pan powder amounts

[Billnpatti]

I have a small brass priming flask with a plunger type spout. I think it dispenses about 3 grains of 4f powder. That seems to work very well. I do as one of our members, Larry Pletcher, suggested and bank the powder against the hole side of the pan with some of the charge spread in the bottom of the pan to catch the sparks. When I do it this way, I get an instantaneous ignition that seems as fast as a percussion lock.

You can find Larry's articles at www.blackpowdermag.com

 

[54ball]

Maybe I like living on the edge, I just uncap my horn, flip up steel and pour a bunch of 2ffg powder in that general direction, flip the steel back down, cap the horn and shoot. My gun always seems to go off.

 

[Heelerau]

I prime with the same powder as the main charge from my horn, fffg, and 3/4 fill the pan, seems to work well for me.


cheers

Heelerau

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yes, me too. I use 3Fg in the pan, and I don't put in enough to fill the pan level, but it's more than 1/2 way. I tried the 1/4 amount but when walking it got jostled to teh far side of the pan, and all I got was a flash..., when I reprimed with my normal amount, ...BOOM.

LD

 

[Snakebite]

but there are those who will tell us we've been doing it wrong, even though it works well. :wink: [/quote]
Yea, it amazing how many of us have been doing everything so wrong for so many years. Everyone is an expert and their way is the only way.

I just have to keep telling myself that we all know what opinions are like, we all have one and they all stink.
:yakyak:

 

[Vaino]

How were wars fought using a flintlock? In the heat of battle,it's common sense to think that whatever amount of prime was dumped into the pan would ignite the main charge. All this nitpicking is a "modern thing"...not only this topic but others. I think this over thought phenomenon is caused by modern thought trying to reinvent the wheel and many of the actual problems we're experiencing w/ our flintlocks are caused by poor quality locks, incorrect touch holes and poorly designed breech systems.

Many of the problems stem from the manufacturer's quest for maximum profits....kinda difficult to produce quality products w/ that objective.

Years ago, people's lives depended on their flintlocks and because of this serious situation, the gunmakers of that period produced very reliable rifles.

The situation today is far different....our flintlock rifleds are meant for recreation and evidently the quality has suffered.

Judging from all the posts on this "Forum" concerning troubles w/ flintlock rifles, my opinions are valid asre the poor quality of most of today's flintlocks.....Fred

 

[Dave Marsh]

Amen to that. Agree 100%.

+1 :thumbsup: :hatsoff:

 

[hanshi]

While it takes very little prime to fire a gun and fire it quickly, I do tend to use a bit more in my pan in the hunting woods than I do at the range. But the pan is still nowhere close to being full. In the heat of "hurry" it's sometimes difficult to gauge such small amounts; my procedure is to simply put in prime and shoot. If it's my usual amount that's great; If it's full, well, that's great, also.

 

[Vaino]

Yes.... as you illustrated in your pertinent post, our flintlocks should be able to accept varying amounts of prime and still "fire" on demand. That's exactly how the more dependable rifle "of yore" performed many times in life threatening situations.

In the early years in America when flintlocks were the weapon of choice and in most cases were the only choice for one's survival, the most complicated part of a rifle was it's flintlock. Most locks came from either England or Germany and were of excellent quality asre function. What did these lock makers of both countries realize that is lacking today or was it a more serious concern of survival of the user that these locks supplied.

Modern manufacturing technology could produce flintlocks of superior performance....it's just that the "profit motive" gets in the way....Fred

 

[MacRob46]

Judging from all the posts on this "Forum" concerning troubles w/ flintlock rifles, my opinions are valid asre the poor quality of most of today's flintlocks.....Fred

I think mass production of modern flintlocks is the problem. The Italian locks are fair, the old Spanish locks were below average and many, if not most, of the Indian locks are terrible. But, there have always been folks like L & R and Siler (Jim Chambers) turning out high quality locks. The problem was the shooters were unwilling, in many cases, to pay the price these locks and the guns they were mounted on brought. The flood of poorly designed and cheaply made guns, especially flintlocks with the attendant problems, discouraged a lot of folks but, again, they got what they paid for. A lot of the grousing on the forums is due to that, not to the quality of our American-made, carefully designed and built flintlocks. Caveat Emptor.

 

[TJK]

Fill er up

Rio

 

[Baxter]

Well, put me in the "sufficient priming" camp. I never put more than a "few" grains in the pan, never enough to fill to the vent, certainly not 2/3ds full and never, never fill the pan but I try to lay a "trail" of powder (3F - same as my main charge)from edge to vent and I have no FTF problems but then, I am shooting from the bench and not sensitive to variations in ignition time. I am not being frugal, I am just using enough and no more. baxter

 

[bpd303]

Same here, although I use ffffg in a small priming flask that throws 2.5 gr. I place the spout under the flash hole then drag the powder to the outer edge of the pan. Never have a failure to fire if the flint does it's job and the vent is clear.

 

[Stophel]

How were wars fought using a flintlock? In the heat of battle,it's common sense to think that whatever amount of prime was dumped into the pan would ignite the main charge. All this nitpicking is a "modern thing"...not only this topic but others. I think this over thought phenomenon is caused by modern thought trying to reinvent the wheel and many of the actual problems we're experiencing w/ our flintlocks are caused by poor quality locks, incorrect touch holes and poorly designed breech systems.

Many of the problems stem from the manufacturer's quest for maximum profits....kinda difficult to produce quality products w/ that objective.

Years ago, people's lives depended on their flintlocks and because of this serious situation, the gunmakers of that period produced very reliable rifles.

The situation today is far different....our flintlock rifleds are meant for recreation and evidently the quality has suffered.

Judging from all the posts on this "Forum" concerning troubles w/ flintlock rifles, my opinions are valid asre the poor quality of most of today's flintlocks.....Fred

As far as the quality of modern flintlock guns suffering, I think the cause of that might be that 200+ years ago, guns were made by skilled, talented (well, most of the time) professional gunsmiths. Today, many, many flintlock guns are made in garages by dudes that are "pretty handy with tools"...

:haha:

 

[54ball]

Even the best American locks like Chambers of which I'm a big fan, pale in comparison to a circa 1800 English made lock. To produce a lock equal to the quality of a 1800 Ketland would triple the price at least.

We live in a Wal-Mart society where the average buyer would rather spend $75 on a pressboard dresser that has a life measured in weeks instead of $200 for a quality piece made by a real craftsman that will last generations.

What escapes most people is that craftsmanship and hand labor were cheap in the 18th and 19th Centuries. To get that kind of craftsmanship today even on the plainest of guns, you'll have to pay for it or learn the craft. In case if anyone wonders, learning the craft properly is a bigger investment than just buying up front IMHO.

A good lock should be very forgiving in what it takes to set if off. As Fred said we tend to over complicate things. Another factor is a target shooters point of view vs a hunters point of view. The target shooter wants tight groups on the range, the hunter's life on the other hand may depend on the gun going boom.

 

[Dphar]

Even the best American locks like Chambers of which I'm a big fan, pale in comparison to a circa 1800 English made lock. To produce a lock equal to the quality of a 1800 Ketland would triple the price at least.

We live in a Wal-Mart society where the average buyer would rather spend $75 on a pressboard dresser that has a life measured in weeks instead of $200 for a quality piece made by a real craftsman that will last generations.

What escapes most people is that craftsmanship and hand labor were cheap in the 18th and 19th Centuries. To get that kind of craftsmanship today even on the plainest of guns, you'll have to pay for it or learn the craft. In case if anyone wonders, learning the craft properly is a bigger investment than just buying up front IMHO.

A good lock should be very forgiving in what it takes to set if off. As Fred said we tend to over complicate things. Another factor is a target shooters point of view vs a hunters point of view. The target shooter wants tight groups on the range, the hunter's life on the other hand may depend on the gun going boom.

The lock only ignites the priming powder. It has no other function. Its the burning powder in the pan that ignites the main charge. The lock can increase lock time or reduce it. Once the priming is ignited the lock is not going to change the speed or reliability.
I hunt and target shoot as well. One need not sacrifice accuracy for reliability.
Many English made locks were used on Kentucky rifles, both flint and percussion. Some low quality import locks in the percussion era some still lacked an internal bridle, some were better, few if any were "best quality" as would be found on a Manton.
At the time these locks were expensive.
This is in "The Gun" by W. Greener circa 1833

2 pounds was a lot of money in the 1830s.
In the 1780s a Wilson English Trade rifle, very much like an American made Kentucky of the time in appearance and quality cost 52/6 with a wood box and 53/6 with a brass box (from a Wilson invoice of 1781). This is about 3 pounds, I am not going to look up the number of shillings in a 1780 English pound so this will have to do.
So there were not many first quality English locks on American rifles of the time. It would have probably have doubled the cost.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

Poor. I know people that tried this.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Well, put me in the "sufficient priming" camp. I never put more than a "few" grains in the pan, never enough to fill to the vent, certainly not 2/3ds full and never, never fill the pan but I try to lay a "trail" of powder (3F - same as my main charge)from edge to vent and I have no FTF problems but then, I am shooting from the bench and not sensitive to variations in ignition time. I am not being frugal, I am just using enough and no more. baxter

What happens to the "trail" of powder when the gun is tipped to one side or the other? As it surely will be in practical use.

I tend to use whatever goes in the pan when shooting a match but given how I prime its alwayd 1/2 full or more. It bites me now and then but not often. But I take a lot more care when I am hunting. Hunting is not target shooting and I don't use the same patch lube for hunting as I usually do at matches. Different application with different requirements and needs.

Dan

 

[Alden]

how much powder is normally put in pan?

A few grains and not covering the touchole.

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

When I started shooting flintlocks in the 70s I was told the same things; “use the least amount”, “bank the powder away from the touch hole” it didn’t make any sense to me back then. I figured if you want it to go off all the time give the sparks the biggest target you can. And that meant fill the pan. And I also heard the silly explanation; “with the least amount of powder you will get top of the flame leaping into the touch hole rather than having it burn through before it goes off.” Wow, really? All logic and physics to the contrary.