Pan priming - how much?

[Dphar]

I believe that I "overcharged" the pan several times.
TIA. baxter

Not to worry.
It is impossible to overcharge the pan other than in the context the frizzen will not properly close.
There is supposed to be an energetic "poof" when the pan ignites.
If you use FF for prime its more difficult to get an really nice "poof" since the powder is significantly slower than FFFF or Swiss Null B.
I have abandoned the "metered" plunger things and have gone back to a priming horn after several decades. The things can get pressed in the pouch and then there is loose powder....
Those made all of brass are also a form of pipe bomb being strong require a lot of pressure to burst. When I figured this out I quit using that one is one of the pouches.

Dan

 

[hanshi]

For the field, I went back to a priming horn. The one I use is made from a deer leg bone and works like a charm. At the range I still use a plunger primer. The amount of prime in the pan really doesn't matter as long as it's enough and works.

 

[Billnpatti]

Most of the plunger type primer horns/flasks will deliver about 3 to 5 grains of 4f powder. They don't work as well with 3f powder even though 3f will work in your pan. The exact amount is not all that critical as long as you get enough to catch a spark well. You could fill your pan completely but that is just wasting powder and if you block your touch hole, you may slow your ignition. If you use enough powder to bank it up under the hole and leave a trail out in the pan to catch the spark, you will have about the right amount. More, just makes a bigger flash but does nothing to aid your ignition.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

--snipped--
Actually in real life electronically timed testing a vent buried in powder is faster than one with the powder piled away from the vent.
See the testing at blackpowdermag dot com

Lots of testing of locks and vents and where the powder is placed.
The idea that a little powder in the pan is better than level full cannot be shown when actual testing is done. This BS came into play in the late 1960s IIRC and I always thought it was BS since it leads to a sharp rise in the number of flashes in the pan and hang fires. Pletch simply proved it. He also proved that a low, bottom of the pan vent is just as fast as one at the "sunrise" position.
The main charge is fired by RADIANT HEAT in most vents since there is no direct contact with the flame unless the vent liner places the main charge very close to the pan.

The idea that flame shoots through the vent to the main charge is impossible since there is insufficient pressure to do this.
--snipped again--
Dan

Hi Dan,
The experimentation was under the title "Pan Vent Experiments" at blackpowdermag dot com. However I have been hacked, and the site is not back up yet. We hope to remedy the situation soon. The information is still available in a Muzzle Blasts article in March 2009.

You summarized the results well. The difference in time between a high vent, level vent, and a low vent (covered with prime) was statistically insignificant:
high vent -----.037 sec
level vent -----.036
low vent ------.038
These were the averages of 20 trials. What did make a difference was if prime was located against the barrel. Banking the powder away was slower .043-.048 seconds.

Photos in the article do show flame traveling into the vent of empty barrels. (Whether this remains to be true in loaded barrels is untried.) The was true at least when the priming was against the barrel. When priming was banked away almost no flame could be seen in the photo. (The fire coming out the right side of the barrel is through a cleanout hole from an earlier experiment.)



When I prime my favorite rifle this way, the prime is located almost against the 3fg barrel charge peaking through the vent. It is my opinion that when priming and barrel charge are this close together, they ignite as one charge instead of two separate ignitions.
Regards,
Pletch