Musket losing priming powder during “Cast About?”

[Artificer]

I originally thought to put this in the General Reenacting Forum as it is not a common problem for shooting. Yet, some may find this information useful for hunting with smoothbores, so I wound up putting it here.

In the late 90’s when I joined the Majors Coy of the 42nd RHR, the Black Watch ”“ some members reported losing much or sometimes all the priming powder from their pans during “cast about” in the loading process. This is a problem I never ran across when I was shooting my Brown Bess Carbine in competition in the 70’s. However, “Shooters” load their barrels first and prime their pans afterward.

Re-enactors prime their pans first, shut the pan and then “smartly cast about” or turn the muzzle up and the musket around and then quickly set the butt of the stock on the ground to the left of their left foot ”“ to load the powder from the cartridge. During this “smart movement” of the musket, priming powder was being thrown out of their pans. When it was first described to me, I remarked, “How well does the bottom of the frizzen seal the top of the pan?” Even though our group had been in ARW re-enacting for about 15 years, many members did not know about this.

During a break, I asked the Musket’s Owner to take the flint out of the jaws and remove the lock from the stock. (I have found it a good idea to remove the flint when inspecting/working on locks so one doesn’t slice one’s hand with the flint. Yep, that is experience talking, unfortunately. :redface I half- cocked the cock, shut the pan and held the outside of the lock up to the light so I could see the gap of light between the bottom of the frizzen and the top pan. The bottom of the frizzen was only touching in a small high spot on top of the pan and there was so much gap between the frizzen and pan, it was easy to see why the priming powder was being thrown out during the “Cast About.” (This was a Jap Bess, BTW.) So that musket went home with me after the event.

I remembered reading that British Gunmsiths were extremely picky about the fit of the fizzen to the pan on civilian flintlocks, especially in the later decades of the common use of the Flintlock. The fit was described as not being able to see ANY light between these parts, so as to make the lock as waterproof as possible. That requires the bottom of the frizzen and the top of the pan to be “dead flat” and lay flush against each other. (I later learned the fit does not have to be quite that tight, though.) Much easier said than done, as I was about to learn.

The bottom of the frizzen was FAR from being flat and I soon realized I would have to cut/file through a lot of surface hardenened metal to get it flat, at least 1/64” and maybe as much as 1/32”. There was also some vertical grooving on the face of the frizzen, so hardening and annealing the frizzen after these adjustments would become necessary. I annealed the bottom of the frizzen, filed it dead flat then polished it with ever finer grits of garnet paper wrapped around the file. After carefully grinding out the horizontal grooves, I rehardened and annealed the frizzen. Not surprisingly, the bottom of the frizzen was not dead flat after that, but some more work with garnet paper wrapped around a file and a large stone, finished flattening the bottom without taking too much hardened surface away. Note: I figure it is best to have the bottom of the frizzen hardened to better resist the effects of burning priming powder in the pan.

The now flat bottomed frizzen closer to the top of the pan, but not close enough when I mounted the frizzen to the lockplate with just the frizzen screw and no frizzen spring. 18th century Gunsmiths/Artificers would have used candle black on the top of the pan to show where the high spots were, but I used Dykem layout dye and tapped the frizzen down on the pan with a soft mallet between filings on the top of the pan. I did do the final checks and fitting with candle black, though, as that is not as thick as Dykem and shows the fit better. One thing to expect doing this job is fitting will not just have to be done front to back, but also side to side on the pan. It is also more difficult than just filing both surfaces flat as the bottom of the frizzen comes down in an arc onto the top of the pan.

Even though I have loads of experience filing the sides and backs of large steel lugs on NM M14’s dead flat so one can’t see light between them and a surface ground block, this procedure took a lot more time than I thought it would. It got faster as I wound up doing it to my own Musket and about 9 other muskets in our unit, though.

The good news is after this “re-fit” of the bottom of the frizzen to the top of the pan, we never again had problems with priming powder being “slung away” during “cast about” in the loading procedure.


Gus

 

[Alden]

Your remembrances of Dykem makes me blue.
: (

Your old forty-twa messmates may not have been swift enough to have muskets in their hands ya must've known...

 

[pargent]

:thumbsup:

 

[Zonie]

The problem I've seen when thinking about messing with the fit between the bottom of the frizzen and the top of the pan stems from the fact that the frizzen screw has already been drilled.

This often results in a gap that is impossible to remove because the screw won't let the frizzen drop down closer to the pan in the area of the screw.

Filing or grinding away material near this screw just makes the gap worse.

I suppose a totally non PC method of closing this gap would be to grease the underside of the frizzen and build a small dam of J-B Weld around the edges of the pan.

Then, lowering the frizzen so its underside compressed the J-B Weld would close the gap.

Some judicious filing and sanding to remove the excess epoxy and then painting it black would make it less obvious but I doubt if it would stand up to too many shots before it started to break down.

 

[nwtradegun]

I don't care what they did in the old days. you prime your pan first at any shoots I have attended and you'll get thrown off the range.

 

[Artificer]

Actually they were very good and very safe people. It was just some didn't know a whole lot about the finer points of flint muskets, that most shooters eventually learn.

Though both my 70's period Brown Bess Carbine and my 1990's vintage full length Pedersoli Bess had close enough frizzen to pan fit for regular range or target shooting, and I had not had a problem with the latter when "casting about" at the time this came up, I re-fit the frizzens and pans closer than received from the factory.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

In reenacting, we only shoot powder in the muskets with NO ball, paper or anything else. We also keep the muzzles well away from our bodies.

Now, for a LIVE ROUND on the range or for hunting, I absolutely agree to load the barrel first. My thoughts for target shooting or hunting is that a well fit pan means more sure ignition, NOT anything having to do with the loading order.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Zonie,

From having done at least 9 or 10 muskets for better frizzen to pan fit, I can assure you it does not matter that the hole for the frizzen screw has already been drilled. The frizzen still travels in an arched curve as it goes down. As noted, this makes fitting a bit harder than merely filing both flat. Oh, and even on the worst musket, it did not disturb the "kick over point" of the frizzen that contacts the feather spring/frizzen spring.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Guess I should have originally made the point that in most civilian flintlocks one buys from American Makers today, the fit of the bottom of the frizzen to the top of the priming pan should already be correctly fitted - IF one gets an assembled lock. If one gets a lock kit with non hardened and annealed parts, then at least some such fitting is usually expected or required.

If one buys a replacement frizzen for Pedesoli Muskets and perhaps other makes of muskets, it should come pre-drilled for the frizzen screw and already hardened and tempered. However, one needs to then check the fit of the bottom of the frizzen to the top of the pan with a replacement frizzen.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

One more point for Zonie.

With a double bridle lock where there is a bridle for the frizzen screw, one MAY have to also file clearance on the top of both supports of the fizzen bridle so it does not interfere with fitting the frizzen to the pan. Matter of fact, there doesn't need to be any contact of the bottom of the frizzen over the top of the frizzen bridle - just the bottom of the frizzen to the top of the pan.

Late British Flint "Waterproof" locks with bridles for the frizzen were especially relieved so the bottom of the frizzen did not come close to touching the top of the fizzen bridle. Now, I am not suggesting that much clearance be put on a musket lock, as there is no reason to do it. There just needs to be a slight clearance so one see's light between the bottom of the frizzen and top of the frizzen bridle when the bottom of the frizzen is in good contact with the top of the pan.

Gus

 

[Loyalist Dave]

This still happens today, although I see it most often when the private installs a new flint in a hurry, which he has poorly chosen, or simply was handed to him by a another private... and the forward edge of the flint is actually touching the frizzen when at half-cock... not only does cast-about toss powder around, so can the wind, in such case. :shocked2:

LD

 

[LRB]

Zonie,

From having done at least 9 or 10 muskets for better frizzen to pan fit, I can assure you it does not matter that the hole for the frizzen screw has already been drilled. The frizzen still travels in an arched curve as it goes down. As noted, this makes fitting a bit harder than merely filing both flat.
Gus

Yes, it can matter depending on how much of a gap there is at the forward pan wall. I have seen some that if filed to fit as is, would have the frizzen lay back too close to the half cock position leaving the flint pushing against the frizzen at half cock. On some I have worked on, I silver brazed and sometimes just soldered a plate over the pan, or with a few, on the underside of the frizzen, then did the fitting. You've done 9 or 10 of these fittings? Wow, that's a bunch!

 

[Alden]

Wick (Gus)
I've found the issue usually the same as Zonie has -- the gap isn't highs and lows on uneven frizzen or pan so much as high or angle-drilled frizzens. But unlike wood you can only take metal away...

 

[Artificer]

Yep, like many things, once the word got out that someone could fix the problem - I wound up doing a bunch of them. Most of them were on Jap Besses, though mine is a Pedersoli and it may not have totally required better pan fit, but I did it anyway for surer ignition after "casting about."

Wick has a good point that is the pan has to be cut so much it allows the face of the frizzen to touch the flint at half cock, that's a problem. Fortunately, the worst one I ran into did not require that much filing of the frizzen and pan.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Good point LD.

A lot of sparking problems I've seen were due to too large of flints being used for the Bess lock they had.

Gus

 

[Pete G]

Guess I should have originally made the point that in most civilian flintlocks one buys from American Makers today, the fit of the bottom of the frizzen to the top of the priming pan should already be correctly fitted - IF one gets an assembled lock.

Don't count on it.

 

[LRB]

Right Pete. Even some of the Chambers locks can be fitted a tad better, although most or all I've seen were at least good enough for general use without any additional work. Just depends on ones personal demands, and what degree of tolerance is acceptable to them. I am usually satisfied as long as it will hold 4f prime all day in the woods. Some are not happy unless the lock will pass the water dunk test. I don't go that far because even if it will pass, it is still not truly water proof, and in wet weather still needs extra protection.