Shortening lock time

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
When hunting I don't carry a vent pick and in fact don't even own one.....and have never had any problems.

I'm really puzzled at all the "picky stuff" that some go through to get fast and reliable ignition. Can it be sub standard arms or what?

MD....I don't do much target shooting but have shot 100s of head hit squirrels and the way I load, there's possibly some small inconsistencies, but they don't seem to matter much....Fred
 
flehto said:
snipped . . . . .
I'm really puzzled at all the "picky stuff" that some go through to get fast and reliable ignition. Can it be sub standard arms or what?
. . . . . . .Fred

Hi Fred,
I do all the "picky stuff" during testing to eliminate all the variables that would mess up what I'm trying to learn. It's not sub standard equipment.

I have to confess that I fire many more "shots" in testing than I do either hunting or at targets. If I have a pick with me on a woods walk it's probably habit. (For the last two years I have not used picks unless it was in tests.)

The reason I brought all this stuff up is because of the question about shortening lock time. Some things are impractical in the real world that are necessary in tests.

I have at times done a step and thought it might not be necessary, but do it anyway because someone would be bound to ask why I didn't.

Regards,
Pletch
 
Not critical at all of what you do...your efforts are a service to the MLing community. Eliminating variables in your tests is a must, but their applications in practical shooting is another story, as you indicated.

As I've said many times...just like to keep it simple. For many years I handloaded CF ammo and "that stuff" is picky and the results are quite evident. But when I first had my initial MLer, I was amazed at how simple it was to get very accurate loads and to tell the truth, w/ hardly any problems.

I still think that a lot of the "picky stuff" is caused by sub-standard arms and is forever used even when better arms are used. Habit forming, I guess.

Again...my apologies for giving the wrong impression of my thoughts....Fred
 
Don't worry, Fred. We're good. It would be a pleasure to shoot with you sometime.
Regards,
Pletch
 
All very interesting information. Personally, I have multiple locks on my guns (late Ketland, L&R Classic, L&R late English and many large Silers), I have some flintlocks with White Lightning liners, some with other generic liners and one new one with simply a touch hole drilled through the barrel. I try to be choosy and tend to use all black English flints and honestly, I think all of my flintlocks fire reasonably fast and I've shot enough over the years that I'm fine with whatever delay there may be (which seems almost imperceptible to me). That said, we'd be foolish to ignore this stuff and not try to duplicate the really fast ignition times that Pletch and others have measured.

I'm a fairly inexperienced builder, but I have several projects on my bench or in my head and I'll surely be trying to duplicate what's worked for those guys who have reliable and proven data. Other than that original Joseph Manton (my supply has dwindled and I only have a few left :wink: ), what locks have been predictably fast? I know that the late Ketland has a really good reputation as a fast lock, how about any of the L&R locks?
 
Hi GangGreen,
This isn’t an easy question to answer. There are many variables that determine the speed of a lock. The first is the source of the lock. Did it come from one of the main lock producers? If I want a Chambers Large Siler, I buy it from Jim. If you buy one somewhere else it may be a kit lock built by somebody very good or maybe from cousin John’s brother-in-law. You just don’t know. I have locks built by Mark Silver, Mike Miller, and Bob Roller, as well as Chambers. They are all outstanding locks.

Next is who tuned the lock. Some guys are magic with locks. Given my choice between a lock tuned by me or one tuned by LC Rice, I’d take the Rice tuned lock. There are other good tuners, but I used LC as the example. Extra attention can be a mixed bag too. A person that doesn’t know what they are doing, can really mess up at lock.

Another big variable is the shooter himself. Is the lock well maintained? Is the flint edge good and installed to best advantage? The amount of sparks landing in the pan has a huge effect on how fast the fire in the pan builds. (In my testing a slower than usual time, brings a red flag. The flint probably needs attention.)

The effort a shooter uses to find what works best is important. When I first started timing, I did four sets of 20 trials: chipped bevel up, chipped bevel down, agate bevel up and agate bevel down. To show the difference, look at these averages:
Chipped bevel up: ------.0407
Chipped bevel down: --.0417
Agate bevel up: ---------.0341
Agate bevel up: ---------.0432
(It is really worth doing your homework with any new lock. I should mention that none of these seemed different to human senses.)

Now with all that out of the way, I like locks from Davis, L&R, and Chambers. I think good locks from all three companies should run under .0400 if managed well. In tests that I published, the L&R Manton and Durs Egg were .0368 and .0358 respectively. I’ve had large and small Silers under .0400 as well as the Late Ketland. The L&R Twigg is a larger lock, but was right at .0400. The Deluxe Large Siler may be faster than Jim’s Late Ketland (that’s from Barbie.) All of these locks are so close together that how they are managed (including how the flint edge is maintained) may be the difference between great and average performance.

The choice of lock then boils down to just a couple things. Choose the correct style for your build. Buy quality from a known maker. Have a lock-tuning wizard do his thing. Such a lock deserves that best care. Maintain and manage it well, and you will not be disappointed.

Regards,
Pletch
PS We didn’t deal with vents and priming powder ”“ two more cans of worms to open.
 
So you want instant reliable ignition from a basic unmodified lock....
Swiss OB priming powder!!
 
I use Swiss Null B for all priming powder. Goex 4fg is good; Swiss 4fg is a little faster; Null B is faster that any other prime. Some shooters feel that Null B may act damp in very moist hunting situations. That has not been my experience.

I do believe that damp hunting situations require special care beyond normal conditions. May shooters are very good at this.

Regards,
Pletch
 
I fired 25 rds yesterday at my club range in Palm Bay, FL.
Light fog/drizzle, 85 degrees...basically 100% humidity.
I chose to break out the Swiss Null B for priming powder.
Worked every time, with no issues.
I should add here that given the challenging conditions, I took special care to wipe the rock, the frizzen, and dry the pan between shots. There was one time I stepped away from the loading bench to make a call for a couple of minutes. When I got back to my rifle...the pan was literally dripping wet.
Sometimes we can do a lot to help ourselves and our equipment by taking just a little more care between shots.
 
Don Steele said:
. . . .snipped . . .
I should add here that given the challenging conditions, I took special care to wipe the rock, the frizzen, and dry the pan between shots. There was one time I stepped away from the loading bench to make a call for a couple of minutes. When I got back to my rifle...the pan was literally dripping wet.
Sometimes we can do a lot to help ourselves and our equipment by taking just a little more care between shots.

Don,
Your skills taking care of the lock in a drizzle is exactly what I was talking about. The wet pan leads me to the idea that fouling draws moisture while powder does not. I have not tested this, but believe it to be true. Bill Knight, my source for all things BP, concurs.
Regards,
Pletch
 
The problem with 4f and Null B getting soupy is not from priming it and shooting it right away. It is from priming it and then walking in the forest with it for more than about 1/2 an hour in humid conditions. As long as you check your pan about every half and hour or so, brush out the old and replace it, you're fine.

I personally use 3f for both my prime and main charge. However, a lot of folks where I lived in Virginia for 10-years (you get "real" humidity there) would use the finer granulations at the club shoots but not to hunt with just because of the humidity and BP soup problem.

I've never had the problem, although I would refresh my 3f from time to time as a preventive measure too. I also made a habit when I first started muzzleloading of hanging a strip of pillow ticking off the strap of my shooting bag next to my pick and brush to clean the pan and frizzen as needed. A little spit and a wipe works wonders.

I think Pletch has a valid point about water absorption with the fouling as opposed to the powder by itself. The fouling certainly seems to absorb moisture at a much faster rate. I've done a lot of reenactments where you will sometimes fire 40 shots within a short engagement and, if you've ever fired many blanks, you know how much worse fouling is with blanks than it is with live firing.

As long as I wipe the pan, the flint, and frizzen every few shots, I have no problems with spark, ignition, or flash in the pan. So I've made a habit of wiping them whenever I have a moment or two to do so. When wiping the flint, wipe the underside and the top and wipe it towards the front edge of the flint. DO NOT run the ticking and your finger sideways across the flint edge because it WILL cut you. if you think of it as cleaning off the sharp blade of a knife, you'll do OK.

As I said, I prefer to use 3f for prime and main charge but there's no reason not to use the finer granulations if you prefer as long as maintain your lock properly - check your prime every half hour or so while hunting, and wipe out the pan, flint, and frizzen every few shots.

I'll continue to use 3f because it's simpler to do so - one horn instead of two to carry, no worries about malfunctioning springs or clogged tube in a priming horn, no extra can for finer granulation to purchase, and no worries about historical correctness of my kit if you are concerned about that (it certainly is a concern for reenactments). Plus, it works perfectly fine for me and I am one of those "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guys.

Twisted_1in66 :thumbsup:
Dan
 
Back in 2006 I ran an experiment on 4F powder to see if it really turned to soup when it was exposed to high (100 %) humidity.

The answer was yes, and no.

If the 4F was placed in a clean pan, the answer was no. The powder just sit there and it would fire just like normal.

If the 4F powder was placed in a fouled pan, the answer was yes. Althought it really didn't turn to soup, it did cake together and it would not fire.

Here is a link to the experiment:

http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/195260/post/283953/fromsearch/1/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've tested it Larry in my bluing cabinet at 100 percent humidity and over 90 degree F heat.
It took five hours of continual exposure with three different granulations of powder before I begin to notice some hang fires.
Still it all ignite but with some hesitation.
That proved to me that fouling in the pan or on the frizzen was the main problem with hang fires not powder moisture absorption.
 
These were my lines of test powder in the bluing cabinet.
After each additional hour the powder was removed and re-tested in a clean lock for ignition.
 
One other little test I did regarding spark production from flints was to rub a little body oil from my face on the strike edge of the flint.
I was just curious to see if it would make a difference and it did in my test lock.
Just that tiny bit of body oil markedly reduced flint sparks.
My guess is that fouling from the pan flame would cause the same effect especially in damp weather.
 
M D,
I'm sorry I didn't see this until this morning. Thank you for your time to test this. And, your "oil on the flint edge" test is probably something we all wondered about, but never took the time to experiment with it. Thank you.

A teacher of mine, instead of providing an answer, would say, "How can we design an experiment to find the answer?" Or "How can we test this?" He developed a long-lasting curiosity in his students.

Regards,
Pletch
 
Pletch,

You wrote that the differences in your flint tests were not enough to be noticeable to the human senses. So that would mean that the 0.0091 second difference between the fastest time and the slowest time were not perceptable to those witnessing the test.

Do you have any information on how slow a lock has to be in order for the human senses to pick it out?

My Chambers lock has a just o-so-slight delay that I can perceive so I am curious how bad that really is.

I am sure this would be different from person to person, but there must be a threshold that human's can't perceive (just as they know a motion picture has to have so many frames per second for humans to view it as fluid motion.)
 
Back
Top