Leather vs Lead Flint Wraps & Warranty

[dlemaster]

Ah! now I see the last post has been deleted.

Regards, Dave

 

[Richard Hare.]

With a few beers thrown in, I can see that this could turn into a brawl...
Somewhere back in the dust of page one, someone said you get shorter flint life using leather.
I won't say BS, as with his particular lock it may be so, but Please, Do Not speak for all locks or lock makes!!
My Chambers locks are so incredibly reliable, and flint life so long, without any knapping whatsoever, that in my case, the above mentioned statements are pure hogwash.
I can see that a weak lock May spark better with lead, as the added momentum may help it.

As to the remark about investment cast cocks being no good, and breaking easily, all I can say is any fool can break any swan-necked cock very quickly through mis-use.
This is no new thing. Col. P. Hawker in 1820's wrote of ignorant folk examining your gun, breaking the lock, and abusing the gunsmith for poor work!!!............Sound familiar?

One need only look at a catalogue of antique arms, to see a good portion of the flint-guns offered have the top of the cock broken off.

If you have cocks forged that will not break at the swan -neck through miss-use, you will have invented something that never was.

For military locks leather is OK.
for lighter arms, leather.


Sow the wind,.........reap the whirlwind.........

 

[roundball]

For military locks leather is OK.
for lighter arms, leather.

:hmm:
Was wondering if you meant to say:
For military locks LEAD is OK.
for lighter arms, leather.

 

[Richard Hare.]

Very sorry Roundball,

Yes, I meant lead is OK for big old musket locks.
....Tho' this would probably void the warranty, it appears to have been standard practice at the time.
for leather, a punch was available so all your leathers could be cut nice and even.
...A frivolity probably not used in the back-woods!

Best wishes,
PB.

 

[roundball]

...I think leather is the real deal too...I bought a wide & long leather powder horn strap a few years ago for a lifetime supply of good quality flint leathers...think it was 1/8" x 2" x 48" as I recall.

A good thick flint leather lasts a long time...I remove mine for cleaning every Saturday and lay them up to dry for a week...rotate 2-3 of them on and off the rifle as they become dry...last for dozens of range trips

 

[aragorn]

Another issue which I know some will scoff at is minimising exposure to lead. Of course we all have to handle it and that's part of the game, but it's not a reason for being unconcerned about minimising unnecessary exposure. Way back when I began BP I used lead for my flint with my Pedersoli because it was recommended. I never liked it or felt it was as secure as I later found leather to be. Then when I cleaned it I realised I was getting faint lead streaks on my fingers - something I don't seem to get so clearly from handling lead balls, and maybe to do with scrubbing and water. I used leather next time and never looked back.

 

[montanadan]

Paul-I did your spark test and I was very impressed.I use lead,not a full wrap,two pieces cut to fit the jaws on the cock.I have over 400 shots through this AH flinter and just installed my third flint.I did however take your advice and set the lock up the way you suggested.If lead is so bad why does Pedersoli,and Austin Halleck say to use lead.I am not trying to get anyone to switch,but I would at least think you would at least try the spark test...Respectfully Montanadan(flint newby still in OJT)

 

[roundball]

"...I would at least think you would at least try the spark test..."

There would have to be a problem I was trying to correct in order for me to go off on a tangent and start experimenting...as it is, my ignition couldn't be any faster or more reliable so my approach to things like that is the old adage: "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and there's nothing "broke" about using leather for flint wraps
:thumbsup:

 

[montanadan]

Roundball-no argument from me.But I bet you did not even bother to try the spark test...Respectfully montanadan(just teasing you a little)

 

[roundball]

Roundball-no argument from me.But I bet you did not even bother to try the spark test...Respectfully montanadan(just teasing you a little)

That's 100% correct...the point you may have missed was that there's no need to.

 

[paulvallandigham]

ANd Montanadan's point is that there is no one more blind than someone who will not see. You have made it very clear in past postings that your mind is made up, and you don't want to be confused with facts. That is your privilege. But telling other people that leather works better, when you haven't made the comparison test is simply irresponsible on this forum. Again, it is your privilege, but it my privilege to point out that some opinions are like noses- every one has one, but that doesn't mean every dog can find its way back home with his nose.

Seriously, Roundball, why can't you at least try the test? You have some pretty good advice on most other things, here, but on this point, you come across as fairly silly. There's really nothing funny about ignorance. If I had told people to just use lead to wrap their flints, on my word(" Trust me "), I would not expect you to change anything you now do. But, I layed out the test that anyone could do, and find the answers themselves. Someone even took photos and published them here so that others could see that he got more sparks using lead, and the sparks lasted longer than when he used leather on the same flint. I had hoped that would put that issue to rest, but here we go again. The fact that Dan is able to get more than 100 strikes from each flint should be a clue that he is doing something right, that you are not doing.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I've tried both years ago, I use leather by preference.
I've got an L&R Queen Anne I've goten as many as 140 shots from 0ne leather wrapped flint. My Chambers locks have given me unfailing service with leather wraped flints and never fail to spark. Maybe if you're using low quality flint locks of marginal performnce, lead may give you more spark to get the lower quality lock to work, which in this case would be a good thing.
All of the flint guns I've seen from ancient english collections that have been un messed with since their working lives have all had flints wrapped in leather. It seems that the Englishmen who used guns for sporting purposes found leather wrapped flints to be satisfactory for the job.
I've tried both and use leather, and will always use leather. It's nothing personal, it's just what I'm comfortable with. :v

 

[AZ-Robert]

But telling other people that leather works better, when you haven't made the comparison test is simply irresponsible on this forum.

Actually, what he said, is "it works perfectly for me" (see above).

I won't get droan into this argument again..

I guess you changed your mind :grin: and are now back to trying to sway others over to your way of doing things, complete with the age old taunt of "why won't you at least try it," with "it" in this case being lead vs leather instead of marijuana, gay sex, or tequila shooters.

I'm in the "if it ain't broke" crowd and am content to use leather as it is working perfectly fine for me. I get about 100 shots per flint. Very seldom have a misfire and those that are the result of a lack of sparks usualy come at about the 100 shot mark... time to change the flint! And on top of "it ain't broke" is the news Dave kindly shared that warns I could void my warranty by using lead in my locks (which, you may note, is the topic of this thread). And, icing on that, is that apparently it is not as simple as just swapping the leather for a piece of lead. Apparently it also involves:

...reduce the tension on your mainspring, to about 10 lbs... Reduce the frizzen spring, too, to 2-3 lbs...

Instead, I think I will leave my perfectly functioning lock alone, keep my warranty intact, enjoy lots of sparks and quick and reliable ignition, all while continuing to use leather. Oh, and I'll make sure not to try to convince you to switch over since it appears you are quite happy with your way of doing things.

Dave, thanks for sharing that news about the warranty. Everyone of my locks is affected, since they come from the makers you named in your post.

 

[paulvallandigham]

My brother has a Chamber's lock he built in one of the NMLRA classes, and he has his mainspring tension down to under 6 pounds and it still sparks beautifully. What he does have now is no worries about wearing out flints during a shoot. I got back into the argument because I am well aware of Roundball's position, but he rarely tells readers that he doesn't test anything new, doesn't use a chronograph, but just sticks with stuff he discovered, or heard about years ago, and doesn't want to change. I don't really understand why he reads this forum so much, as a matter of fact. I am also aware of Mark Robert's bias.

There are lots of people who read this forum but never log on to make a comment. To allow this to go on unchallenged, and then listen to these baseless attacks on folks like Montanadan, who only is reporting what he has found works very well in his production flintlock would be unfair to those readers, as well as Dan. I got into this game being taught by people just like Roundball and Mark that I had to knapp my flints, wrap them in thick leather, etc. I did that. Then I met a man who suggested something else would work better. I had lost a couple of flints because the leather I used didn't hold them firmly in the jaws. I also was tired of stopping every 5-8 shots to knock off more of the edge of my flints. My friend, Don, showed me the " test " I have described, and I then tried it on my own gun at home, with my own flint. It works. I started using lead to wrap my flints then, and haven't changed. I have been able to retire my flint knapping tool to my tackle box, where the brass had gained a nice patina. It will make a blanket prize some day if I think of it. If I get only 80 shots out of a flint, I think I have been cheated.

Considering that the width of the spring in most actions are the reason gunmakers have to remove so much wood, and that by thinning the springs to reduce tension, you can strengthen the stocks, I don't understand Mark's position on this at all. Perhaps he has just become happy with what he has been doing all these year, like Roundball. That is his right. However, it doesn't make for good advice to new flintlock shooters.

If someone insists on using leather, I will explain to them the benefit of using raw hide that is wetted and then compressed to make a parfleche type of strip to wrap around the flint. That will remove most of the shock absorber effect that you would otherwise get from using tanned leather that is thick. I also warn them to keep an eye on their frizzen faces, to check on any chattering or washboard marks beginning to appear. That is a result of both using leather, and having the flint strike the frizzen at the wrong angle.

As for the warranty argument, the warranty of merchantability survives any such disclaimers, and if I found a cock that broke, and a further examination showed it had a defect in it, I would not hesitate to sue the manufacturer for breach of warranty. And, it would be far cheaper for the manufacturer to send me a replacement Cock than to hire an attorney to defend such a suit. It also would be far better for the manufacturer's reputation. So, that warranty argument is not worth the paper its printed on. I can say that, because I AM an lawyer.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I am also aware of Mark Robert's bias.

Who's Mark Roberts?

To allow this to go on unchallenged, and then listen to these baseless attacks on folks like Montanadan

I havn't seen any attacks on Montanadan

I had lost a couple of flints because the leather I used didn't hold them firmly in the jaws

I don't have this problem, never have as a matter of fact.

I also was tired of stopping every 5-8 shots to knock off more of the edge of my flints.

I'm used to getting 30 to 40 shots before having to knap when using a high quality lock.

Considering that the width of the spring in most actions are the reason gunmakers have to remove so much wood

I've taken apart alot of originals, and I'm not taking any more wood out than the guys that were building these guns 250 years ago.

and that by thinning the springs to reduce tension, you can strengthen the stocks, I don't understand Mark's position on this at all

If you've handled alot of original flintlocks with original springs, the first thing you'll notice is how stout the springs are....I wonder why that is? And again , who is this Mark you refer to?
I use full strength springs and leather flint wraps and have no trouble with "wash boarding or anything of that nature. I do have one gun that has alot of frizzen wear, but that has more to do with having thousands of shots thru it rather than anything due to what the flint is wraped in.

I would not hesitate to sue the manufacturer for breach of warranty. And, it would be far cheaper for the manufacturer to send me a replacement Cock than to hire an attorney to defend such a suit

That's part of what's wrong with the world today. :shake:

I can say that, because I AM an lawyer.

Well, I guess that gives your opinions great weight. :bow:
I think maybe begining flint shooters should be aware of using both leather and lead and make up their own minds the pros and cons of both.
No reason to get so stired up over something as simple as this. :shake:

\ No wasboard effect here.....must have used lead.... :winking:

 

[AZ-Robert]

I can say that, because I AM an lawyer.

Paul, that almost goes without saying, given a great many of your past postings. This attitude, in particular, makes it pretty clear:

And, it would be far cheaper for the manufacturer to send me a replacement Cock than to hire an attorney to defend such a suit.

I guess that could become a way of life. But, way off topic, all that really matters here is your experience as a shooter (or builder) of flintlocks. Otherwise, your education or what you do for a living have absolutely no relevance to how I weigh your advice on shooting.

As for the other distractors you are throwing around, I don't stop every 5-8 shots to knap my flints... never figured out how to do it. I just throw that $1 worth of expendable item out when it reaches the end of its 100 shot lifespan. Its a lousy buck, for crying out loud -- way below the cost of replacing lock parts. If I had to prioritize actions to save the lock vs actions to save the flint, the flint will lose every time. And why must we own chronographs and post the resulting measures of our loads? I must have missed that memo. Or is that only your preference you are trying to impose on others?

To borrow from Dana, just give it a rest, Paul. You've made your preference clear. I don't see anyone tyring to talk you out of doing it the way you want to do it. Why do you insist on changing the preference of others?

 

[C_Laubach]

I can say that, because I AM an lawyer.

Paul, that almost goes without saying, given a great many of your past postings. This attitude, in particular, makes it pretty clear:

And, it would be far cheaper for the manufacturer to send me a replacement Cock than to hire an attorney to defend such a suit.

I guess that could become a way of life. But, way off topic, all that really matters here is your experience as a shooter (or builder) of flintlocks. Otherwise, your education or what you do for a living have absolutely no relevance to how I weigh your advice on shooting.

As for the other distractors you are throwing around, I don't stop every 5-8 shots to knap my flints... never figured out how to do it. I just throw that $1 worth of expendable item out when it reaches the end of its 100 shot lifespan. Its a lousy buck, for crying out loud -- way below the cost of replacing lock parts. If I had to prioritize actions to save the lock vs actions to save the flint, the flint will lose every time. And why must we own chronographs and post the resulting measures of our loads? I must have missed that memo. Or is that only your preference you are trying to impose on others?

To borrow from Dana, just give it a rest, Paul. You've made your preference clear. I don't see anyone tyring to talk you out of doing it the way you want to do it. Why do you insist on changing the preference of others?

:applause: :applause: :applause: :thumbsup: :hatsoff:


Chris Laubach

 

[paulvallandigham]

Mark. I owe you an apology. I was wrong when I typed our name.

As to the picture of the gun, what is that suppose to prove? Can you actually say when that flint was placed in that lock? I can't tell the size of the lock from this picture, but it looks as large as a brown bess musket lock. I hope I am mistaken. It also looks like the flint will strike the frizzen too high, and than when the cock is down, it will point well beyond the frong edge of the pan. I suppose the sparks may still make it into the pan, by rolling down the face of the frizzen as it opens, but how much life is going to be left in those sparks to light slightly damp priming powder in the pan? Just questions I ask, if a close inspection of the gun confirms my initial concerns about the lock geometry.

As to the wood you cut out, perhaps I was not clear. the wide arms of the mainspring require wood to be removed under the barrel. If that spring is not so wide, less wood has to be cut out. Just because old guns had as much wood taken out does not justify still doing so. Some of the old springs were outrageously strong, and unnecessarily so. Just because it is old, does not make it right. Those old stocks were known to crack and break at the action and that has often be ascribed to there being so little wood in the stock at that point. With today's epoxys, better spring metals, better knowledge of how to make a lock that sparks, there is no reason to continue to build guns with weaknesses in the stock, while still using leaf springs to do the job. That it is done by many builders, including yourself, I do not doubt. I just think that the gunmakers of old used the best metals and the best woods and designs they knew about at that time. Those people would not hesitate to make their guns better with the modern materials now available.

The fact that i have learned from my friend how to tune a lock, and choose to pass that on, so that people can get the most out of these older lock designs is not something I am going to apologize about, or stop talking about.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Mark. I owe you an apology. I was wrong when I typed our name.

I hate to tell you this, if was me you're refering to, you still don't have it right. :shake:

As to the picture of the gun, what is that suppose to prove? Can you actually say when that flint was placed in that lock? I can't tell the size of the lock from this picture, but it looks as large as a brown bess musket lock. I hope I am mistaken. It also looks like the flint will strike the frizzen too high, and than when the cock is down, it will point well beyond the frong edge of the pan. I suppose the sparks may still make it into the pan, by rolling down the face of the frizzen as it opens, but how much life is going to be left in those sparks to light slightly damp priming powder in the pan? Just questions I ask, if a close inspection of the gun confirms my initial concerns about the lock geometry.

Those bumbling Brits never could build a decent lock. :winking:
.
07/16/06 08:40 PM - Post#285977
In response to Mike Brooks

Mark. I owe you an apology. I was wrong when I typed our name.

As to the picture of the gun, what is that suppose to prove? Can you actually say when that flint was placed in that lock? I can't tell the size of the lock from this picture, but it looks as large as a brown bess musket lock. I hope I am mistaken. It also looks like the flint will strike the frizzen too high, and than when the cock is down, it will point well beyond the frong edge of the pan. I suppose the sparks may still make it into the pan, by rolling down the face of the frizzen as it opens, but how much life is going to be left in those sparks to light slightly damp priming powder in the pan? Just questions I ask, if a close inspection of the gun confirms my initial concerns about the lock geometry.

I ask, if a close inspection of the gun confirms my initial concerns about the lock geometry.

You have concerns about the geometry of this lock which was built by people who made locks for a living in the 18th century? SHOCKING!

As to the wood you cut out, perhaps I was not clear. the wide arms of the mainspring require wood to be removed under the barrel. If that spring is not so wide, less wood has to be cut out.

I don't remove much wood from under the barrel, the ram rod hole happens to be located there.

Some of the old springs were outrageously strong, and unnecessarily so. Just because it is old, does not make it right. Those old stocks were known to crack and break at the action and that has often be ascribed to there being so little wood in the stock at that point.

"unnecessarily so" That would be you're opinion, not a fact. I've seen far more stocks broke throught the wrist than I have the lock area. The barrel supports the stress through the lock area. If the barrel is bedded poorly, there may be a problem.

With today's epoxys, better spring metals, better knowledge of how to make a lock that sparks, there is no reason to continue to build guns with weaknesses in the stock, while still using leaf springs to do the job.

Epoxy? I don't use it. Better spring metals? That's debateable, I've never found old springs lacking in any way, infact they have better "action" than any cast modern spring I've tried. Are you actually trying to suggest that old locks are not as reliable as todays locks?

That it is done by many builders, including yourself, I do not doubt.

I doubt you have any idea of how my guns are constructed, so your comment is unjustified.

Those people would not hesitate to make their guns better with the modern materials now available.

I agree. They'd chuck those flintlocks in the ditch and build centerfire guns.
I'm guessing you don't have alot of hands on experience with guns made in 18th cenury, Those old fellas pretty well had everything figured out by about 1820. We've been doing nothing more than reinventing the wheel since the 1950's.
If you want to use lead for a flint wrap please do so, but please don't make me do it if I prefer not to. :haha:

There's nothing wrong with the geometry here, if I were going to shoot it I'd flip the flint over and go to it. Well, that's after I put a fresh flint leather on..... :rotf:

 

[lacerote]

I am with Mike on this one . I have tried lead in the past and did not like it for a variety of reasons, as mentioned by others . In addition I never have had any problem gettng fast ignition and lots of shots from my flints . I also wont knapp a flint unless I was forced to , when I get the good number of shots I am used to and it stops I chuck it out and put in a new one fast . Who cares about the cost of a flint in comparison to a contest or a hunt . I put a lot of trust in my leather wrapped flints having hunted quite a bit of dangerous game with a flintlock. One thing I do on long hunts , that I started doing in the 70's when I was hunting British Colimbia and Alaska for Grizzly was putting some Elmers glue on the outside and inside of the leather before I tightened everything up . When it sets it helps it not to come loose and the the flint to stay in position well. Elmers is not like epoxy and cleans up easily afterwards . I allways needed the first shot to go off FAST . I only had a failure once and that was when the flint broke in the jaws of the gun with a bear 30 yards out , a swivel barrel to boot and then a worthless second barrel. Anyway given I have had only good luck with leather which also asthetically I like it a lot better , not to mention i had miserable luck with the lead (mostly falling out at the worst of times, or me just discovering the flint was gone , this is NOT good if you come arround a corner to see a bear or Boar in your face )) Its leather for me . In a laboratory type setting maybe the lead is better, as in the test mentione while your sitting on the couch but if I wanted just better , faster and more sure I would not be shooting a flintlock anyway . The total package for me is seeing a nice leather wrapped flint . Each to his own and I dont care what anyone else wants to do or not to do it is their gun and experiance they have to like .