Skychief
69 Cal.
Any here prefer the regular old drum system in place of a patent breech for their percussion rifles?
-
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
Prefer drum instead of patent breech?
- Thread starter Skychief
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I'll say that I like the old side drum ignition.
It's drawn in the lower right hand area in this sketch
I've never had a problem with one of these side drums however I have had mis-fires and slow fires with both the Chambered breech and the CVA Patent breechs.
I attribute these to the long flame channel the caps flame must travel thru if some powder from the main powder charge isn't blown back thru it to rest near the bottom of the nipple.
As can be seen in the sketch, the CVA patent breech is somewhat similar to Nock's Patent breech in that the newly loaded powder must travel thru a fairly small hole to begin to approach the bottom of the nipple.
Admittedly, the powder has to travel thru a fairly small hole in a side drum before getting to the bottom of the nipple but the distance is seldom over 3/4" and usually more like 1/2".
About the only weak part of the side drum system is in poorly made rifles/pistols. In these poorly made guns the drum is left standing proud of the lock plate. That is to say, it is not making contact with it.
In this condition, the threads must absorb all of the hammers energy and the threads can shear off from the impact.
Properly made, the side drum is not "standing alone" and relying on the threads to take the force of the hammer blow.
The underside of the drum should be in contact with the lockplate when the barrel is installed into the stock so that the force of the hammer blow is conveyed thru the nipple to the drum and thru the drum directly into the side plate.
Installed this way there is no energy directed thru the threads into the barrel so there is no concern about the threads shearing off.
Side drums have been used for over 175 years and many original guns are still functioning fine.
There are those who say the guns fitted with a chambered breech or Patent breech shoot "harder" or cleaner and this was the goal of Nock when he first came up with the idea.
Nock's idea was that the small cross-ways chambers powder would create a jet of flame that would travel thru the main powder charge and give a faster, more thorough ignition. Tests seemed to agree with this but I have never noticed a difference with Manton's Chambered style breeches.
I will admit that I've never owned a real Nock's Patent style breached gun but in order for one of these to work well quite a bit of the main charge must end up in the small chamber behind the bore and it seems to me that filling this chamber could be as difficult as filling the long flame channel in a chambered breech.
It's drawn in the lower right hand area in this sketch
I've never had a problem with one of these side drums however I have had mis-fires and slow fires with both the Chambered breech and the CVA Patent breechs.
I attribute these to the long flame channel the caps flame must travel thru if some powder from the main powder charge isn't blown back thru it to rest near the bottom of the nipple.
As can be seen in the sketch, the CVA patent breech is somewhat similar to Nock's Patent breech in that the newly loaded powder must travel thru a fairly small hole to begin to approach the bottom of the nipple.
Admittedly, the powder has to travel thru a fairly small hole in a side drum before getting to the bottom of the nipple but the distance is seldom over 3/4" and usually more like 1/2".
About the only weak part of the side drum system is in poorly made rifles/pistols. In these poorly made guns the drum is left standing proud of the lock plate. That is to say, it is not making contact with it.
In this condition, the threads must absorb all of the hammers energy and the threads can shear off from the impact.
Properly made, the side drum is not "standing alone" and relying on the threads to take the force of the hammer blow.
The underside of the drum should be in contact with the lockplate when the barrel is installed into the stock so that the force of the hammer blow is conveyed thru the nipple to the drum and thru the drum directly into the side plate.
Installed this way there is no energy directed thru the threads into the barrel so there is no concern about the threads shearing off.
Side drums have been used for over 175 years and many original guns are still functioning fine.
There are those who say the guns fitted with a chambered breech or Patent breech shoot "harder" or cleaner and this was the goal of Nock when he first came up with the idea.
Nock's idea was that the small cross-ways chambers powder would create a jet of flame that would travel thru the main powder charge and give a faster, more thorough ignition. Tests seemed to agree with this but I have never noticed a difference with Manton's Chambered style breeches.
I will admit that I've never owned a real Nock's Patent style breached gun but in order for one of these to work well quite a bit of the main charge must end up in the small chamber behind the bore and it seems to me that filling this chamber could be as difficult as filling the long flame channel in a chambered breech.
arcticap
54 Cal.
Many of the Pedersoli percussion guns have the drum ignition system.
I like guns with drums because they have a larger size clean out screw.
I like guns with drums because they have a larger size clean out screw.
My only experiance has been with the CVA/Traditions drum styles.
They work fine IF they'er absolutely clean.
I find the T/C-Lyman style patent breech to be just a bit more user friendly.
I'd think a "Side Drum" like the one Zonie pictured would be more reliable,,but,,I'm just guessin,,never had one.
They work fine IF they'er absolutely clean.
I find the T/C-Lyman style patent breech to be just a bit more user friendly.
I'd think a "Side Drum" like the one Zonie pictured would be more reliable,,but,,I'm just guessin,,never had one.
Based on using them for 8 years in various TC caplocks, and 12 years in T/C, GM, and Rice barreled Flintlocks, given a choice, I wouldn't own a muzzleloader without a patent breech.
From those who actually have a lot of hands on experience using them in a broad range of calibers and gauges, reality is that they're simply outstanding.
Patent breeches are fast and reliable...which is why they were invented. And todays versions of patent breeches do not have the lower powder chamber positioned horizontally so there's no place for fouling to accumulate. Reality is that today's design actually prevents gunk from getting down deep into the breech area that can block the flame channel from a nipple or a pan...fast, clean, 100% reliable ignition.
In having some longrifle barrels built in the past couple years, I've had patent breech plugs made for all of them... .45/.50/.58cal rifles and .28/.20ga smoothbores...recommended by TOW, I use the Custom Breeching Shop owned by Dennis McCandless in Las Cruces, NM. And as further testimony you can take it to the bank that if they didn't work as advertised, I sure wouldn't be spending the extra money for the cost of having the custom plugs machined and all the shipping costs of the barrels to & from New Mexico every time.
:wink:
From those who actually have a lot of hands on experience using them in a broad range of calibers and gauges, reality is that they're simply outstanding.
Patent breeches are fast and reliable...which is why they were invented. And todays versions of patent breeches do not have the lower powder chamber positioned horizontally so there's no place for fouling to accumulate. Reality is that today's design actually prevents gunk from getting down deep into the breech area that can block the flame channel from a nipple or a pan...fast, clean, 100% reliable ignition.
In having some longrifle barrels built in the past couple years, I've had patent breech plugs made for all of them... .45/.50/.58cal rifles and .28/.20ga smoothbores...recommended by TOW, I use the Custom Breeching Shop owned by Dennis McCandless in Las Cruces, NM. And as further testimony you can take it to the bank that if they didn't work as advertised, I sure wouldn't be spending the extra money for the cost of having the custom plugs machined and all the shipping costs of the barrels to & from New Mexico every time.
:wink:
mgcrumster
32 Cal.
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
Greetings Skychief,
The Drum ignition was used to convert flintlock to percussion by the old Gunsmiths. The patent breech is a much stronger and better designed ignition. Mr.Dennis McCandless Ph.#(575) 382-1978 :bow: has made patent Breeches for a number of my target rifles, and these rifles have always fired properly. Dennis does excellent machine work on his custom patent breeches. Best wishes! mgcrumster
The Drum ignition was used to convert flintlock to percussion by the old Gunsmiths. The patent breech is a much stronger and better designed ignition. Mr.Dennis McCandless Ph.#(575) 382-1978 :bow: has made patent Breeches for a number of my target rifles, and these rifles have always fired properly. Dennis does excellent machine work on his custom patent breeches. Best wishes! mgcrumster
First let me say "Thank You Zonie" for those excellent illustrations, the best I've seen anywhere!
Some people have very strong opinions as to the virtues of the chambered breech, opinions based on having NEVER TRIED any other form. I've owned and used all of the various breech systems except the true Nock's style. They all work and one can learn to compensate for and live with the limitations of most of them.
The very best system places the nipple in direct contact with the powder charge, such as in the underhammer or sideslapper types. Any system which relies on a small flash channel to carry fire from the cap to the powder is prone to problems. The longer the passage the greater the problem, and the smaller the diameter of the passage the greater the problem. The system used by CVA, Traditons and Pedersoli is just very troublesome due to the small powder chamber and can be greatly improved by boring it out larger. In some degree the system used by T/C and the Italian clones can be improved by boring the flash channel larger but one can't go very large with those. Still, enlarging the flash channel from a number 8 screw size to a number 10 is a very worthwhile improvement.
The real test of any ignition system comes with the hard to ignite substitute powders. A rifle which does fine with 3f Goex may have problems with RS Pyrodex due both to the higher ignition temps required by Pyrodex and also to the larger granule size which won't permit it to flow into small passages. Some people will just blame the powder and overlook the fact that it works just fine in a rifle with a better designed breech.
The only real drawback to the drum and nipple system is that drilling a large hole into the side of the barrel does weaken it, and that goes for both percussion drums and flint vent liners. With very thin barrel walls, such as in a 13/16" .45 caliber or 7/8" .50 caliber that can be an issue. With thicker barrel walls however, strong enough is strong enough and I'll take the reliablity of the drum style over greater strength that I don't need.
Some people have very strong opinions as to the virtues of the chambered breech, opinions based on having NEVER TRIED any other form. I've owned and used all of the various breech systems except the true Nock's style. They all work and one can learn to compensate for and live with the limitations of most of them.
The very best system places the nipple in direct contact with the powder charge, such as in the underhammer or sideslapper types. Any system which relies on a small flash channel to carry fire from the cap to the powder is prone to problems. The longer the passage the greater the problem, and the smaller the diameter of the passage the greater the problem. The system used by CVA, Traditons and Pedersoli is just very troublesome due to the small powder chamber and can be greatly improved by boring it out larger. In some degree the system used by T/C and the Italian clones can be improved by boring the flash channel larger but one can't go very large with those. Still, enlarging the flash channel from a number 8 screw size to a number 10 is a very worthwhile improvement.
The real test of any ignition system comes with the hard to ignite substitute powders. A rifle which does fine with 3f Goex may have problems with RS Pyrodex due both to the higher ignition temps required by Pyrodex and also to the larger granule size which won't permit it to flow into small passages. Some people will just blame the powder and overlook the fact that it works just fine in a rifle with a better designed breech.
The only real drawback to the drum and nipple system is that drilling a large hole into the side of the barrel does weaken it, and that goes for both percussion drums and flint vent liners. With very thin barrel walls, such as in a 13/16" .45 caliber or 7/8" .50 caliber that can be an issue. With thicker barrel walls however, strong enough is strong enough and I'll take the reliablity of the drum style over greater strength that I don't need.
mgcrumster
32 Cal.
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
Greetings Coyote joe,
In regard to skychiefs question, (Any here prefer the regular old drum system in place of the patent breech for their percussion rifles?) I based my opinion on his question! As far as basing my opinion on NEVER TRIED any other form.... I have built over 35 rifles of all types, from Flintlocks, drum, and chambered breech, to side slappers, and under hammers. The most reliable and quickest ignition is the sealed ignition used by round ball, and slug guns, period! I have also been a heavy roundball bench, an slug gun shooter for over 30 years, and stand by my opinion... Best wishes! mgcrumster :thumbsup:
In regard to skychiefs question, (Any here prefer the regular old drum system in place of the patent breech for their percussion rifles?) I based my opinion on his question! As far as basing my opinion on NEVER TRIED any other form.... I have built over 35 rifles of all types, from Flintlocks, drum, and chambered breech, to side slappers, and under hammers. The most reliable and quickest ignition is the sealed ignition used by round ball, and slug guns, period! I have also been a heavy roundball bench, an slug gun shooter for over 30 years, and stand by my opinion... Best wishes! mgcrumster :thumbsup:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2004
- Messages
- 14,767
- Reaction score
- 319
Skychief said:
I've got several of each in different styles and models, and I only really notice one difference. I prefer cleaning guns that have a drum. No science or fact in it at all, but somehow I have more confidence when I can use a simple scraper to clean, dry and oil the plug face, rather than rooting around with brushes and pipe cleaners and such inside a tapered breech. Just an itch, but it's a itch that needs scratching.
