Loading a percussion revolver the old way- how to?

[CoyoteJoe]

Agreed so far as pepperboxes, I can't imagine the muzzle blast turning back to go all the way down an adjacent barrel past the ball to ignite the powder.
Revolvers present a different picture since the burning powder blasts out from the cylinder gap, deflects off the frame and bounces all over. Low light photos of a revolver being fired show the whole gun to be encased in a ball of fire.
Pepperboxes are of various designs, many have the caps widely separated with nothing to deflect the fire of one cap toward any other. Yet they still are known to chainfire and often on all barrels at once or in rapid succession. The pepperbox design would seem less likely to chain fire compared to conventional revolvers yet they are most noted for doing so.
I just think we don't know as much about what happens inside a gun as we would like to believe. One thing is certain though, metallic cartridges don't chain fire. :haha:

 

[LRB]

I have had only two chainfires. I used to do a lot of revolver shooting. Colt types, and Remington. Both chain fires occured when I forgot to put lube over the balls. I agree with Crockett. It would seem that the problem can occur from either end of the cylinder.

 

[crockett]

Good points on the pepper box but a lot of the ones I've seen photos of look to have about 4"- 5" barrels. If you put in a charge plus ball then the works are closer to the end. There was also some talk from one fellow the last time we discussed this about loose fitting balls, if the balls were not that tight in the bore- could the recoil knock out some of the loose balls- exposing the powder and causing a chain fire.
But the point I was trying to make is that -to me at least- it seems a chain fire is possible at either end, with the agreement that most times it is probably from loose caps.
Just thinking now but...if you think about it when you reload a revolver you generally use the same ball, same powder charge, same wad or lube, and same cap but how firmly that cap gets seated on the nipple- that could be the step in the process that has the most variation. What I am trying to say is when you ram down the ball- that is pretty fool proof- I ram until I hear some powder crunch- so I know there is no dead air space, but- in capping a nipple- it would be a lot easier to firmly press down some caps but maybe accidentally not firmly press down a cap- such that recoil could loosen it- just a thought.

 

[user 20224]

My pepperbox has a shield that covers the nipples. In my opinion this would contain and pass on any flash from the cap firing. The only chain fire that we have had was with a .36 Navy that had been sealed with Crisco and pinched #11 caps.
The Rifleman several years ago re-ran an old article testing the chainfire theorys. The only one that they could get to go was with over sized caps that had been pinched.

 

[crockett]

Thanks on the pepper box- never saw one up close.
The pinched caps- that's the way a lot of folks did it 30 years ago- really a bad idea compared to proper fitting caps.

 

[aeatwood]

One way to deal w/ poorly fitting caps is to crimp them, not pinch them. Get some cheap dollar store wirecutters, and drill a hole with the cutting edges closed just smaller than your cap. Don't recall what the bit size was for my Pietta's, but CCI and Rem. 10's were too small (and the CCI's were too long - go figure), and 11's were loose. Crimping them just back of the mouth. They stay on, and don't have the "gap" sticking out on 2 sides they get from pinching. They also work through a capper.

Alan

 

[aeatwood]

Also, in his book Sixguns Elmer Keith has a chapter on percussion revolvers. He was taught by Civil War vets to load a revolver. They used a full charge of 2F, a greased felt wad, and then a tight ball.

I have tried that formula, and out of 10-12 revolvers, only 3 like 3F better than 2F. According to Lyman's black powder guide, the 2F loads are significantly ( like 1/3) lower in pressure than the 3F loads. Something to think about in Dragoon sized guns, and in brass framed guns.

2F does like more compression than 3F. I just seat 3F load to just feel the ball contact the powder without crushing it, but 2F wants as much compression as Pyrodex.

The CW vets liked the loaded cartridges for foraging since they were loaded with conicals - they killed livestock better because of better penetration. Before a fight, they loaded w/ ball for better stopping power. Keith stated the vets considered the .36 Navy a better man-stopper than ANY .38 Special load. (Note that this was pre WW-I. I'm sure the recent .38's could hold their own. :grin:

 

[crockett]

AlanA: That is really a great book and I am a big Elmer fan. I think a lot of folks don't read precisely what he wrote and so he is sometimes viewed as a "big gun only" kind of guy. Years ago round balls all had a sprue whereas today you have perfectly round balls. Elmer said that if the sprue was facing the muzzle it represented a flat surface that impacted the target harder and flattened out better on impact.
Elmer wrote that heavy loads are often more accurate. "Often" has been taken as "Always" by some but often ought to mean often. In any event on a 36/38 caliber I don't think it makes much difference but on 44/45 caliber I have tried a variety of handguns and in most instances- at least for me- I get the best groups with heavy charges. By heavy- just like Elmer wrote- work up to about maximum and then back off a couple of grains. Lots of folks think that when Elmer said "Heavy" he meant "Maximum". That's not what he said.
BTW: on the Navy, he thought rabbits, etc- not enough for deer. I agree.

 

[gordy]

I know in muzzleloading , there will always be disputes about certain aspects. As far as the "chain fire" question? Its my opinion that the majority of "chain fires" are caused at the rear of the cylinder. Even without wads , or grease over the chamber mouths. If the balls shave a ring , they make a flame tight seal.
Also no one has mentioned that there is always a few specks of powder that gathers around the base of the nipples , if this area isn,t cleaned of this powder build up , its a real possibility it could ignite some or all of the caps on the cylinder. My vote is that if rhe balls are of the proper size and loaded properly , the only way a chamber can ignite is from the rear.
I also have a question for the board? Has anyone ever had a chain fire on a Ruger "Old Army"? I,ve never heard of one , and I think the reason for the lack of incidents is due to the design of the rear of the cylinder ?

:thumbsup: :v

 

[Mike 56]

One way to deal w/ poorly fitting caps is to crimp them, not pinch them. Get some cheap dollar store wirecutters, and drill a hole with the cutting edges closed just smaller than your cap. Don't recall what the bit size was for my Pietta's, but CCI and Rem. 10's were too small (and the CCI's were too long - go figure), and 11's were loose. Crimping them just back of the mouth. They stay on, and don't have the "gap" sticking out on 2 sides they get from pinching. They also work through a capper.

Alan

I made one of your crimpers it sizes #11 CCI caps to fit Pietta nipples perfect. One thing i did notice is #10 Remington caps and #11 CCI caps are the same size the Remington caps just a little longer. I just ordered myself a new capper.
Mike

 

[junkman_01]

Also no one has mentioned that there is always a few specks of powder that gathers around the base of the nipples , if this area isn't,t cleaned of this powder build up , its a real possibility it could ignite some or all of the caps on the cylinder. :thumbsup: :v

gordy,
In a chain fire from the rear, the caps do not ignite. Flame from the chamber under the hammer blow escapes (due to an ill fitting cap) and enters the nipple(s) of other chambers due to ill fitting or lost caps. Caps go off by percussion, not very short duration flame.

 

[gordy]

Sorry , poor choice of words on my part. I had intended to say the ignition of the main charge in the cylinder chamber(s) is due to the flame finding a path through any gaps in the cap to nipple fit. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
:redface: :thumbsup:

 

[crockett]

One other aspect that is an unsupported thought of mine- the interior of an ajoining chamber, the cooler "air" between the grains of powder, etc- there might actually be a situation where the ajoining chambers "suck in" the hot gases if there is any opening- such as a poorly fitted cap. I'm not sure how to go about testing that idea but perhaps another aspect.

 

[smoothshooter]

I too have read something about all of the loads in Lee's revolver firing after all those years and have no reason to doubt it, as long as the chambers were pretty clean AND ABSOLUTELY DRY at the time of loading. I tend to think that the wax was added not for the prevention of chain-fires but for long-term moisture resistance. There may also have been some sort of sealant up under the inside edge of the caps as well that was not readily visible, and so was not noticed by observers at the time. My guess is that this long- term loading method was a fairly common practice, since most people who carried a firearm as part of their normal routine for serious purposes kept them loaded for weeks at a time and rarely fired them (very little or no target practice like we do today). Less recreational shooting = (#1) less work/cleaning, and (#2)less expense. As a side note, I have always been a little skeptical of the stories about Wild Bill Hickock firing and cleaning his pair of Colt Navies "every morning". Some mornings, maybe; all mornings, not likely. Bad weather, hangovers, lack of sleep from all-night card games, carousing, and more were (and still are!) all very valid excuses NOT to go outside and shoot your guns first thing in the morning, and then have to clean them soon after. -Smoothshooter

 

[crockett]

I agree on the Lee Revolver. It was likely loaded with the idea it would never be fired but if needed, had to fire- so it was given the best treatment as far as sealing out moisture.
Another one is the flintlock pistol found in rafters at the Hermitage- it was found and fired but whether it was loaded when Andrew Jackson was alive is not certain- at least for me.

 

[Okwaho]

Colt's original loading instruction was just powder and ball. No wads, lube, cornmeal, etc..

In CIVIL WAR COLLECTOR'S ENCYCLOPEDIA by Francis Lord on page 223 there is shown a relic revolver dug at the battlefield of Ball's Bluff. Two rounds are shown still in the cylinder and loaded so that the front of the cylinder and those rounds barely clear the barrel breech.These revolvers were loaded with a cartridge as were the long arms and the extremely close proximity of the barrel breech and round eliminated the lateral movement of the bullet in the cylinder and increased accuracy.
As always I welcome responsible opposing comment. :bow: :v
Tom Patton

 

[Gatofeo]

I have only read one other source on the firing of Lee's revolver, on a message board a couple of years ago. That poster said the substance over the projectiles (ball or conical was not mentioned) was black, like tar.
I'm not sure if beeswax darkens as it ages, but it was commonly used for bullet lubricant well before revolvers were invented.
Tar is also naturally occuring and has been used for thousands of years for its waterproofing properties. The Native Americans waterproofed baskets with it. Tar is another possibilty.

Colt did not mention lubricated felt wads or putting lubricant over the seated projectile, in his instructions. He may have been aware of putting some kind of sealant over the seated bullet, because some paper cartridges made for revolvers clearly show that the bullet has been dipped in what appears beeswax before the package was sealed.
Whether this was done for lubrication or waterproofing is anyone's guess.

Some years ago, and I wish I could find it, I read of a Union officer who put candle wax over the seated projectiles, and worked warm wax or beeswax (I can't recall which) around the caps, before going into battle.
The troops crossed a river to battle Confederates, met an overwhelming force, retreated to the river bank, and he and others hid out on an island in the river. When night fell, they swam the rest of the way back to Union lines.
Curious about his waterproofing method, he tried his revolver back at camp: all six chambers fired. His revolver had twice been full immersed in a river, and spent a long, damp night on the island, yet it still worked fine.
Where he learned this trick is anyone's guess. Perhaps it common knowledge among those who carried cap and ball revolvers.

The earliest printed reference I've found to the use of lubricated felt wads under the ball is in a 1929 American Rifleman.
Keith writes of doing it, and of learning how to load the revolver from Civil War veterans, but stops short of saying they taught him to use lubricated felt wads.

Keith is quoted often about cap and ball revolvers, and much of it is taken out of context, a partial quote or just plain inaccurate. Read the chapter in his 1955 book, "Sixguns" to see what he says.

Yes, a cap and ball revolver can be deadly. And the .36 Navy was a better manstopper than the .38 Special loads typical of the 1950s. I agree with the earlier post: today's .38 Special is a whole new animal.

Search the internet for my post, "Found! Original Loads for Cap and Ball Revolvers." It contains a wealth of information on what was used long ago.
A 1975 magazine article reveals the powder and bullet weight of a variety of a paper cartridges. The gist: there was a huge disparity in bullet weight and powder charges, and it is apparent that -- despite military regulations -- there was no standardization.

Part of the fun of the cap and ball hobby is learning what the old timers used and did in the old days. But beware: few of the old timers recorded these tips and tricks and it was later writers well into the 20th century who claimed certain practices were authentic to the 19th century.
Maybe I'm just a grumpy ol' desert cat, but unless I see it in an original source, I'm also a doubting cat.

 

[crockett]

On the red wax in the Lee revolver- I got that at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond- you could probably ask and get more info. At the time I thought it must have been red sealing wax as a general might have used it to seal envelopes containing orders but candle wax would be possible if the army used red candles.
On the wads- I have one of the depositories of the U S Patent office not far off. Their patent information is on microphiche (SIC?). In any event I looked at the original patent and Colt covered all his bases by patenting every conceivable variation on his ideas. The case material was tin or fish gut and the wad was cork and attached (glued?) to the base of the bullet and then the bullet-wad put in the case. I have al the stuff squirreled away in some file if it is of interest and I could look for it.
Incidentally I used some really thin foil for combustible cartridges and the percussion cap is strong enough to bust through and ignite the round- the only problem is residue. After about three rounds there is so much junk in the chamber that you cannot fully seat the next round and the point of the bullet sticks out beyond the end of the cylinder and stops cylinder rotation. I beleive this is why Colt went with the treated fish gut- it would all burn up and leave no residue. I am not sure which type mentioned the cork wad but if memory serves- I believe it was the earlier tin case and no/little mention of it was made of the fish gut.

 

[Zonie]

Any information available from the other side of the pond?

I know that Colt and the Eley company worked together to develop foil cartridges and Eley produced a great many of them.