Priming the pan first

[Gavinm28]

So I have a flintlock musket and I load it with paper cartridges, therefore I prime the pan first and ram everything else down the barrel second. I've recently been hearing a lot of people say that priming the pan first is seriously unsafe, even if the gun is on half-**** and I do not lean over the gun when ramming. I don't particularly think there's anything wrong with it, it is historically accurate after all. Am I really committing a heinous crime against God with this loading procedure, or do people just say I am because their smooth-brained friend had a shooting accident once.

 

[Enfield58]

It's true that they primed the pan first back in the day.

The question that you have to ask yourself is if you wish to be authentic AND risk your life or limb while doing it?

As a side note; a friend of mine took a blank charge to his face during a civil war reenactment. Another reenactor took a fall (pretending to be shot) with his LOADED rifle.

The reenactor taking the fall discharged his rifle in my friend's face. The offending party ran off, never to be found again when this happened.

My friend was in the hospital for about a week. He had a nasty scar on the left cheek that was about 4 inches long and 1 1/2 inches wide.

That's what a blast from a loaded musket will do to your face.

 

[mooman76]

There are allot of things that are "historically accurate" that I wouldn't do today. One is loading into the barrel directly from the powder horn.

 

[Gavinm28]

I understand that if it were to go off near my face, it would suck, but is it really a common occurrence as a result of priming the pan first? Of course I'm aware of the possibility, I take caution while loading and I angle it away from me when ramming, but I've always seen it as just that--something to be aware of. I haven't heard of enough instances of it happening for it to be a considerable risk. There are a lot of "risks" with black powder shooting, but many of them can be greatly reduced just by following procedure and understanding what your gun requires. However, if accidents have happened as a result of priming the pan first, and under safe conditions, then maybe I am wrong about it being a nearly insignificant risk.

 

[87TT]

I have this vision of a ramrod fired into the air and coming down like a javelin. Never mind the singed body parts.

 

[Bob McBride]

I’ve primed first when shooting by the numbers but I won’t make it a part of my regular routine. With the pan loaded and closed, you are completely in the hands of your half **** notch. How well the sear seated in the notch, whether the notch has chipped, or has collected dirt and oil, leveling off the notch, whether your sear/tumbler interface is off for any number of reasons, all should be considered as you’re ramming a ball, bouncing your rod, etc. because you won’t know any of that has happened until the sear slips....

For what it’s worth, out of thousands of BP balls fired over decades my number one in the field lock issue has been related to tumbler notches unexpectedly not holding. Sometimes it was a lock assembly problem, once I even had my mortise swell just enough from humidity and rain on a hunting trip that i had to get in there with my pocket knife to clear a bit of wood because my full **** notch wouldn’t hold. Build error by me that didn’t rear its head until it did. So many things can go wrong....

Done enough, the least likely thing WILL happen. Plan for it.

 

[Col. Batguano]

While it's true that generally you don't put your hand over the top of the RR while loading (which would surely penetrate your hand during a discharge), there is still the matter of the ball down there, which, at a minimum, would certainly injure you hand and fingers coming out of there. Even without a ball down there that gas (and maybe wadding?) is coming out of there pretty darn fast.

Because not much is lost by going the un-PC route, why not err on the side of safety? If you get in to a REAL firefight with your ML'er then you can go the other rout.

 

[rdlowe]

At some point in history, on some battlefield or in some garrison, some guy probably primed his pan and his lock failed as he was ramming his charge home. A million more guys got away with it, just like the millions who get to work safely every day vs. the guy who doesn’t. It’s up to you to determine your own acceptable risk level in as far as you don’t endanger others who might be unwilling participants. Having said that, a good, thick leather frizzen stall can never hurt your odds.

 

[user 36911]

They were stupid back then. Not something i'd copy.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

So I have a flintlock musket and I load it with paper cartridges, therefore I prime the pan first and ram everything else down the barrel second. I've recently been hearing a lot of people say that priming the pan first is seriously unsafe, even if the gun is on half-**** and I do not lean over the gun when ramming. I don't particularly think there's anything wrong with it, it is historically accurate after all. Am I really committing a heinous crime against God with this loading procedure, or do people just say I am because their smooth-brained friend had a shooting accident once.

Well let's not confuse a combat loading technique, designed for speed, with what hunters and other shooters did.
It wasn't stupid. When under stress, your fine motor skills go to crap, and being shot at or charged by dangerous game is about as much stress that a human endures. So the men were not provided powder horns in normal cases. The only powder they were allowed to have was what was with the cartridge. It's the fastest way to load a musket for speed.

One thing most folks don't understand is that one does not hold the rammer when seating the musket ball. It's that loose. One pushes down the cartridge with the ball, then backs off the rammer and throws it once or twice to use inertia to seat the round. When it is removed, the rammer is then pulled out with two fingers and when replaced into the musket the little finger pushes it back into place with the whole hand away from the muzzle (and the bayonet).

So they did know that a "cook off" could happen, and tried to mitigate the situation BUT privates are easy to come by, and you don't need 10 fingers to be a private......

LD

 

[user 36911]

Sorry, but they were stupid. Standing face to face and shooting at each other is a brainless way to fight. A lot of death for a dumb way to fight. Adding an unsafe way to load doesn't help.

Who would copy from that?

 

[Gavinm28]

Sorry, but they were stupid. Standing face to face and shooting at each other is a brainless way to fight. A lot of death for a dumb way to fight. Adding an unsafe way to load doesn't help.

Who would copy from that?

Do some research. It was quite the most effective way of fighting for the time period. Anyone who says that "people were so much [dumber/smarter/other adjective] back then compared to now" doesn't have a very good understanding of history. They knew what worked for their times, and people like you criticize them because it wouldn't work for our times.

 

[Bob McBride]

Sorry, but they were stupid. Standing face to face and shooting at each other is a brainless way to fight. A lot of death for a dumb way to fight. Adding an unsafe way to load doesn't help.

Who would copy from that?

Not to veer off topic but consider how you would stop 30k men coming to take your towns, industry, resources, and your women, assuming you had 30k men of your own. Your options are limited unless you were willing to give up what it is they were coming for. It was the only way to fight if you wanted to keep anything at all. It was the perfect and only defense from a marauding army, that was willing to take casualties themselves, that must be met and stopped before it left you with nothing. You must also quickly move to offense. You had to maneuver, sans mechanization, to cut their supply, harass, etc while protecting your own supply and industrial centers... So, there you are, in no time at all, fighting just like they did, like it or not.

That said, they strongly preferred it if you just dropped the keys and fled in terror.

 

[Gavinm28]

I think I'll stick to my current loading method. I get that the lock can have an error, but it seems pretty unlikely. It's also worth mentioning that I shoot a pedersoli, so I doubt it will have a lock-related issue. I'll definitely heed your advice on my rifle though, and prime it last. I'll be sure to tell you if I die.

 

[user 36911]

Gavin.......No, it was stupid for any time. Just because it was done doesn't make it the best method. Did they fight the Indians that way too?

Don't make assumptions about what I understand.

 

[Gavinm28]

Gavin.......No, it was stupid for any time. Just because it was done doesn't make it the best method. Did they fight the Indians that way too?

Don't make assumptions about what I understand.

They did fight Indians that way, and for that type of enemy it did not work. However, due to the inaccuracy at long ranges, if people were to use a modern fighting system of "taking cover" a battle could go on for days with very few deaths or progress. The objective with muzzleloading weapons was to fire as much lead at the enemy as possible, and volley fire was the best way to do this. Not to mention that trench warfare and other fighting styles were used quite frequently, not just linebattles. This is why I make assumptions about what you understand, because although you only said one sentence, it was still wrong. No historian has ever said "people were dumb back then but they aren't now." Do you really think the military generals decided their tactics out of stupidity?

 

[Gavinm28]

Gavin.......No, it was stupid for any time. Just because it was done doesn't make it the best method. Did they fight the Indians that way too?

Don't make assumptions about what I understand.

Also many battles had only a few volleys, but were ultimately decided with a bayonet charge. If the enemy were to charge, having scattered troops is a good way to lose.

 

[Bob McBride]

Do you really think the military generals decided their tactics out of stupidity?

Most of the stupidity from Generals was not seeing that tactics needed to be changed before taking damage to their army. A hard thing to recognize prior to an engagement. That said, the only way to face a line of battle, if you plan on holding onto your industrial centers and towns, which are your main advantage, is with a line of your own. Period.

People tend to think they just met in a field to hash it out.Virtually all of those battles happened on the road to a strategic target or at a strategic crossroad, etc. One army attacking and the other defending.

 

[Sidney Smith]

If loading for battle, then I don't think it matters if you prime first. Either the enemy is gonna get ya, or maybe your own gun if it goes off while loading.

For range shooting, or hunting there's no need to prime first. Simple as that.

 

[Gavinm28]

If loading for battle, the I don't think it matters if you prime first. Either the enemy is gonna get ya, or maybe your own gun if it goes off while loading.

For range shooting, or hunting there's no need to prime first. Simple as that.

Yeah I just enjoy shooting in historically accurate ways, and although civilians loaded differently I like the speed of paper cartridges. The risk seems minimal, so I'll keep priming from the cartridge.