Muzzle loading percussion or flint

[M. De Land]

I was giving some thought to the differences and realized that what I had always lumped together in my rather simple thought processes were really two quite different disciplines as the transition was acutely a demarcation event.
When one reads the book by Ned Roberts, "The Cap Lock Rifle" along with Walter Cline's book on muzzle loading rifles, that line of separation is quite distinctively obvious.
The main things that I see evolving in this history of arms is the accuracy enhancement at extended range when aerodynamically efficient bullets replace patched balls and the consistency of brisinance through percussion ignition replaces the rather randomness of flint ignition.

 

[Cruzatte]

... the consistency of brisinance through percussion ignition replaces the rather randomness of flint ignition.

Come again?

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

These boys’ll tell you, with a properly serviced cock and flint, plus due attention to items of the lock, a flintlock can be every bit as dependable as a capper.

So... what are you trying to convey, OP?

 

[M. De Land]

Precision marksmanship, especially at mid (200 yards to 600 yards) and long range (800-1000 yds) is not possible with round patched balls compared to bullets or with the inconsistent brisance of flint ignition when compared to percussion ignition. No two flint ignitions are precisely the same but percussion ignition is remarkably consistent shot to shot.
It's simply the advantages of more uniform ignition pressure and aerodynamics that separate the two disciplines.
As far as precision accuracy at mid and long range goes flint lock shooting is not in the same class as percussion nor can it hope to be with all of the advanced advantage of the latter.
I love flint shooting personally but have come to realize it's just not in the same class of evolutionary refinement although in both cases they are loaded through the muzzle.

 

[billraby]

... the consistency of brisinance through percussion ignition replaces the rather randomness of flint ignition.

Come again?

It means that the percussion caps have a more consistent explosion. Ignition on a flintlock is not as consistent. Its true for the most part. Except when you get a dud cap. I have more misfires with percussion than flint.

 

[Gene L]

I don't think there's any question of reliability or speed of ignition. Percussion wins every time. I've got both and at least in my rifles, there's little to no hesitation in caps, and a slight hesitation in flint. For total reliability and accuracy, the cap is superior...it wins the competitions. For fun, the flint (IMO) is superior.

Probably the most reliable and fastest ignition traditional ML rifle is the underhammer cap because the flash goes directly into the chamber. But they ain't pretty...a side trip in rifle development.

 

[M. De Land]

I have learned when I shoot a match with my Yazel flint pistol and another Kentucky pistol I shoot in match work that tuning up the flint after each relay results in better scores.
The reason of course is the dressed edge produces a more consistent spark shower and thus ignition.
Pressure flaking with a pointed copper pressure flaker at the end of each relay makes for more accuracy and oddly, flint life.
The reason is because the edge is kept sharp and shears the same amount of frizzen off for each shot causing a more uniform spark shower through out the relay.
Pressure flaking removes such a small flake that it keeps the edge from wearing back fast and tuning keeps the edge not only more sharp but more evenly presented to the frizzen face.
It only takes a few minutes and I feel is worth at least a couple points to ones score at the end of each relay.
Percussion caps produce more consistent ignition and thus better accuracy in much the same way that a sharp, often dressed flint does.

 

[cositrike]

I’m struggling to get the point of this. Yes we all know that bullets are better than ball at long range and likely the percussion system is more reliable overall, but we’re not military. We’re not using these weapons to survive. We are just shooting for fun and I for one, much prefer the flint system for my fun shooting, so why worry about which works best.

 

[Boomerang]

And a flintlock is more refined and reliable than a matchlock. A center fire is more refined and reliable than a caplock, sooooo what are you trying to say with those fifty cent words? :grin:

 

[Don Steele]

While I'm not sure if there's any particular point to the OP beyond simply sharing thoughts (which is just fine by me) I understand the "50-cent words", and he's absolutely correct. It would appear however that some folks are having a: "What you talkin' about Willis" moment :haha: :haha:
Pardon the reference to an old TV sitcom, but it seems to fit.

 

[smo]

Longbow vs Cross Bow, Rifle vs Pistol, Apples vs Oranges.

They are all a little different, but it’s hard to make a percussion gun shoot without caps!

I never found a cap lying on the ground, unless I dropped it!

Everything mentioned with the exception of the Apples and Oranges were successful improvements in firepower developed over time , all in the search for a better mouse trap so to speak.

Throwing a rock vs Sling and Stone. :idunno:

Myself , it’s been a 10 year journey now into the mystical ,Dark Side of Flint Guns.....it has been a humbling expierience to say the least.

Too me it all depends on personal preference, whatever floats your boat.

If I were concerned about reliability , weather conditions, long range accuracy and such, a flint gun would not be my choice of weapons... nor would a percussion gun.

Just some thoughts in between naps this morning! :rotf:

 

[Black Hand]

And a flintlock is more refined and reliable than a matchlock. A center fire is more refined and reliable than a caplock, sooooo what are you trying to say with those fifty cent words? :grin:

And we are back to a previous discussion. The flintlock ignition system (in some sort or another) was in use the longest (250+ years), while the cap ignition had about 20-30 years before being replaced by centerfire cartridge.

If I wanted to shoot long range, I would pick centerfire. But in this case, I don't - so the "limited" range of 50-150 yards with a flintlock ignition works just fine for me.

 

[Boomerang]

If I wanted to shoot long range, I would pick centerfire. But in this case, I don't - so the "limited" range of 50-150 yards with a flintlock ignition works just fine for me.

Yep, I shot a longbow for several years. I knew its limited range for me and that was about 20yds with reasonable accuracy.
Now with the caplock/flintlock I feel like I'm shooting long range accurately at 75yds compared to the longbow.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I'm not sure if there's any particular point to the OP

:metoo:

 

[M. De Land]

It's just that I had always lumped either ignition system as virtually equal in that they are all loaded from the muzzle and then realized after some thought and reading the two books mentioned that it actually was a defining transitional period.
The invention of fulminate ignition widely separated the accuracy potential of the two systems far more than I had previously realized.
Chemical produced fire had replaced mechanically produced fire which in a very short time would lead to cartridges and conical projectiles.
Hand cannons, match locks , wheel locks and finally flint locks all used mechanically produced fire ignition and then came fulminate and chemically produced fire which was probably as significant as the invention of gun powder or a rifled bore in ballistic evolution .
In my mind they are different enough that flint shooters probably should be in a competitive class of their own past 75-100 yards.
Our own American civil war pointed this transition out rather starkly as the kill zone was effectively extended several hundred yards!

 

[M. De Land]

It is true that the rifled bore and conical projectiles in conjunction with fulminate ignition is what extended the kill zone but the fulminate is what made the other two more efficient and practical.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

To muddy the water a little bit more, wouldn't it be fun to make bullet gun with a really good flintlock to ignite it? I have a 1000 yd gun with a 1x18 twist that likes 540 gr paper patch bullets. It is not convertible; if it was I would be tempted to try it.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[tenngun]

I am thinking however of the combination of projectile and barrel making technology. 300 yard shooting competitions were held in Europe in the time of match locks and wheel locks. Does ignition source count as much as other developments of the time. Would hexagon sniper rifles perform any worse with flint, wheel, or match? Provided no other variable changed. :idunno:

 

[Zonie]

I believe the people who keep saying the flintlock survived over 250 years but the cap ignition system only lasted 20-30 years are forgetting something.

The modern CF primer is just a cap, installed in a different location.
Yes, the primer has it's own built in device to replace the nipple and crush the fulminate but that in and of itself doesn't change the fact that it is a percussion cap which fires with the blow of a hammer (or firing pin).

Using my definition of a primer it can be said the percussion system has lasted 211 years (1807-2018) and there is nothing to indicate it won't be used for the next 100 years.

 

[M. De Land]

The use of heavy projectiles would not be practical with flint ignition because the flash hole has far less ability to restrain the pressure spike than does a nipple with a cap and hammer nose holding it back. The flash hole would soon be eroded out of spec.
Even if a platinum lined hole were used the gas jet out the side from increased pressure would be extreme and probably not be practical.