the increased temperature of the flame front.

If the touch hole is coned from the inside, the velocity will be decreased and the flame front temperature will be decreased.

Obviously, it would take very precise models and instrumentation to detect any of this.

What will I do to my rifles? I will cone my touch hole liners about half way through, from the outside. What degree of cone will I use? Probably a 45 degree cone will work well. It's not the diametric size of the cone, it is the angle of the cone.

What size will I make the holes in the touch hole liner? That is going to take some careful experimentation. I suspect each rifle might exhibt a preference for minutely different size tough holes.

Whe I was young and building hotrod chevy and ford engines, and racing those vehicles, I knew about Venturi and his scam with the irrigation water. I gave the exhaust ports a slight venturi effect in the direction of exhaust gas flow. The dynamometer said that was worth 25 extra horse power to the rear wheels. I had other legal racing procedures that I ground into the mix too.

Each pipe on my headers had the outlet squeezed down where they went into the collector. Instead of increasing back pressure, this helped scavage exhaust gases from the headers into the collector.

People would protest me. My engines would get tore down and nothing illegal was ever found. I only told Ed Iskenderian what I was up to, and he never told anybody else. However, I did get free dynamometer time on Ed's dyno... Ed is now, ninty-eight years old and still works every day!

My cars were always very fast. At the local strips where I raced, I was nearly always top eliminator in my class. Therefore I have had some experience with old Venturi and his irrigation water scam...

Bill
 
I wasn't making this about Tip. I was making it about a rifle used in the real world vs. a rifle clamped down in a vice. We all "get it", in a lab, with a rifle in a fixed position, the larger VH is the fastest. But in the real world, when the rifle is shaken about, during regular field handling, isn't it possible for smaller dia. powder to sift into the VH and create a fuse effect. With a White Lightning liner, there may not be a problem, but not all rifles have a Chambers liner.

I think the myth, has been proven in a Lab, but not in the real field application. I appreciate all the work and time that went into the tests, and I believe what was reported.

I guess we can keep a feather stuck in the VH., or pick it clean before firing.
 
Stillwater said:
For a practical and very easily understood demonstration of this, Look at which way the water flows when a toilet is flushed. It swirls to the right in the northern hemisphere, and swirls to the left in the southern hemisphere.
That's not true.

Spence
 
I think I've got it now: right hand twist north of the equator, left hand twist south of the equator and for the best accuracy on the equator shoot a smoothbore. :grin:
 
I thought quite a while before deciding to add another comment. As I said earlier, I like smaller vent holes and personally use 1/16 to .067” for my vents. While my reasons may be different from Tip’s, he and I could agree on that. My gut says that even it you like larger vent diameters, probably all would feel that at some point you reach a point of diminishing returns. We may just disagree on where that is. I can live with that idea too.

One thing I wish we thought about more is that the area of the vent increases much faster than the diameter. If you go from 1/16 to 5/64, it seems like one size, but the area has increased greatly. Over 50% IIRC.

As far as testing goes, I started this type of research in 1986 when I was Gary Brumfield’s student. One test led to another, and the 27 years went fast.

Some of you mentioned that real world shooting and lab tests are different. My answer is that it must be different for me to learn anything. For me to test and draw any valid conclusion, I must control any and all variables. For example to time a vent size, it needs to be squeaky clean for every trial in that series. No stone is left unturned if the conclusion is to be relied upon. I want to be sure that the variable I am testing is the only thing changed.

None of us shoot that way either when hunting or at the range. We do control some variables though. We try to seat the ball with consistent pressure. We pay attention to our flint edge. We may wipe between shots. So, even shooters do this to a certain extent. As a comparison, when I clean a barrel stub when timing vents, I use the following steps:
1. wipe bore with a patch
2. use a different patch designed to wipe inside of the liner
3. vent pick
4. Finally, compressed air through the vent
The result is that I can totally rule out fouling as a variable in the test. Obviously I don’t do this on a woods walk. So I understand those who noted the difference between real world and lab testing. I hope shooters see the reason for the extra steps I need to use on lab testing. (I hesitate to use the word “lab”. For me a better term would be “garage-lab”.)

Since experimentation is on my mind, let me run a future test past you. Stillwater mentioned the possibility that the vent shape may affect ignition speed. A fluid dynamics guy once told me the fastest way to get a fluid into a hole was with a shape like a trumpet bell. Think of the intakes used on ”˜60s hotrods. They may have been called constant velocity stacks. In order to test this idea, Tom Snyder assisted me. He makes a tool to internally cone a vent. When I discussed this with Tom, he offered to make a tool to machine a horn (bell shape) on the exterior of the barrel. My plan is to time the vent without the horn shape, then mill the horn and retest. At this point I have no idea about the result.

And finally, you may wonder why bother to do these tests? Two reasons ”“ because I can, and because I’m curious.

Regards,
Pletch
 
Pletch..You are an asset here..And I thank you for your time and effort!
Between you and Spence digging in the past..Its all Good!

Sincerely...Dan :applause: :applause: :applause:

Odd man out here ...I lean to a smaller vent.
Begin at .050 thousands and sneak up on it till I have my groups tight.
Touch hole size effects poi.

Carry on!
 
Thank You Pletch.
As a Chemist....I like Curious. I always enjoy reading your tests, and appreciate your efforts.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top