Myths dispelled

[zimmerstutzen]

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.

Dan Pharis said: It was probably a slow lock and a poor vent design. Buying a low cost factory made flintlock is not generally a good idea from the performance standpoint

In actuality, CVA = less than optimum design. However, after I learned a bit from a night school course, I drilled and tapped the barrel for a coned out vent liner and using a dremel, reshaped the pan. The result was much faster ignition, with less powder in the pan. (In a weak moment, I swapped that gun off for something else and should have kept it)

I find that with all the new fangled stuff in the black powder arts, there is actually very little that is totally new, and some are just revamped old ideas. For instance the bolt action inline. The bolt action concept was developed into working models in the 1830's for the needle gun. Perfected by Dryse for the 1848 Prussian model and reconfigured for centerfire ammo in the late 1860's.

I have never however come upon any other plan design, etc, of someone moving the ignition point forward toward the middle of the powder charge. Of course, in the 1820's, there were guns that were made to fire superimposed charges out of the same barrel.

 

[flinthead]

I have never however come upon any other plan design, etc, of someone moving the ignition point forward toward the middle of the powder charge. Of course, in the 1820's, there were guns that were made to fire superimposed charges out of the same barrel.

Actualy having the ignition point in the middle of the powder charge is very common. Take a look at the inside of a 105 howitzer round. They have a long flash tube running up from the primer inside the case. A lot of 20mm and 30 mm stuff have the same system.

There must be some benifit to it, however I don't know if it would make any difference with the puny ammounts of black powder we ignite.

 

[Leonredbeard]

Mike,
You are right. They are one of the funnest gonnes to shoot.
volatpluvia

 

[flm_shooter]

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

You know, I dropped off around page 2. But if I EVER go for premium membership, I have my new signature line now... :hatsoff:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I have fond memories of the early days when it was just a rifle or a fowler--sometimes an original--a horn and bag and a few necessities and it was off to the woods or an impromptu target range. Often had to knap flints from a small node, but that was a skill worth having and band-aids were a necessity at first. It all seemed so simple and pleasurable and unfussy.

Doesn't mean that I haven't found Larry's articles interesting. Just means I'm getting old I guess. But I do stop to smell the flowers every now and then... :wink:

 

[Dphar]

Actualy having the ignition point in the middle of the powder charge is very common. Take a look at the inside of a 105 howitzer round. They have a long flash tube running up from the primer inside the case. A lot of 20mm and 30 mm stuff have the same system.

There must be some benifit to it, however I don't know if it would make any difference with the puny ammounts of black powder we ignite.

This is not necessarily for "frontal ignition" the tubes on the 105 anyway are filled with BP and have vents up the length of them.
Smokeless powder is very susceptible to pressure "events" if the primer is not hot enough. Thus the BP in the the 105 and the one pound +- BP boosters in the old 16" Naval artillery powder bags.
Improper ignition of smokeless in a field piece or a small arm can result in things going to pieces.

From what I recall frontal ignition of the 50 cal Browning was experimented with back in WW-II but tended to cause serious overpressure. But I would have to go look it up again to be sure.

Dan

 

[romeoh]

First of all I´d like to say Thank You to Pletch! :hatsoff:
For that intresting experiment and publishing the datas. :thumbsup:

Here are my two cents to that topic.
I like flinters and I don´t think that the difference in ignition speed is that much important.
Sure, after percussion ignition was there people changed to it. But this has also to do with the reliability. We all know that flinters simply got more sources for letting things go wrong. So it was just natural in my opinion for the people to change. We all do this too in our daily life.

When we talk about the speed difference we got something else in the back of our mind: flinching.
Slower ignition means for us more time to flinch. And that´s why we want a fast ignition.
Now, there is more about flinching IMHO than most of us realize. It´s not just a few hundrets of a second, we can deal with that.
It´s also about what happens during the time we pull the trigger and the bullet leaving the muzzle.
Among remarkable good target shooters here in Europe there is a trend since quite a while towards underhammers. Because the weight of the gun is working against the tremors of the hammer.
The working flintlock has more sources for tremors than the percussion lock. And I think we very often tend to blame it on ignition time and doing little moves by ourselfes. Though we just didn´t deal with what made our gun move.

Anyhow, I enjoy shooting flinters. And not just in the few parts of a second that they may be slower... :grin:

 

[Dphar]

First of all I´d like to say Thank You to Pletch! :hatsoff:
For that intresting experiment and publishing the datas. :thumbsup:

Here are my two cents to that topic.
I like flinters and I don´t think that the difference in ignition speed is that much important.
Sure, after percussion ignition was there people changed to it. But this has also to do with the reliability. We all know that flinters simply got more sources for letting things go wrong. So it was just natural in my opinion for the people to change. We all do this too in our daily life.

When we talk about the speed difference we got something else in the back of our mind: flinching.
Slower ignition means for us more time to flinch. And that´s why we want a fast ignition.
Now, there is more about flinching IMHO than most of us realize. It´s not just a few hundrets of a second, we can deal with that.
It´s also about what happens during the time we pull the trigger and the bullet leaving the muzzle.
Among remarkable good target shooters here in Europe there is a trend since quite a while towards underhammers. Because the weight of the gun is working against the tremors of the hammer.
The working flintlock has more sources for tremors than the percussion lock. And I think we very often tend to blame it on ignition time and doing little moves by ourselfes. Though we just didn´t deal with what made our gun move.

Anyhow, I enjoy shooting flinters. And not just in the few parts of a second that they may be slower... :grin:

Lock time is important to everyone.
Nobody can stop the gun from moving. A persons heartbeat will move the gun in offhand shooting or even from the bench if you use a high power scope. Its more than you think.
The faster lock allows less movement before the bullet clears the muzzle be it flint or a modern benchrest rifle that will virtually shoot though the same hole at 100-300 yards. The bullet strikes closer to the sight's location at the moment the trigger breaks with a fast lock.

Dan

 

[romeoh]

Yes and no Dan.
You´re right, nobody is able to stop a gun from moving totally.
There is also the heartbeat too. But how often does it beat? Look at the datas at the beginning of this topic how many time the heart has to disturb us.
Basically we both agree.
All I´m saying is that the lock of a flinter itself has got more that can disturb you.

Watch this video. Most will already know it.
Now this time watching take a look at the complete lock and the frizzen. And what happens when the frizzen opens up completely and touches the spring.
You don´t have that with a percussion lock.
Link

 

[worker11811]

You are right but do you think that the mass of the rest of the gun would tend to counteract that?

Your lock was mounted on a test bench. In real life that lock would have been on a gun weighing several pounds. Although I am sure there might be some movement due to inertia from the frizzen, I don't think it would be a lot with the mass from the gun holding it steady.

What do you think?

 

[Larry Pletcher]

You are right but do you think that the mass of the rest of the gun would tend to counteract that?

Your lock was mounted on a test bench. In real life that lock would have been on a gun weighing several pounds. Although I am sure there might be some movement due to inertia from the frizzen, I don't think it would be a lot with the mass from the gun holding it steady.

What do you think?

In one of the more recent videos, the lock plate can be seen to torgue around the tumbler hole - as if the plate is doing a wheelie.

Siler with cannon powder for primg

Watch as the sear is released and you can see the lock plate do its wheelie. I'm sure, as you mention, that the lock mounted in the gun would mute this. This at least shows the force is present.

Just for fun the priming in the pan is cannon grade. You have to wait on it.

Regards,
PLetch

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

One must let the energy flow of the chakras be free and uninterupted. The core of one's being must be as one with the Universe for only then will the heart and hands and mind of the shooter come together in the purest harmony to send forth the leaden globe unerring to its target. Be one with the gun Grasshopper and the gun will do your bidding and your enemies shall fall before you like blades of new-mown hay. :v

On the other hand, you could polish the hell out of the lock and drill a bigger vent. :rotf:

 

[worker11811]

...Watch as the sear is released and you can see the lock plate do its wheelie. I'm sure, as you mention, that the lock mounted in the gun would mute this. This at least shows the force is present.

That, it does!
It's not something you would think about unless you see it for yourself.