Myths dispelled

[LaBonte]

A challenge to you Paul: send your lock or one that you claim to be faster than a percussion of ANY of the flintlocks tested by Larry to him (or to an independent lab) and have them SCIENTIFICALLY tested in the same way as the other locks have and prove your assertions.

Until such time as your tuned lock/s have been thus tested you have no scientific proof - only unsubstantiated human observation. It is scientific fact that the human eye and ear are incapable of discerning the extremely small, but measurable time differences that Larry has found in his testing and which you or others you know claim to have observed. Someone looking over your shoulder is NOT and cannot be a scientific test due to the human restrictions noted. Science/technology marches on and we should all be ready to accept what we once considered "facts", when good evidence to the contrary is discovered..........

While I have no doubt that the methods you tout have and can make certain locks work measurably "better" (then again so does any proper tuning), but until a lock tuned using those methods has been scientifically tested than there are no proofs that it is faster than any of the locks which Pletch has tested, flinter or percussion. And yes I have read that article and have also studied how to properly tune and build a lock from scratch from some of the best.

And yes the sparks do move faster than the cock (a good theory)- that can be observed by eye on many locks or in Pletch's slow motions films, but that alone does not prove that a flinter is faster than a percussion - the only real proof is how fast the main charge is ignited by the primer and that takes proper scientific testing, not just "eyeballing" something and that is just what Pletch has done with his testing.....

re: percussion locks - as with all locks it depends on the quality and build of the lock - most of the cheaper, especially many of the imported, commercial percussion locks have far too long a hammer throw and often soft springs, thus making them much slower than need be. On the other hand original percussion locks like my old 1850's Rigby sporter or a modern Bob Roller designed and built lock with their short throws and stiff springs is no comparison - they are FAST! On top of that most modern caplocks have mediocre to poorly designed breeches which contribute to slow or poor ignition. Comparing those less than optimum percussion locks to a properly tuned flintlock is like comparing a BMW to a Yugo...

FWIW - I've been shooting percussions since 1961 and flinters since 1963 and have owned some of the best of the best locks available including a couple of 1820's era Mantons flinters, that VERY few modern made locks can compare with and which would over a fair percentage of tested shots, fire without prime in the pan..that of course had to do not only with the speed of the locks (which incorporated short throw hammers and stiff, but balanced springs), but also the shape of the pan (full waterproof which was also designed to direct the sparks into the pan - something not observed until the first hi-speed photos of flinters were taken), the style of frizzen, and the breeching (Manton's inset, improved Nock style patent breech).

Bottom line - from a life long interest in how and why things work I appreciate Pletch's testing and the previous such testing by others which has led to some improvement in quality modern locks - on the other hand I'll still shoot my flinters and caplocks no matter what the tests "decide", so IMO there's no need to get one's knickers in a knot over thousandths of a second in difference....

With all due respect to everyone - I have no horse in this race - I do not NEED to prove anything either way, but IMO Paul the ball is in your court as to proving your assertions and that will take PROPER scientific testing and not just mailing a 30 year old article to folks.......

 

[musketman]

the main charge in a flintlock will be burning before the hammer on the percussion gun strikes the percussion cap.
I have also heard this and can't seem to figure how it is possible. Assuming both hammers fall at the same speed, it would mean that when the flint hits the frizzen and removes the hot metal sparks that those pieces would have to gain speed down to the pan. Is that possible? Can the sparks travel faster than the hammer that caused them? H.Hale

Think about it this way, if both hammers are falling at the same speed, the flint lock will strike first because it (the flint) is held out at least a half an inch or so beyond the jaws.

Its this length of the flint extending past the jaws gives it the edge needed in arriving first when both hammers are falling equally as fast.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

Last week I met with a rep from Olympus to do a dry run for Friendship. We filmed a new lock, a large Siler that has ball bearing races installed on both sides of the tumbler. VERY SMOOTH. Here are two high speed videos we did of it. The first uses Swiss Null B:

Siler w Swiss Null B

Just for kicks we primed it again with Goex Cannon grade powder. The particles are like coal. The are thrown about and seem to take ages to light:

Siler w Cannon grade
Note the sparks and their speed relative to the flint.

In commenting on the percussion vs flint, our first testing session was done to compare the Siler sidehammer to the mule ear. We did the stock Siler flint just because we couldn't wait till our next session. That lock is very stock and wouldn't be my choice for a rifle. But, the next session will be done with the intensely modified small Siler I described earlier. It is the fastest modern lock I've tested. The only faster locks were an original Manton and Stoddenmayer.

I hope this will be taken the way I mean it. Over these 20+ years of timing locks I have developed a distrust of my human senses to disern time differences this small. I'll respectfully disagree with Paul about human observation in the case of being able to tell that the pan ignites before the flint stops. In this last test session Steve and I tried to guess and were wrong as often as we were right.

Regards,
Pletch

 

[Leonredbeard]

The high speed videos Larry did at Friendship the other year will dispell ALL ideas that the shot is gone by the time the hammer is down. The powder simply does not light that fast.
The only time I saw the shot gone before the cock was down was on a Lyman Mtn/plains rifle. THAT happened only because the coil spring allowed the cock to rebound off the frizzen and stand there a while at close to half cock, while the powder was lighting. Then, eventually, and I DO mean eventually the coil spring regained the upper hand and sent the cock to the bottom of its arc. The cock rebounded so far and stood there long enough that I didn't need a high speed video to see the action/lack of action.
But anyone who has seen Larry's videos knows that the cock is only slowed for a milisecond while striking/pushing the steel forward on a real lock.
volatpluvia

 

[Dphar]

A challenge to you Paul: send your lock or one that you claim to be faster than a percussion of ANY of the flintlocks tested by Larry to him (or to an independent lab) and have them SCIENTIFICALLY tested in the same way as the other locks have and prove your assertions.

Until such time as your tuned lock/s have been thus tested you have no scientific proof - only unsubstantiated human observation.
.....

Thank you Labonte.
You saved me some typing and did a better job to boot.

Dan

 

[Haleh]

I wasn't disagreeing with anyone when I asked "Can the sparks move faster than the hammer"
At the time it didn't seem possible to me and I was just asking. It seems its more of an energy thing than just a speed thing. Soooo would that mean a heavier hammer (lead wrap)0 :grin: Traveling at the same speed would throw the sparks in the pan faster? Just kidding! don't want to start the lead vs. leather thing. This has been a very helpful thread to me and Pletch's research is always educational. Thanks to all.
H.Hale

 

[Dphar]

I would add that not all locks/breeches are created equal, percussion or flint. I have had one percussion that was about as fast as a good flintlock, pop-bang every shot. It had some problem with the internals of the patent breech. I sold it off and never pulled the breech. But it had been "reworked" I know.
I built a percussion pistol with a L&R "Manton" (TOW calls it a "Bailes") that was really fast, faster than many exposed hammer cartridge guns.
But as has been pointed out once past a certain point the human system is not a reliable "timer".
Lock time DOES matter. The difference between an exposed hammer rifle such as a Stevens 44 or Winchester SS compared to a small Martini action for shooting 50ft offhand small bore is detectable when a scope is used. Not by ear, but by the target.
The faster lock time will put the bullet closer to where the x-hairs were when the trigger broke. The slower lock time action will show slight differences in this.
But by "ear" the human generally cannot tell that a rifle with a set trigger is slower than one with a "plain" trigger". The difference is too minute.
Dan

 

[rabjr]

There are some information articles posted at the top of The Muzzleloading Forum, one of which includes a section entitled "Myths Dispelled" that seems to be in error.

MYTHS DISPELLED

Flintlocks are actually faster to fire than a percussion gun, all things being equal. By that I mean, if you have two side lock actions, one flint and other percussion, and the flintlock is tuned properly (has the flint mounted properly in the cock, has a good frizzen that sparks, the angle of the cock will throw the sparks into the middle of the priming pan, and the main charge has been poked with a vent pick to allow more than one granule of powder to be ignited by the priming charge at one time), the main charge in a flintlock will be burning before the hammer on the percussion gun strikes the percussion cap. The priming powder ignites and in turn ignites the main charge in the barrel before the cock finishes its stroke and comes to a rest. The percussion gun, by design, has to strike the cap between the hammer and the nipple to cause ignition, so the flintlock has to fire sooner. Flintlocks fire quicker, lock time being equal.


In reality, the excellent hands on experience from actual work performed and then documented in the 'Larry Pletch videos' shows this not to be the case, dispelling this myth about dispelling myths.

:v

Well this Country boy didn't need Pletch's research to know this Myth was busted....this whole thing never made much sense to me the first time I heard it.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Does it matter?

My choice to use a flintlock has nothing to do with ignition speed.

Sometimes I think you guys would take apart a flower to see how it works and then smell it. :grin:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Its not just the lock that has to be tuned, properly for barrel ignition to occur this fast. I have talked at length about this, and his testing methodology with Larry Pletcher, and we agree that the limitations of his equipment control how much of this he can verify by scientific testing, short of using High speed camera to record the movement of the cock( Hammer) and the ignition. This would require more than one camera, to which he simply does not have access. He is using borrowed equipment.

Larry and I do NOT disagree about his tests, or the results he achieves. We just understand the limits of what he can do. For instance, in his last test, he spent considerable amount of time pushing the powder in the pan to the outside of the pan, with the middle and inside bottom of the pan empty of all powder, to prove that putting powder next to the vent ( barrel) provided faster ignition. We both understand that in real life, some powder is going to remain in the bottom of the pan from close to the barrel, across the middle of the pan, to the powder stacked on the outer 1/3 of the pan. Larry indicated that he chose his methodology because he had NO way to control HOW MUCH, or HOW LITTLE powder would be left in the rest of the pan, and was simply interest in the empirical information obtained from testing the close vs. far powder placement- in-the-pan concept. I agreed that he developed useful information, which I was going to use in loading my own flintlocks from then on. We both agreed it would be interesting to NOT compartmentalize his experiment so much, so that we could actually test real life "priming" techniques. The Time, the equipment, and setting up each lock the same- as few variables as possible-- are what make doing all this very difficult, and EXPENSIVE.

BTW, I had already tried using a full pan of powder, with a high vent on my fowler, and it ignites the main charge incredibly faster with that method, rather than banking the priming powder away from the vent, unless I leave a trickle of powder in the entire length of the pan.I would need Larry's Equipment to measure the difference in speed between those two methods.

I will be trying to connect up with Larry at Friendship. See you there??

 

[paulvallandigham]

Larry, I have never heard or seen what others describe they see when I fire my gun. As I have already written here, I am too busy concentrating on my shot- the sights, the target, follow through, the squeeze, breath control. AND, the lock is on the other side of the stock and barrel from my EYE! If only one man said he saw my cock still falling when the barrel ignited, I would not repeat it. If I was the only flint shooter to have had this comment made to me, I would not repeat it.

Now, I am enough of a cynic, and tend to use the scientific method to find out truths enough, to believe your testing shows all these other observers can be wrong. Its my starting point- not beginning with a belief that you are wrong and I am right.

People just don't get That. Part of using the scientific method is DOUBTING the truth of the proposition you are trying to prove. Its the only way to neutralize your own bias, and set up your testing procedures fairly. Until you have engaged in Original research, I think this concept is difficult for anyone to fully appreciate. ( Lawyers call this, " Playing the devil's advocate. MY own doubts about people's ability to understand fully the Scientific Method of investigation comes from all the thousands of people who have asked me, " How can you defend someone who is guilty?")

A couple of years ago, When you were at Friendship, and I was joined by my brother, Peter, Pete had arrived first, and had carefully inspected your printed photos of various locks you had tested. They were tacked to a railing on the East side of the Gun Maker's Hall of Fame, where you were set up.

One of the pictures clearly showed a flintlock with the flint wrapped in leather, rebounding, or Bouncing back off the frizzen after its first hit, and then striking the frizzen a second time, as the frizzen was already beginning to open. He pointed it out to me, as he was aware then of the "war " being held here about lead vs. leather wraps. The picture clearly showed the flint bouncing, rather than scraping steel off the face of the frizzen, proving my concern about using leather as a wrap.

Without Larry's time lapse photography, you simply can not see this with the naked eye. What you do see is the washboard-like " chatter marks" on the frizzen that appear.

This was not the purpose of Larry's testing, folks. It was an unexpected bi-product of his research. Sometimes, good research produces useful bi-products.

Larry is doing fundamentally sound research, within the limits of his budget and the equipment he has. The results are very useful, particularly when you understand the limits. In his written articles in Muzzle Blasts, Larry does an excellent job of describing his limits. A lot of readers, however, skip the text, or skim it, and just read his charts. That leads to a misunderstand of what the data proves, and doesn't prove.

I can think of few things that upset researchers more, and scientists in particular, than to have someone mis-state the results of their hours of work, drawing an unwarranted broad generalization from specific, limited, research findings.

My hat is off to you, Larry. :hatsoff: Thank you for all the work you are doing. :thumbsup:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

ignition is not the only factor in the speed of the gun going off. Ignition is part of the overall process. All of the various things that speed the gun going off must align for the relative types of "speed" we are considering.

For instance, take a percussion with a drum and a patent breech, like some of the CVA rifles. The fire starts in the nipple, ignites the powder in the 1/8 or 3/16 channel in the drum, then burns into the base of the patent breech, which is 3/8 of an inch diameter and then the main charge in the 50 caliber barrel. It has to burn it's way through a twisted angled funnel for the gun to go off. If this takes .07 seconds, how much slower is it than a direct feed into the main charge without all the angles and channels.

On the other hand an underhammer with a percussion nipple (or mule ear) with a nipple screwed right into the barrel with an old fashioned flat breech plug, in theory should go off faster. The fire is introduced directly to the main charge.

That being said, I once heard of a fellow that intentionally placed the nipple on an underhammer approx 1 inch forward of the breech face so his powder charge columne would be ignited in the middle. So instead of burning from breech forward, it would burn both ways from the middle of the powder charge. I also wonder what that would do to speed of powder consumption and pressure. For instance, would you get a dangerous pressure spike? could you get more velocity?


Mr Pletch has done a magnificent job in his experiments. I always have that extra, what if question. For instance his experiments on priming close to or away from the pan. What kind of vent did he use, would it make a difference had he used a flint falling on a frizzen creating several sparks instead of just a hot wire at one point. I had always heard that a prime should be slightly more toward the side away from the vent hole because the sparks of the flash powder burn up and away, not around corners so the powder needs to back against the far wall of the pan to throw sparks into the vent hole. On large musket locks, a fence or gate was often used around the flash pan. Did that also help keep the pressure/fire and sparks to the vent hole? Could such a concept help on a smaller lock?

and that brings to mind another question, what ignites the charge, fire from the flash pan or the sparks thrown from the prime powder, or both. Would the presence and proximity of the bottom of the frizzen help direct pressure and fire sideways into the vent hole? (thereby possibly speeding ignition)

My theory is that when the powder burns, the pressure, sparks and fire created move in a 360 degree, three dimensional radius, unless prevented from doing so by hard surfaces. for instance the pan and it's edges cause the pressure and fire to go upward. Would the mere presence of the bottom of the frizzen act like a forward fence and help redirect that pressure and flame?

The other question, which Pletch's experiment (In the March Muzzle Blasts) seemed to answer was whether that pressure and flame runs around corners, such as from being next to the barrel and making the 90 degree shallow turn into the vent hole. I would think that the powder and charge in the barrel and vent channel would act slightly like a hard surface that would not give to pressure until ignited either by spark of flame. We've all had flashes in the pan. The pressure of the powder burning wasn't sufficient to ignite the powder. A flame being thrown out with that pressure, shot up and outward, and yet didn't ignite the powder. Is it that some minute spark must be thrown into that hole to make ignition faster? If we were to draw a three dimensional pan surface and then draw radius' out in every direction up and out from the shape of the pan, where would the most overlap of the radius be? And more particularly, where on the flat of the barrel would the heaviest concentration of spark or flame be located? In the March Muzzle Blast Article, the charred marks from sparks on the index cards, seems to show a darker tee-pee shape on the card, right about where the vent should be located. That tee-pee shape to my thinking comes from the sparks being thrown up and away from the edges of the pan.

Now that creates another question, if the flame is so directed, up and away from the pan surfaces, is there an optimum pan shape for even faster ignition? Most pans have rounded edges. even on the exterior side away from the barrel flat. Some have a more square edge to that far end of the pan. Does it make a difference. Most pans run perpendicular to the barrel and run nearly the full width of the bottom of the frizzen. Would the gun go off faster if the pan didn't extend so far from the barrel and had a slightly more bowled shape to concentrat the sparks at the vent hole? ie should the pan be shaped more like a half of a bowl, actually a parabolic shape would seem to be required.

I had a cva gun years back that had a shallow oval shaped flash pan. and it went off reliably, but very slowly and required that it be full of powder, or I would just get pan flashes. Obviously not the best shape.

Now cutting lock/ignition time by .005 seconds may not make a difference in a patent breech like TC guns use. The fire still has to negotiate that twisted funnel to ignite the main charge.

 

[Dphar]

Its not just the lock that has to be tuned, properly for barrel ignition to occur this fast. I have talked at length about this, and his testing methodology with Larry Pletcher, and we agree that the limitations of his equipment control how much of this he can verify by scientific testing, short of using High speed camera to record the movement of the cock( Hammer) and the ignition. This would require more than one camera, to which he simply does not have access. He is using borrowed equipment.

Larry and I do NOT disagree about his tests, or the results he achieves. We just understand the limits of what he can do. For instance, in his last test, he spent considerable amount of time pushing the powder in the pan to the outside of the pan, with the middle and inside bottom of the pan empty of all powder, to prove that putting powder next to the vent ( barrel) provided faster ignition. We both understand that in real life, some powder is going to remain in the bottom of the pan from close to the barrel, across the middle of the pan, to the powder stacked on the outer 1/3 of the pan. Larry indicated that he chose his methodology because he had NO way to control HOW MUCH, or HOW LITTLE powder would be left in the rest of the pan, and was simply interest in the empirical information obtained from testing the close vs. far powder placement- in-the-pan concept. I agreed that he developed useful information, which I was going to use in loading my own flintlocks from then on. We both agreed it would be interesting to NOT compartmentalize his experiment so much, so that we could actually test real life "priming" techniques. The Time, the equipment, and setting up each lock the same- as few variables as possible-- are what make doing all this very difficult, and EXPENSIVE.

BTW, I had already tried using a full pan of powder, with a high vent on my fowler, and it ignites the main charge incredibly faster with that method, rather than banking the priming powder away from the vent, unless I leave a trickle of powder in the entire length of the pan.I would need Larry's Equipment to measure the difference in speed between those two methods.

I will be trying to connect up with Larry at Friendship. See you there??

Paul the photos don't lie. The powder simply cannot light before the cock is down. There might be the very occasional fluke, anything is possible after all but its not going to happen regularly.
Where the powder is in the pan is just something to test because of claims people make about powder positioning. The "pile the powder away from the vent" theory has been around for 20-30 years at least.
I have been tuning locks for over 30 years. Using a full or near full pan and vent at the level of the top of the pan is VERY old news. You will find pretty big pans and high vents on most late English guns.
This rifle was made by a friend of mine over 30 years ago. Note vent position.

This is a Manton 1800-1820 note the large pan and the vent position.

The pan covers are made to cover the high vent.

So using a full pan of powder and a high vent is nothing new. Its state of the art circa 1800.

I have some pretty fast locks both from playing with the parts and as originally made. But every percussion I have ever shot but one is faster.
Pletch has tested about every vent design imaginable. He has tested numerous locks both stock and highly tuned none of the flint guns were faster.
The English makers, the Mantons, Egg etc etc. Spent DECADES speeding up the flintlock. The late English locks are phenomenal mechanisms. But when the percussion cap arrived the flintlock was abandoned for shotguns. Because it was faster and was far better for wing shooting.
Had ANYONE found a way to make a flint as fast as a percussion it would have been done by 1820.
There were numerous *very* capable people working on it for a couple of generations as wing shooting became popular in Britain.
Its almost impossible to make a mid-18th Century design work this well. Close enough the human timer can't tell but the HS camera can.
If Pletch is using flawed equipment/methods etc. as you seem to assert buy some of your own and do your own testing. Personally I think Pletch is doing EXCELLENT work and that his research in valid. The ONLY way to disprove his research is to do your own.
I have read most of your material concerning flintlocks and none of it is new to me.

Your comments on Pletch's tests sound like a defense attorney trying to defend a man who was video taped in full color stabbing his victim to death then being pulled off the body by the police as the last blow was struck.

Dan

 

[tg]

", "Is there any real benefit to using a vent liner instead of the vent hole that is drilled thru the wall of my barrel?""

Most likely the liner is faster, but one has to choose whether to go for an improvement on the original standard method of ignition or experience shooting a flintlock in the same manner that was done in the past, I see it as a no brainer. I did not get into ML shooting/hunting to try and improve every aspect to get the gun to shoot faster,farther and on and on, pretty soon you have one of Mr. Bridges favorite guns.

 

[the Black Spot]

to each his own.

i would rather shoot flintlocks any day. so what do i care about speed between flint or perc.?

how about a test for the poor man who can only choose between the low end rifles? which of these locks are faster?

i understand that some want to know which is faster perc. or flint, but to me it is like trying to prove that the steelers are better than the yankees.

this is all good debate and i enjoy reading it.

 

[tg]

"Sometimes I think you guys would take apart a flower to see how it works and then smell it."

Or a turd :shake:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

"The powder simply cannot light before the cock is down." Well sort of. The physics of a lock are that the angle between the pan cover and the frizzen would block any sparks from the powder until the frizzen bumps more than half way open. To say that a frizzen bounces off the top of te frizzen releasing sparks is fine, but they still can't hit the pan until the frizzen and pan cover are out of the way. Once the frizzen/pan cover "bumps over" the sparks are driven into the pan. Some sparks fall by mere gravity, but they are the ones we want. similar to a piece of carbon-steel held to a grinding wheel, those sparks are not just falling by gravity, they are being thrown by the abrasive once torn from the metal. Same for a flinter, only it is a single abrasive edge tearing off bits of metal and directing a few sparks down ward. Gravity over that half inch would really slow lock time, even over that mere inch or half inch or so the sparks must fall. Since the frizzen must be out of the way for sparks to be directed into the pan, the cock has to be at least half way down before path for the sparks is cleared. Could there be some minor lead ignition before the cock hits bottom of its swing?,,,, probably.

All this debate also assumes that the cock throw and percussion hammer throw are the same. I'm sure on some guns the percussion fall is quite long and others very short. I would certainly never say that a well tuned flinter is faster than a well tuned short fall percussion system.

 

[LaBonte]

One of the pictures clearly showed a flintlock with the flint wrapped in leather, rebounding, or Bouncing back off the frizzen after its first hit, and then striking the frizzen a second time, as the frizzen was already beginning to open. He pointed it out to me, as he was aware then of the "war " being held here about lead vs. leather wraps. The picture clearly showed the flint bouncing, rather than scraping steel off the face of the frizzen, proving my concern about using leather as a wrap.

Without Larry's time lapse photography, you simply can not see this with the naked eye. What you do see is the washboard-like " chatter marks" on the frizzen that appear.

And apparently you missed Larry's comment which he has made many times that his evidence shows that ALL frizzens bounce no matter what......In my experience bounce has much more to do with the proper angle of the flint to frizzen face and proper spring tensions....

 

[roundball]

And apparently you missed Larry's comment which he has made many times that his evidence shows that ALL frizzens bounce no matter what......In my experience bounce has much more to do with the proper angle of the flint to frizzen face and proper spring tensions....

LB, you're going to cause confusion if you introduce facts into the discussion...
:rotf:
I just don't know how all those poor Flintlock shooters managed to do so well over all those years using leather for a flint wrap :hmm: :hmm:

 

[tg]

"LB, you're going to cause confusion if you introduce facts into the discussion..."

This practice should be barred from some posts on this forum from a particular source, as it make things very confusing.