Myth of the Unreliable Flintlock

[LaBonte]

I've read that Howard discovered fulminate in 1800 as well but doubt the impetus was fowl shooting. The story goes that he noticed fowl were given to much advanced warning from the pan flash that allowed them to escape before the ignition and shot string got to them. I think that is nonsense personally. Birds are quick, but not that quick.
I think it far more likely the discovery was motivated by a lucrative military contract possibility. Especially after Rev Forsyth patented the percussion cap from the fulminate discovery. Mike D.
.

History says otherwise
1) Forsyth did not patent the the percussion cap - he invented the percussion pill bottle ignition. John Shaw and others are credited with the percussion cap system in the early to mid 1820's and it was quickly adapted by sportsmen both in Europe and America
"In 1827 the "American Shooter's Manual" noted that eastern sportsman were almost exclusively using shotguns fitted with percussion locks."
The US gov't did adapt the percussion cap for the Indian trade by the early to mid 1830's.
"In Sept 1831 and again in December 1833, the US government ordered for the Western Indian trade, some 2150 guns from Deringer. One shipment included," 217 percussion and 93 flintlock rifles complete, at $12.50 each: 217,000 percussion caps at 80 cents per thousand; [and] 310 woolen covers at 37 1/2 cts......" - the Indians though returned the percussion guns for flint locks.
3) The first military gun that I know of that used the percussion system was the Hall breechloading rifle in 1834, not a widely used firearm though. The M-1841 Mississippi rifle (not built until 1842) was the first standard U.S. rifle to use a percussion lock system. This developed into the M 1855 and later the M 1861 Springfield.
4) European military as well as the USA did not adapt the percussion cap for wide use until the early 1840's, but it took years to replace the flinters. During the Mexican War of 1846-48 - a period of around 15 years from the introduction of the percussion cap, for instance flint lock firearms far outnumbered the percussion guns on both sides.
The Austrians adopted the standard percussion musket cap in 1854, albeit the regular cap was used prior to that by various govt's

 

[M. De Land]

Good call, appreciate the correction for accuracy's sake on Forsyth. Shaw, Pre'lat, Manton, Hawker and most likely Joseph Egg(nephew of Durs) are credited with the percussion cap.
Forsyth's invention using fulminate was the precursor that lead to the percussion cap.
I still don't buy fowl shooting as the innovation impetus, one mans opinion. Perhaps in pass shooting the small time lag would make a difference but I doubt any game bird alive can react to a .050 of a second to dodge a shot column. Mike D.

 

[nchawkeye]

It's not that the flash of the pan caused the birds to flush or veer, it's that's what he thought so he was looking for a solution...

 

[don hepler]

I don't use my flintlock rifle for contests. I use it to enjoy shooting at an occasional target and for hunting. Never once considered how reliable it would be, after 27 shots. Except for situations, where it was used for a tool of war, I don't think, 27 shots in a row, would ever have been considered. Everything made, has it's limits. In my case, for an occasional target, and in the deer woods, it is, very reliable. A flintlock must be clean, to be reliable, and if you understand, and adhere to that, then your chances of success are much greater.

 

[M. De Land]

It would seem logical that if he was smart enough to invent fulminate it would follow he could also reason that the time it took for the pan flash to light the main charge would be far to fast for any living thing to react to.
I don't know, it just seems to me that such a notion would be far down on the list of impetus possibilities and sounds more like some one trying to sanitize or inoculate the motivation.
Humans being what we are usually are motivated by power or financial gain and less so by curiosity or benevolence. A somewhat cynical view I suppose but I think accurate in this case, especially given were talking about improving the capability of firearms. Mike D.

 

[larry wv]

I have no horse in this race. But Deer can and do jump the string on a Bow. I am talking about reasonably fast compound types. And on the flintlock they would see (maybe) the flash instead of waiting for the sound of the Bow release to get to their ear. Just something to add to the discussion. :idunno: Larry

 

[S.Kenton]

I've had a deer jump my string before...1 time. It's a fairly uncommon occurance, I've killed over 100 deer with a compound bow. A roundball coming out of the muzzle of a flintlock however, would and should be MUCH faster than my 300 fps bow. I would guess and this is JUST a guess, once a deer would see actual flash in the pan..it would be lights out...it shouldn't jump a bullet. UNLESS the bullet was shot low or high and the said deer would happen to flinch in the opposite direction, keep in mind, this is just an educated guess.

 

[M. De Land]

Pletch pointed out that a good flint lock will flash the pan and ignite the main charge in the neighborhood of .070 of a second.
That is seventy, one thousands (70/1000) of one second.
I have no idea of the speed of a bow string but would guess it to be substantially slower than that. Mike D.

 

[nchawkeye]

I'm not trying to reason as to why the fellow thought that, I'm just saying that's what I've read through the years as to how it came about...

We get into these "what if" discussions all the time in reenacting...That's why some think a loading block is fine for 1770 and some don't...

 

[M. De Land]

I read the same and am just having a discussion. I like to hear different views to challenge my own thinking to see if it can hold up or needs to be revised. Mike D.

 

[Wes/Tex]

I've never heard of what type of gun, though probably a fowler, the good Reverend Forsyth was using or how fast a lock time it had, etc. Whether his conclusion that the ducks saw his pan flash in time to veer away had any basis in fact is unknown. His problem could have been bad swing or follow-through...either, neither or both! But convinced he was and the rest is, as they say, history. I'm sure the percussion would have followed in time or perhaps some of the others were already experimenting at that point. I can't imagine any animal being able to see, process and react to the speed of a flintlock... :2 .

 

[tenngun]

Well now I know th sun has got in my eyes, the powder got wet because it was to humid, smoke from anothershooter got in my eyes, last patching I bought was too thik or too thin, gremlins moved the target,fly got on my front sight, angel urinated in my touch hole, powder was a bad batch, flint was dull, rammed to hard or not hard enough. God knows I never miss because I screwed up. If the good reverend says he missed cause them birds saw the flash, well I believe him. I spect a mess of us have missed for the same reason :haha:

 

[azmntman]

Perhaps the ducks were reacting to the horrid (and not heard by human ears) screech of the load moving forward in the barrel at ignition...metal on metal, like fingernails on a chalkboard to waterfowl. :rotf: :idunno:

 

[gearheart]

Yep. Fer sure. Never been lost neither. Sometimes trail got lost. Sometimes camp got lost. As long as I can see my shoes when I look down I know that I'm right here. :haha:

 

[stinkyfeet]

I'm not trying to reason as to why the fellow thought that, I'm just saying that's what I've read through the years as to how it came about...

We get into these "what if" discussions all the time in reenacting...That's why some think a loading block is fine for 1770 and some don't...

Its likely that the guy just couldn't shoot a flinter, thus using the guns flash as an excuse saying the ducks seen he flash and therefore fleed before the shot got there. Just like "some" on here thinking a flinter is less accruate because the ingition time is lower. Either ya can shoot or ya can't. If not make excuses, and find ways to make it easier. Kind of like someone using a x-bow to archery hunt because they can't figure out how to hit anything with a "real" bow. :rotf:

 

[Larry Pletcher]

My gut says these fellows used excuses just like we do. In their day the Mantons and all the others were in an arms race to build the fastest locks for fowlers. The quickest locks I've timed were late English. The time from pan flash to barrel ignition runs around .036 seconds. While I personally don't think a bird can jump that kind of time, I'm sure I'd use it as an excuse if I was a bad shot.

Another thought is that the faster the ignition the less lead the shooter needs. Percussion shooters would require less lead than a flint shooter. Does that make an average shooter better when he uses a percussion smoothbore? Probably.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[Doug Lykins]

Most of the misfires w/ flintlocks I've experienced were due to my own, "user" error. Having said that I have much better reliability w/ percussion. Seems like about all I need to do w/ a perc is shoot it and clean it whereas I always seem to be foolin' w/ the flintlock.

 

[George]

The party line seems to have changed about Rev. Forsythe. When I first got into the game it was gospel that he worked on his new system because he was an avid waterfowl shooter and was frustrated with the problems he had shooting flintlocks in wet weather. Now it is alleged he thought ducks were dodging his bullets so he wanted a faster system. [That last supposition sounds like some modern-day imagineering, to me.]

What does Mr. Forsythe say?

He started a company to sell his locks, and this is his first advertisement, from the Morning Post, London, 1808:

"To Sportsmen, The Patent Gunlock invented by Mr. Forsythe is to be had at No. 10 Piccadilly, near Haymarket. Those who may be unacquainted with the excellence of this invention are informed that the inflammation is produced without the assistance of flint, and is much more rapid than in the common way. The Lock is so constructed as to render it completely impervious to water, or damp of any kind, and may in fact be fired underwater."

Spence

 

[Larry Pletcher]

As always, thank you for the primary source. I did not mean malign anyone. While I think it's human nature to find excuses, your sources sound like foul weather shooting was the motivation. That seems very reasonable to me.

This topic makes me wonder about the "high water mark" in flintlock making. IMHO the English locks just prior to percussion were the finest made. Do you think these late English locks would have been even finer if the percussion cap had not been invented? Or do you think the late English flintlock was the climax species so to speak?
Regards,
Pletch

 

[George]

Pletch, my reply wasn't directed at you, specifically, but to the board. Quirk of the site that there's no easy way to do that.

I'm not qualified to express an opinion on the possibility of further improvements of the English locks. I don't know that much about locks, have never personally seen an original of the type. I don't trust the British in such areas, though, just when you know they can't, they do. :grin:

Spence