Priming the pan (again)

[THOM]

A really old , cranky mossback I have a lot of respect for told me that some of the older flinters had wire loops up under the
cheek piece; and that a short piece of bird quill was stored there.. When loading, this was jammed into the touchhole; and then pulled out after all the loading was done..
I don't know about different powder sizes; but 3f down the barrel and 4f in the pan works for me.. as long as I wipe flint and pan with a cloth..
Like what was said before, we flint shooters are like water; the more we practice,the more we reach our own level.. :: ::
Winter well
limpin'frog :sleep: :no: :snore:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Post Rider, that old timer was right. The flame has to get through the powder. I'm no ballistics expert or engineer so I can't tell you how long it takes for the powder to burn. I can say that for powder to burn properly there has to be some space between the grains for oxygen (air space)which is an important part of the process. If your touchhole is full of powder and little or no air space, your primer is going to burn like a fuze. The same thing happens to the main charge if you ram the ball onto the powder. You end up damaging the powder plus you eliminate the air spaces between the grains. Black powder has to have oxygen to burn. I've seen many shooters ram a load hard and it resulted in a slow fire. You should gently seat the ball on the powder. This is easier to do if you wipe the bore between shots. Another thing that helps me is the fact that when I built my rifle I used a stainless touchhole bushing that is coned on the inside which means I have a very short channel between the primer and the charge. The only reason I pick it is to make sure there's not a piece of fouling that may have gotten pushed into it when I wiped it. I may be running the risk of getting off the topic a little, but while I'm here I'd like to suggest the next time anyone has to draw a live round from their gun to save the powder after you get the ball pulled and look at it. As you know, when you shove a ball screw into the ball, you're using a pretty good bit of force, but probably no more than you would if you ram the load hard when loading. Look at the powder you dump out. It doesn't look much like the nice FFFg or FFg that you loaded. It looks more like lumpy FFFFg or FFFFFg. It is very easily crushed and in that state also attracts moisture very quickly. I'm going to keep using FFFFg at the range while I have it, but I'm going to experiment more with using FFFg in the field and at primitive matches. I believe there's a chance that FFFg may be actually faster. I've been too sick to get out this week to shoot, but definitely plan to Saturday and that will be my primary experiment.
:results:

 

[Rat]

Stumpy I think you'll like that Chamber's lock, I have the Colonial Virginia on my Jaeger, and it's really something.

I was suprised at the strength of the mainspring at first. The one on my Brown Bess is much lighter...but it's quite obvious that it speeds up lock time for sure. Bess's lock is not what I would call slow, actually pretty fast, but the Chamber's lock is quite a bit faster, much like firing a cap lock. Also has the White Lighting vent liner, which after loading the main charge, you can see the main charge laying up against the touch hole. I thought that it might be hard on flints at first, but I'm still using the same flint that was in the Jaws when the Birddog sent it to me!

Generally speaking, I think the original guns had bigger touch-holes than what we are seeing on most current production flinters. I believe a bigger touch hole will generally be less fussy about loading procedures. I don't do any picking or prodding on the Jaeger...just look and see that the main charge is laying up against the hole real nice and that's it.

Now on Bess I do sometimes "feather" the hole, and it "seems" to speed lock time a bit...but I'm not really sure. It certainly is not required for reliability, she always goes off. And when grouse hunting I don't bother, concentrate more on getting her reloaded fast as possible. But the first load in a clean gun I'll "feather" it. However, I have never picked, prodded or poked anything into Bess's touch hole after the main charge was seated.

I still prime from a priming horn, and will continue to only for the reason that I like to. My priming horn is a cherished gift, and since I load my main charge from paper cartridges (therefor it's the only horn I gots) I still have a faster reload than if I measured a main charge from a horn. Whatever, I just LIKE my priming horn!!

Now if I ever have a large bear thrashing around on the ground after dropping it, and he's giving me the evil eye...I'll probably just pull her back to half-cock, prime from the main-charge cartridge, close the pan and then load the main charge and ball. Always have that option even if it's not the most wise method for loading on a regular basis.

Are you sure BP has to have oxygen to burn? I thought the Salt Peter was the oxidizer...??

Rat

 

[Tumblernotch]

You're right, it is. What I'm trying to say is, the tiny air spaces increase the burning area which produces a greater volume of gas as the ball moves down the barrel. It was discovered in the late 1850's that cannon powder exploded too suddenly and was consumed long before the ball left the barrel and produced unsafe strains on the barrel. There were experiments with perforated powder disks which increased the amount of air space which in turn increased the volume of gas and reduced the barrel pressure to a tolerable limit. I guess the costs of manufacture were too great and "Mammoth" powder (7/8"-1" grains) was a compromise. This allowed for large air spaces at a lower price. I know that's artillery, but muskets and rifles are the same thing, just a smaller scale. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, loose oxygen aids in the combustion of gunpowder. I do know that the flash form priming will jump a small air gap between it and the charge quicker than burning through a touchhole packed with powder. At least it has through all the years I've been shooting. But you are right! Gunpowder is 75% oxidizer!
:results:

 

[Keith]

Wouldn't that make black powder work better uncompressed then? When we compress the powder we reduce the number and size of the air spaces.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I would think so. You do want the ball seated firmly on the powder, but not mashing it. Too large an air space is not good either and if there is too much space between ball and powder, somehow there is a dangerous increase in pressure which can cause a burst barrel. That's why on the range they'll tell you (or should) that if you load a very dirty weapon and you can't get the ball all the way down onto the powder that it is best just to pull the load, clean and start over again. I was stupid one time and got a 560 gr. slug hung about 6" from the breech in a Whitworth. It was so tight I couldn't draw it out. I tilted the lockside away from me and pulled the trigger (which was even stupider!) :nono: It blew the nipple out of the bolster and snapped off the stirrup end of a brandnew tumbler I had just spent 3 days machining. I guess God allows me to survive such experiments so I can warn others what not to do. :redface: I was lucky that the threads were a little weak and that it was a heavy walled fluid steel barrel.
We need a powder expert to get on here and explain these things. If we do ram the ball down hard on the powder, it crushes it somewhat breaking the glaze in the process and making the powder more susceptible to any moisture in the barrel, including the lube. If you can feel the ball touch the powder solidly, you're safe and there will be enough spaces to allow the gas to expand. In the artillery experiments I mentioned earlier, compressed black powder disks were made with holes running through them length wise which allowed the fire to eat the holes larger which increased the burning area which in turn produced a greater volume of gas as the ball moved down the barrel. This was the foundation for the invention of modern progressive burning powder. I also believe this is the reason for long barrels in early weapons. It allowed the entire charge to be utilized. I didn't mean to go on such a long essay about this. I'm no expert at all and I'm not claiming to be right on the nose about it. I get most of my information from early ordnance manuals and small arms trials books, etc. And a little has come from what I have observed over the years, especially my mistakes. I'm sure there is somebody on here who can explain it better and could probably correct me. What I want to know is, how did we get from a half pan or a full pan of powder? I guess we've let the thread drift a bit. I sure didn't mean to.

 

[Tumblernotch]

Today, in spite of lousy weather conditions, we had our monthly shoot and I have decided that I'll probably stick with FFFFg for priming. FFFg works well enough, but I can see enough difference to continue with the finer powder. It is definitely faster. I was talking with one of our members who is probably the best shot we have and a winner of some National and regional level shoots and he said he would stick with FFFFg and even finer when he could get it. He also likes FFFFFFFg. He says that there are more surfaces exposed to the sparks with the finer powders. I have to agree with him. We both agreed that these powders were more vulnerable to dampness, but that would only be during wet hunting conditions which means you need to change it more often. On the range it would be no big deal. It's not in the pan long enough. I'd just say what ever works the best in your gun keep using it. It doesn't hurt to try something different every now and then.

 

[roundball]

I have decided that I'll probably stick with FFFFg for priming. FFFg works well enough, but I can see enough difference to continue with the finer powder. It is definitely faster.

:agree:
I'm glad to hear you say so...I've only be shooting flintlocks 3 years this month so I still consider myself a neophyte compared to some of the longer term guys and have not challenged the issue of 3F being as fast as 4F.

But shooting 3 weekends out of 4, year round for 3 years, I'm approaching the 4000 shot mark and can absolutely tell that my Goex 3F is a tad slower than my Goex 4F.

I've personally experiemented at the range, and while my Goex 3F certainly worked well as a priming powder, I could tell it was a whisker slower than my Goex 4F.

If I ran out of 4F, would I use 3F to keep hunting until I got some more 4F...yes...but I have no problems using 4F as prime, am convinced it's faster, and will also stay with it.

PS: I carry a small pocket pan primer in my shirt pocket that John at October Country made for me from the tip of a horn, it holds a couple hundred grains of 4F...has a 3grn plunger dispenser...simple, fast, and consistent...great looking little horn too!
:redthumb:

 

[Tumblernotch]

Hi roundball. I've been shooting BP for 31 years and flintlocks for the past 26 and I never questioned anybody about using anything but FFFFg for priming. Everybody used that. I have used FFg as priming in my Charleville musket and it worked OK, but I generally use FFFFg in it. This Forum got me to thinking about it and I thought I would play with it a little. It wouldn't scare me to use FFFg cause I know it works well enough, but I want as fast an ignition as I can get and I'll tell you why. I'm not the steadiest offhand shooter in the holler to start with and I don't need any more delay than necessary in touching that thang off. I have one of those little CVA cylinder flasks that hold about 100 grs. that I hang around my neck with a little plunger valve on it. I've used it for many years. The base end of it where the string attaches was just shrink fitted to the barrel, and one day as I was hunting it just fell apart. There was a fine crack in the barrel and it just slipped out. Luckily I found it and took it home and brazed the two back together then turned it down in the lathe. I've got a new one that I won in a match but I didn't want to replace that old one. Sentimental I guess. Or just mental. :youcrazy: I've got a priming horn but it's been years since I've used it for anything other than a storage horn. If I can ever find a nice flat horn for cheap :crackup: I may switch.

 

[2172]

Roundball, I usually find myself agreeing with you, but yesterday I shot a match with 3f...first time for a match, I'd been playing around with using it in backyard shooting up till now...I have a couple of cans of 4f, and will probably use them up, but when they're gone, I'm not going to replace them...if there is a difference in speed, I can't see it...Hank

 

[roundball]

Not an issue with me Hank...I try hard to speak in terms of "my" opinions...not even suggesting that other people should use 4F...I was just sharing that I "could tell" there was a perceptible difference using 3F compared to what I'm used to from the can and a half of 4F I've used so far.

And it might not even be a measurable difference in terms of the time it takes to get the ball out of the muzzle after the trigger breaks, but from a physchological point of view, if 3F "sounds/seems" slower to me than my 4F, I just have to stay with 4F...it would always nag at me if I thought I was getting "slower" ignition.
:redthumb:

 

[Tumblernotch]

roundball, both of you guys make a good point. 3F will set off the charge probably just as quick as 4F at least if it is the same quality powder. At the same time, I believe that 4F is more likely to ignite with a poor spark than 3F. I've found that the real fine powders such as 7F are unglazed which besides making them susceptible to moisture, also make them very easy to ignite. 4F gives a spark more surface to adhere to than a coarser powder and I don't believe that 4F is as well glazed than the coarser powders. I don't know GOEX's or DuPont's specs are for glazing, but some of their priming powders that I've used didn't seem glazed at all. I've never used Swiss, Elephant or the others for priming so I can't tell about them. I agree that there is probably no measurable difference between them, but the eye is faster than anything made to measure with and I have pretty good peripheral vision. When a priming charge goes off a shade below my expected standard I can "see" the difference. And sometimes I let it mislead me.

 

[Hoyt]

Well..I hope 4f is faster and more reliable I just went and bought a lb. of it from Basspro. Gobbler season starts sat. and need all the help I can get. Would 3f be better in the barrel..easier to ignite? I'm using 2f now. Also I will be hunting in the swamps of Central Fl. and it can be humid on occasion. When ya'll say half a pan of primer..you talkin about half full height wise or length wise?

 

[Tumblernotch]

Hi Hoyt. 3F will work just fine. I only use 2F in musket caliber guns, example; over .54 cal. And I believe that is what most other shooters do. I don't know what caliber you're using. 3F is a bit faster to ignite from what I've seen and heard. I've used it in a .58 cal rifle musket and get the same results with about 5 grains less than with 2F.
:results:
When I say a half pan, I mean don't fill it to the top. Don't let the powder level get above the touchhole. Right at the bottom of the touchhole works fine for me. One thing I do is try to keep the pan level as I can and from time to time lift the frizzen and make sure the powder is not piled up against the barrel, blocking the hole or all towards the outside. I put enough in to cover the bottom of the whole length of the pan. It gives you more surface for any sparks to hit.

 

[2172]

here's a couple of observations from my day at the range...I was experimenting with quantity as well as kind of powder...I found that about one third of the pan was plenty, and that having it slightly to the outside of the pan, away from the touch hole seemed to give good ignition, the only semi hang fire I had was when I put too much powder in the pan and didn't bother to brush some out.
My next experiment is to see what 2f does in my .50's..I've only used it in my 12 ga and my .58 up till now...Hank
PS, I did notice that I had more powder residue on the bbl in the area of the touch hole than I remember using 4f...

 

[Boonetract]

I have also always charged to the outside bottom of the pan, trying to taper the charge heavy on the outside to a trickle toward the touch hole. The shape of the pan fires the charge back to the touch-hole instead of strait up. A grey beard taught me that 25 years ago and it has always worked and given me very fast ignition. :m2c:

 

[Tumblernotch]

I was shooting Saturday and varied the amount of powder I used, but never more than half full. The least amount you can get by with, the better off you are. I was reading the following post from DeWitt and he talks of tapering the charge. That's not a bad idea either. I have an early Siler lock with a pan that has parallel sides and that way doesn't work as well for me, especially if I'm hunting, but it can be done. As for residue fouling in the pan or on the barrel, mine cakes worse when the air is dry. If there is enough humidity, it stays wet and kinda greasy and all I have to do is wipe it. When it's dry I have to stop and scrape it with a knife blade or screwdriver or start wetting it and wiping. The old timers in the Ordnance Dept. in the CW kept saying that coarser powders fouled less than the finer. Everybody I talk to today says the opposite. I'm too busy shootin' to pay a lot of attention and the only gun that I've used both in is a .58 rifle-musket. It seems to me that 2F may be a little cleaner, but the only way to really know is to fire prepared paper cartridges with properly lubed bullets at the same rate using both sizes of powder and see which can be fired more without wiping. They would also have to be done in exactly the same weather conditions. Weather plays a big part in all aspects of BP shooting. Priming, load and aiming. :results: :m2c: