Guest
Whats the normal diameter of the flash hole in a percussion nipple? I know some folks out there drill them out I think this might not be safe, ands maybe would affect consistency of your load, :front:your input appreciated
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Old Charlie
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 686
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't think this is a good idea. It lets to much blow back through the nipple. I have a pistol that was doing this. After checking I found that someone had drilled it out. I put a new nipple on it and now it is fine.
OLd Charlie
OLd Charlie
The little hole is about .030 depending on the brand of nipple you buy.
While that sounds small, the reason Old Charlie mentioned is the key.
If the hole is too large, the chamber pressures can blow back up thru the nipple and raise the hammer.
Even at .030, most guns hammers raise a little, but if the hole has been drilled out it can be so bad it will blow the hammer back to half **** (or further).
This isn't good for the lock, and it can ruin the guns accuracy.
IMO, a undamaged nipple with a #11 cap should fire a properly loaded gun 99% of the time if it's shooting black powder.
If it is shooting Pyrodex or the other black powder substitutes, it should be at least 95% reliable.
Of course, a lot of this reliability depends on the caps your shooting.
If they are old, off the wall brand (I have some that I don't even know who made them. The can says "Made in Italy") you can't expect them to work very well.
I know others will not agree, but I think CCI standard and Remingtons are good, and about equal to each other.
RWS 1075s are noticably more powerful and CCI Magnum is about the most powerful.
While that sounds small, the reason Old Charlie mentioned is the key.
If the hole is too large, the chamber pressures can blow back up thru the nipple and raise the hammer.
Even at .030, most guns hammers raise a little, but if the hole has been drilled out it can be so bad it will blow the hammer back to half **** (or further).
This isn't good for the lock, and it can ruin the guns accuracy.
IMO, a undamaged nipple with a #11 cap should fire a properly loaded gun 99% of the time if it's shooting black powder.
If it is shooting Pyrodex or the other black powder substitutes, it should be at least 95% reliable.
Of course, a lot of this reliability depends on the caps your shooting.
If they are old, off the wall brand (I have some that I don't even know who made them. The can says "Made in Italy") you can't expect them to work very well.
I know others will not agree, but I think CCI standard and Remingtons are good, and about equal to each other.
RWS 1075s are noticably more powerful and CCI Magnum is about the most powerful.
Will Bison
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 152
- Reaction score
- 2
Good subject.
A number of years ago I used a set of wire guages to measure some sample nipples. The variation was astonishing. The smallest (I don't have my notes anymore so I'm going from memory here) was on the order of .025 and the largest was in a musket nipple that was bored straight, all the way through. Quite a variation.
If I had to pick a good size I'd go with .030. Having said that I'll also state that there is nothing special about .030, it's just an arbitrary number.
The more important consideration is reliable ignition vs hammer bounce. On the one extreme, too small a hole won't admit sufficient flash to ignite the main charge. At the other end, too large a hole allows back pressure to force the hammer back. The hammer can be forced back hard enough to cause failure/damage of the lock.
To "adjust" my rifles I load a maximum charge and observe for hammer bounce. If the hammer comes back to half ****, the hole is too large. If I find the remnants of the cap still clamped between the hammer and nipple it means the hammer did not move. If the cap has cleared the nipple and the hammer remains down that's great. That means the hammer lifted just enough for the cap fragments to clear the nipple. This is where the .030 comes in, I have found by experimenting with my rifles and loads that .030 is optimum for my guns.
In a gun sans a set trigger, continued trigger pressure after the discharge will prevent the sear from engaging thus making it difficult to determine the amount of bounce. This is resolved by "snapping" the trigger. This is accomplished by starting the finger off the front of the trigger guard and snapping it back to strike the trigger and then allowing the finger to continue past the trigger. Takes a bit of practice.
For revolver nipples, too large a hole can cause multiple discharges. The back pressure actually forces the hammer to full **** or beyond and rotates the cylinder. Since the finger is still holding the trigger back the hammer is free to fall on the next fresh charge. While some may think a "full auto" '51 Navy is cool, the damage to the action is severe. No revolver is designed to operate that fast. The inertial forces of the cylinder acting on the hand and bolt will quickly destroy both parts.
A number of years ago I used a set of wire guages to measure some sample nipples. The variation was astonishing. The smallest (I don't have my notes anymore so I'm going from memory here) was on the order of .025 and the largest was in a musket nipple that was bored straight, all the way through. Quite a variation.
If I had to pick a good size I'd go with .030. Having said that I'll also state that there is nothing special about .030, it's just an arbitrary number.
The more important consideration is reliable ignition vs hammer bounce. On the one extreme, too small a hole won't admit sufficient flash to ignite the main charge. At the other end, too large a hole allows back pressure to force the hammer back. The hammer can be forced back hard enough to cause failure/damage of the lock.
To "adjust" my rifles I load a maximum charge and observe for hammer bounce. If the hammer comes back to half ****, the hole is too large. If I find the remnants of the cap still clamped between the hammer and nipple it means the hammer did not move. If the cap has cleared the nipple and the hammer remains down that's great. That means the hammer lifted just enough for the cap fragments to clear the nipple. This is where the .030 comes in, I have found by experimenting with my rifles and loads that .030 is optimum for my guns.
In a gun sans a set trigger, continued trigger pressure after the discharge will prevent the sear from engaging thus making it difficult to determine the amount of bounce. This is resolved by "snapping" the trigger. This is accomplished by starting the finger off the front of the trigger guard and snapping it back to strike the trigger and then allowing the finger to continue past the trigger. Takes a bit of practice.
For revolver nipples, too large a hole can cause multiple discharges. The back pressure actually forces the hammer to full **** or beyond and rotates the cylinder. Since the finger is still holding the trigger back the hammer is free to fall on the next fresh charge. While some may think a "full auto" '51 Navy is cool, the damage to the action is severe. No revolver is designed to operate that fast. The inertial forces of the cylinder acting on the hand and bolt will quickly destroy both parts.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,715
- Reaction score
- 526
The ones that I make for my underhammers are .032. We checked several many years ago and that was the size that we decided on. I am sure that .030-.032 would be just fine.
Hmmm, Strange this came up.
I'm replacing my nipple now. The one being replace is probable 10 yrs. old. I just chuck them up and turn the mushroom off and polish from time to time.
I just noticed the new one is noticably longer! :hmm:
My notes tell me I've drilled them out to a #56 (.046) drill to eliminate miss-fires.
"Just for giggles" I don't think I'll drill the new one until I try it (will keep the older one with me though).
I'll get back to you on this (shooting tomorrow) and let you know how I make out.
I see no problem drilling them out (within reason) to get 100% ignition. Hammer bouce wouldbe excessive, but my caps are always still there after firing and don't believe I'm having much (if any) bounch.
PS; Agree with the CCI Magnums being more fire. (love'em!)
I'm replacing my nipple now. The one being replace is probable 10 yrs. old. I just chuck them up and turn the mushroom off and polish from time to time.
I just noticed the new one is noticably longer! :hmm:
My notes tell me I've drilled them out to a #56 (.046) drill to eliminate miss-fires.
"Just for giggles" I don't think I'll drill the new one until I try it (will keep the older one with me though).
I'll get back to you on this (shooting tomorrow) and let you know how I make out.
I see no problem drilling them out (within reason) to get 100% ignition. Hammer bouce wouldbe excessive, but my caps are always still there after firing and don't believe I'm having much (if any) bounch.
PS; Agree with the CCI Magnums being more fire. (love'em!)
JackAubrey
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 586
- Reaction score
- 5
I think he just said "nipple"!!! :crackup:
