What is the purpose of having a hollow breech plug that is narrower than the bore? My first encounter with one was on my second gun after having learned on a percussion gun that had a whatever you call a breech plug that isn't a patent breech plug. I didn't know about it until the gun wouldn't fire because the breech plug had filled up. When in history did the patent breech plug come along? What is the other kind called? Can a patent breech plug be replaced with the other kind? Can a patent breech plug be ground down flush? I like my guns that the jag can go all the way to the plug when cleaning, but of course, I've learned to deal with the patent breech plug.
Patent breech plug - why?
- Thread starter herbpagel
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Welcome to the Forum. 
First off, we need to get some of the names and shapes identified so I'll start off with a good crossection of the real "Patent Breech" as patented by Henry Nock in England.
This was Patented in 1787 for use in flintlock shotguns that Mr. Nock was famous for.
It was intended to use the small chamber which connects to the vent hole to first ignite and then send a mighty flame up thru the main powder charge. It was thought that this would improve the power and burning effectiveness of the main powder charge.
Joseph Manton, a competer to Nock wanted to use a similar idea of having a small chamber to create this jet of flame but because Nock had patented it he would have to pay royalties.
That led him to create a "Chambered Breech" which uses the smaller chamber that is coaxial with the guns bore. This is the design most of the modern factory guns are using.
Many people today erroneously call this Chambered breech a "Patent breech" but Manton never patented it.
There actually is a modern "Patent Breech" that was patented by either CVA or Ardesa, the Spanish company that makes the guns CVA and Traditions imports into the USA.
The sketches below show these configurations.
The breech style which doesn't have a dedicated chamber I call a Traditional breech.
It goes way back in time to the earliest matchlock guns and when all is said and done I consider it the most efficient and easiest to clean design of them all.
There are no small holes longer than 3/8 of an inch between the ignition source and the main powder charge with the flintlocks vent going directly into the powder charge. What could be simpler?
Because the Traditional design was used on all longrifles before the Patent and Chambered breech came along, all of the custom guns made today that reproduce the original guns use it (except for Roundballs guns). (He's a MLF member that has his own opinions and I'm sure you will be reading some of his posts on the forum.)
Anyway, getting back to your question, modifying any part of a gun is possible but it is usually not easy to do successfully and the cost is (IMO) not worth the small (if any) gain that would result.
First off, we need to get some of the names and shapes identified so I'll start off with a good crossection of the real "Patent Breech" as patented by Henry Nock in England.
This was Patented in 1787 for use in flintlock shotguns that Mr. Nock was famous for.
It was intended to use the small chamber which connects to the vent hole to first ignite and then send a mighty flame up thru the main powder charge. It was thought that this would improve the power and burning effectiveness of the main powder charge.
Joseph Manton, a competer to Nock wanted to use a similar idea of having a small chamber to create this jet of flame but because Nock had patented it he would have to pay royalties.
That led him to create a "Chambered Breech" which uses the smaller chamber that is coaxial with the guns bore. This is the design most of the modern factory guns are using.
Many people today erroneously call this Chambered breech a "Patent breech" but Manton never patented it.
There actually is a modern "Patent Breech" that was patented by either CVA or Ardesa, the Spanish company that makes the guns CVA and Traditions imports into the USA.
The sketches below show these configurations.
The breech style which doesn't have a dedicated chamber I call a Traditional breech.
It goes way back in time to the earliest matchlock guns and when all is said and done I consider it the most efficient and easiest to clean design of them all.
There are no small holes longer than 3/8 of an inch between the ignition source and the main powder charge with the flintlocks vent going directly into the powder charge. What could be simpler?
Because the Traditional design was used on all longrifles before the Patent and Chambered breech came along, all of the custom guns made today that reproduce the original guns use it (except for Roundballs guns). (He's a MLF member that has his own opinions and I'm sure you will be reading some of his posts on the forum.)
Anyway, getting back to your question, modifying any part of a gun is possible but it is usually not easy to do successfully and the cost is (IMO) not worth the small (if any) gain that would result.
http://www.positiveshooting.com/HistoryoftheSportingGun.html
Nock’s patent breech
Henry Nock’s “patent breech” of 1787 which it may be said without exaggeration revolutionised firearms ballistics.Nock’s great advance combined a chamber in the breech plug and an ante-chamber drilled cross-wise from the barrel touch hole and closed on the other side with a screw plug. Though it might seem a rather trivial development, Nock’s breech was, in fact, an invention of the greatest importance. Powder was now confined loosely in the ante chamber. When the priming ignited, there was an explosion rather than mere burning as before. Ignition and combustion of the main charge were much improved; less powder was needed. Wingshooting became easier (because of the reduction in delay between pulling the trigger and the gun firing) and barrels could be chopped down without loss of performance. The double-barrelled fowling piece began to be a practical proposition. And, as a result of these developments, a new style of sporting gun appeared towards the end of the Eighteenth century, typically half-stocked, with one or two barrels of about 30”.
Nock’s patent breech
Henry Nock’s “patent breech” of 1787 which it may be said without exaggeration revolutionised firearms ballistics.Nock’s great advance combined a chamber in the breech plug and an ante-chamber drilled cross-wise from the barrel touch hole and closed on the other side with a screw plug. Though it might seem a rather trivial development, Nock’s breech was, in fact, an invention of the greatest importance. Powder was now confined loosely in the ante chamber. When the priming ignited, there was an explosion rather than mere burning as before. Ignition and combustion of the main charge were much improved; less powder was needed. Wingshooting became easier (because of the reduction in delay between pulling the trigger and the gun firing) and barrels could be chopped down without loss of performance. The double-barrelled fowling piece began to be a practical proposition. And, as a result of these developments, a new style of sporting gun appeared towards the end of the Eighteenth century, typically half-stocked, with one or two barrels of about 30”.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,055
- Reaction score
- 7,310
turkey,
On a flinter? Just cannot imagine a justification for putting such a complicated geometry back down there.
Not saying I aint got them. Just caint see the point.
On a flinter? Just cannot imagine a justification for putting such a complicated geometry back down there.
Not saying I aint got them. Just caint see the point.
I'm guessing you didn't notice the Patent date for the original Nock Patent Breech was right at the pinnacle of the flintlock era?
It preceded the start of the percussion system by about 30 years.
As Spikebuck's post says, it was an improvement over the side vent system but just how much could be a subject for debate.
Like the chambered breech with its long flame channel hole that must convey the loose powder back to the vent hole, the real Patent breech must have its ante-chamber filled with loose powder to get reliable ignition. :grin:
It preceded the start of the percussion system by about 30 years.
As Spikebuck's post says, it was an improvement over the side vent system but just how much could be a subject for debate.
Like the chambered breech with its long flame channel hole that must convey the loose powder back to the vent hole, the real Patent breech must have its ante-chamber filled with loose powder to get reliable ignition. :grin:
GoodCheer said:
As Zonie point out
They was smart back then but still learning. BTW, as we still are today.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 833
- Reaction score
- 14
In my opinion the percussion system only was gaining popularity so fast, because you could modify the existing straight faced breech plug flint guns with comparably little effort.
The simple drum system (drum supported by lockplate of course)is in my opinion the best of both worlds. Better and faster ignition, but still easy to clean and maintain and very reliable. To refer to Zonies drawing: Pedersoli uses more a chambered breech (long and narrow) compared to the CVA breech. After cutting a CVA barrel off in front of the breech plug I could see the differences first hand. The CVA breech chamber is much shorter and thus in my opinion the better design, easier to clean and more reliable. As close as it can be to a welded on drum on a converted flintlock....
The simple drum system (drum supported by lockplate of course)is in my opinion the best of both worlds. Better and faster ignition, but still easy to clean and maintain and very reliable. To refer to Zonies drawing: Pedersoli uses more a chambered breech (long and narrow) compared to the CVA breech. After cutting a CVA barrel off in front of the breech plug I could see the differences first hand. The CVA breech chamber is much shorter and thus in my opinion the better design, easier to clean and more reliable. As close as it can be to a welded on drum on a converted flintlock....
ohio ramrod
75 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 7,473
- Reaction score
- 2,209
Excellent review of the "patent breeches" :bow:
Pete G
76 Cal.
To answer the question of "Why?" ...to sell more guns by utilizing the latest "New and Improved" technology.
Ever hear of an advertisement touting something as "Old and Perfectly Adequate"?
Ever hear of an advertisement touting something as "Old and Perfectly Adequate"?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,055
- Reaction score
- 7,310
Zonie said:
Yo Zonie, I know manufacturers began using them with flinters first. From my experience I just don't know why.
:idunno:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,055
- Reaction score
- 7,310
Was the strength of the breech joint improved?
:hmm:
:hmm:
Not really.GoodCheer said:
Nock's Patent Breech did create a jet of flame that fully penetrated the powder charge from rear to front causing it to ignite more uniformly.
I've read that the velocity of the shot charge increased and the fouling left behind decreased due to his design.
The chambered breech also produced similar results.
All of this was happening during a period where there was a lot of competition between the makers of fine British bird guns.
Many of the people who bought their guns from Great Britain's finest builders were wealthy individuals who could easily afford the very best and features like this were great selling points.
They separated the "finest" from the "common" designs that the riffraff would buy, don't you know? :grin:
IMHO patent breech and chambered breech plugs are a huge negative to reliability. Given the choice I would never have one. My experience is that oil gets in the passage and prevents the powder from getting in there in an ignitable condition.
My last shooting trip involved an Italian Hatfied flinter. The rifle simply did not go bang in a reliable way. All flash in the pan and no bang. I got disgusted and set it aside. Extreme unreliability can make a dangerous situation. I pulled the plug at home. The threads and snout on the plug is about 1 1/2" to 2" long. The passageway was under 1/4". The vent went through the side of the plug threads. IMHO this about as poor a way to make a breech plug as one could cook up.
I drilled out the chamber part significantly and opened up the vent liner a little. Hopefully it 'll shoot when I pull the trigger now. Reliability is far more important to me than any imagined advantage.
I want my guns to be reliable. I now shoot a Glock for IDPA. I resisted the plastic gun for years. Sure I could shoot a tack driving 1911, but my tack driving 1911 is not very reliable. When using factory ball ammo, the Glock never malfunctions, never. That is minimum standard for me. The gun must fire when I Pull the trigger.
Patented in 1787 for use in flintlock shotguns that Mr. Nock. As I examine the drawing is seems that the all thread between the plugs would stabalize the rear of the barrels and make soldering the pair and regulating them easier. The little chamber would be left from drilling the hole across. Why not market it as an improvement and patent it. Many people want the newest and best, now and then. It would be impossible to clean and soon fill up with fouling but, who is thinking that far ahead. IMHO it has no values
My last shooting trip involved an Italian Hatfied flinter. The rifle simply did not go bang in a reliable way. All flash in the pan and no bang. I got disgusted and set it aside. Extreme unreliability can make a dangerous situation. I pulled the plug at home. The threads and snout on the plug is about 1 1/2" to 2" long. The passageway was under 1/4". The vent went through the side of the plug threads. IMHO this about as poor a way to make a breech plug as one could cook up.
I drilled out the chamber part significantly and opened up the vent liner a little. Hopefully it 'll shoot when I pull the trigger now. Reliability is far more important to me than any imagined advantage.
I want my guns to be reliable. I now shoot a Glock for IDPA. I resisted the plastic gun for years. Sure I could shoot a tack driving 1911, but my tack driving 1911 is not very reliable. When using factory ball ammo, the Glock never malfunctions, never. That is minimum standard for me. The gun must fire when I Pull the trigger.
Patented in 1787 for use in flintlock shotguns that Mr. Nock. As I examine the drawing is seems that the all thread between the plugs would stabalize the rear of the barrels and make soldering the pair and regulating them easier. The little chamber would be left from drilling the hole across. Why not market it as an improvement and patent it. Many people want the newest and best, now and then. It would be impossible to clean and soon fill up with fouling but, who is thinking that far ahead. IMHO it has no values
What powder were you using. I have a Hatfield .45 flintlock with an Italian barrel and it has never failed to fire with Goex FFFG powder.
I have quite a few guns with the patient breech and never had a problem with any of them firing, even with Pyrodex. I didn't even know about the Patient breeches until I came here.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 13,055
- Reaction score
- 7,310
Comprendo, Zonie.
That makes sense. It could work sorta like what black powder cartridge target shooters sometimes use, when they put a small charge of fast burning smokeless powder beneath the main charge of black. So, the pre-cartridge / pre-smokeless engineering was created to accomplish pretty much the same thing in a manner safe for muzzleloading. Now that is cool.
That makes sense. It could work sorta like what black powder cartridge target shooters sometimes use, when they put a small charge of fast burning smokeless powder beneath the main charge of black. So, the pre-cartridge / pre-smokeless engineering was created to accomplish pretty much the same thing in a manner safe for muzzleloading. Now that is cool.
