Plain touch hole vs. Vent liner results

Holy Cow! My first trip to range was with a plain hole drilled into the barrel and ignition sucked, very slow and 50% flashes in the pan. Very frustrating to say the least. So I installed an inside coned vent liner (filed flush with the barrel for better appearance of course) and the results are quite dramatic. 100% sure fire ignition each and every shot and it seemed to fire INSTANTANEOUSLY. I kid you not, this baby seemed as fast as a modern firearm. It seemed to go off without ANY delay whatsoever. So there. I followed your advice, tried both setups and now I'm reporting my real world findings. I'm sure most of you aren't suprised at all.

 

[tg]

Interesting, I have heard many veteran builders/shooters find that the plain hole is quite satisfactory... must be one of those ML mystery things that are so common where something works for one but not for another. I have had a cpouple of plain hole guns that were quite fast, the holes were not the standard 1/16" which may be a factor. At any rate it sounds like you found what works for you.

 

[Zonie]

J James: Thanks for the report.
For what it's worth, my first BlackPowder gun was a "Kentuckian" flintlock made in Italy in 1970.
It had a good lock on it and a drilled hole (no liner) and had flashes in the pan about 20% of the time (80% success).
When I started building "component" rifles (I hate the term KIT unless we are talking TC/Lyman etc) I just started using the liners and I didn't look back.

Hard to argue with success, I say.

 

[JerryToth]

Hi J James;

Somewhere, a while back, a saw a picture of a primitive tool that was used to cone the hole on the inside of the barrel. It was a sort of what we might call an "angle drill" device. This task would have obviously been done with the breechplug removed.

I'm just thinking, (wondering), if this might have been a "better way" to build a touch hole back in those times when the touch hole liners weren't around?

Regards,

Jerry.

 

[Birddog6]

I think you will find allot of the vents in old rifle barrels were so large you can stick a matchstick in them, plus allot of them were tapered from the inside. Size does matter in this instance. If I was going to build one without a vent liner, I would also taper it from the inside.

But anyway, glad to hear ya got the gun is performing to your satisfaction.

Custom Muzzleloaders & Custom Skinning Knives

 

The round-ball type dremil tool burr is excellent for this procedure. A size of 3/16" would be perfect. After buring out the touch-hle from 1/16" up to whatever is too large for you, installation of a White Lightening liner would be an easy chore. While the 1/4" size is OK, I prefer the 5/16X32 size with the hole opened up to 1/16".
: My bro just finished a .62 cal smoothbored, swamp-barreled holster pistol. With the drillled hle of 1/16", ignition was horrible with the small Queen-Anne pistol lock. Installation of the 5/16X32 vent liner made ignition 100%.
: Both this pistol and my .54 shot buck and ball loads beautifully at 12 yds., with the pattern of all 4 projectiles being 6" to 8". These were a 'blast' to shoot on B27 targets.

 

[Zonie]

"...a "better way" to build a touch hole back in those times when the touch hole liners weren't around?"

Touch hole liners have been around a Lonnnnnng time.
Of course the Royaltys guns used things like Gold and Platinum.

I wonder what a nice Platinum liner is going for now-a-days?

 

[tg]

"Not common" might have been a better way of saying it than "not around".... one well known builder/historian feels many of the liners on originals were installed when re-converting to flint from percission in the 20th century when ML shooting became popular again, thus giving a skewed
perspective of the use of liners on originals.

 

I don't know this to be fact, but I feel the gold or platinum liners were "Cast" in place, rather than screwed in as our present liners. Having a thread would help the liner or 'blow plug' to hold against the pressure developed with normal loads. The 'guess' would answer to why there are threads if any. As I haven't removed any plugs or vents, I also don't know threads to be fact.
: Does anyone know this as a fact?

 

[rabjr]

I take it this is "muddy water?". No one really knows for sure what a gunsmith in 1790 did or did not do to insure ignition? Were guns coned on the inside of the vent? The outside of the vent? Or just a hole drilled in the average everyday hunting rifle of the time? I find it hard to believe our forefathers settled for 50% ignition rate, or even a 20% failure rate seems high to me when a misfire ment you went hungry or worse your life. A misfire due to damp powder or damaged flint once in great while is one thing but if its a "manure shoot" every time you pulled the trigger, as to whether the gun went off or not, well I sure wouldn't want to leave the farm and explore the west.

Our history tells us about the deeds of alot of great men who went westward, what made their guns reliable?? Don't tell me Dan'l Boone or Davey Crockette crossed their fingers every time they pulled the trigger.

 

[tg]

I suspect that with the larger holes of the period that ignition was good, this is supported by those who duplicate the originals, some may have coned the inside or outside but liners were not the norm, the small hole and extreme coning of the inside of a liner is a mostly modern concept, if done properly a plain hole with no liner can be very fast
now......as it was then.