- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 1,519
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when you can see the main charge at about 1/32" to 3/64" from the pan, I think that speaks for itself.
Slow ignition Touch-hole size?
- Thread starter Black Jaque Janaviac
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
bpd303 said:
OK. Ye had me puzzled at first. I can't imagine Charlie discussing liners, even after the jug has been emptied. :wink:
Herb
54 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,955
- Reaction score
- 458
BJ, I built this same rifle. I just used the same Chambers Virginia Fowler lock with the 5/16 White Lightning liner in a .54 Rice Jaeger barrel in an English Gentleman's Sporting Rifle I built. Did not drill the liner hole, it is about .055. Got flashes in the pan. Have tried this a couple dozen times with other rifles I built, the cure is to drill the flash hole out to .070. Also Swiss 2F is probably your problem. I have flashes in the pan with it, even with everything clean, the butt bumped to settle the powder and the vent picked. Change to Goex 2F and your troubles are over, even if you prime the pan with it, as I sometimes do from the horn.
Black Jaque Janaviac
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 535
- Reaction score
- 73
Thanks Herb!
Well if I'm insane for drilling out the flashhole on a Whitelightning at least I've got company.
I have had experience with a .32 caliber flintlock which I loaded and primed with 3F. That gun went off without noticeable hesitation. There are also a number of folks who do not believe the old timers used a separate powder for priming since there seems to be a dearth of priming horns in antique acoutrements.
I also wanted the convenience of just priming with the horn. However, I like the convenience of hitting what I'm aiming at more! So if I have to I'll use 4F.
But it looks like I may have to try charging and priming with 3F. And then I'll try charging and priming with Goex.
And I may try opening the hole out to 0.070.
Another option I am considering is going with paper cartridges. If I do this, I will not need the large powder horn for charging, and can carry a small priming flask instead.
Well if I'm insane for drilling out the flashhole on a Whitelightning at least I've got company.
I have had experience with a .32 caliber flintlock which I loaded and primed with 3F. That gun went off without noticeable hesitation. There are also a number of folks who do not believe the old timers used a separate powder for priming since there seems to be a dearth of priming horns in antique acoutrements.
I also wanted the convenience of just priming with the horn. However, I like the convenience of hitting what I'm aiming at more! So if I have to I'll use 4F.
But it looks like I may have to try charging and priming with 3F. And then I'll try charging and priming with Goex.
And I may try opening the hole out to 0.070.
Another option I am considering is going with paper cartridges. If I do this, I will not need the large powder horn for charging, and can carry a small priming flask instead.
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
Increasing the vent diameter has been discussed many times here. Lots of opinions - mine is listed below.
Remember that the area of a vent hole increases much faster than the diameter. If you do the math on this, you'll be amazed. There are a 5 numbered bits between 1/16" and 5/64". They are available in hardwares. I'd urge you to work your way up to reliability. I personally like .064". If you have to go bigger than .070" there is something else wrong.
My gut says that going to Null B will make a bigger change than increasing the vent size. JMHO.
Regards,
Pletch
Remember that the area of a vent hole increases much faster than the diameter. If you do the math on this, you'll be amazed. There are a 5 numbered bits between 1/16" and 5/64". They are available in hardwares. I'd urge you to work your way up to reliability. I personally like .064". If you have to go bigger than .070" there is something else wrong.
My gut says that going to Null B will make a bigger change than increasing the vent size. JMHO.
Regards,
Pletch
nchawkeye
58 Cal.
Get you one of those little pistol powder flasks and put in your bag...Perfect size for priming...
Critter Getter
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 443
Where does a person find Null B to purchase? Any in Iowa anywhere that you all know of? Greg. 
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,633
- Reaction score
- 4,777
Not sure what I'm missing as I am in agreement with what your saying about external coning of the flash hole and not thinning the liner wall and flash hole depth, which internal coning does.
I don't think coning makes much sense on the inside as it encourages blow back pressure.
I also cannot see any advantage from internal coning to ignite the main charge if the flash hole is in the correct position ,of proper diameter and kept clean. Mike D.
I don't think coning makes much sense on the inside as it encourages blow back pressure.
I also cannot see any advantage from internal coning to ignite the main charge if the flash hole is in the correct position ,of proper diameter and kept clean. Mike D.
Pete G
76 Cal.
"I don't think coning makes much sense on the inside as it encourages blow back pressure. "
Jim Chambers disagrees, and he probably knows more about flintlock ignition that any man who has ever lived.
Jim Chambers disagrees, and he probably knows more about flintlock ignition that any man who has ever lived.
excess650
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,671
- Reaction score
- 640
My recollection of the Schuemann hybrid compensator suggests otherwise. Somebody with a knowledge of rocket motors would be able to explain it better...
The cone on the inside moves the powder closer to the pan, so closer to the heat source of ignition.
The cone on the inside moves the powder closer to the pan, so closer to the heat source of ignition.
AZbpBurner
54 Cal.
M.D. said:
Somewhere along the way, your conjecture has given way to the actual performance improvement of 2 of my rifles.
Guess it doesn't always add up to the way we thing kt should, but as long as the performance improvement is there, I'm happy.
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
The Chambers White Lightning liner was the product of years of discussion that involved Jim, Mark Silver, Lynton McKenzie, and perhaps others. Lynton was arguably the most knowledgable person dealing with English flintlock ignition. The interior shape is a calculated "bell" shape, not just a hogged out cut. Lynton used "shaped charge" to discuss it. I don't profess to understand to physics of this shape - just reporting.
Another big plus with the internal cone is placing the barrel charge so close to the priming charge. My gun has a thin vent web. There are granules visible in the vent. With priming against the barrel, the two charges are almost touching. It is my belief that 2 charges that close together ignite as a single charge. (Photography through the muzzle convince me that the closer the priming to the vent the faster the ignition.)
Regards,
Pletch
Another big plus with the internal cone is placing the barrel charge so close to the priming charge. My gun has a thin vent web. There are granules visible in the vent. With priming against the barrel, the two charges are almost touching. It is my belief that 2 charges that close together ignite as a single charge. (Photography through the muzzle convince me that the closer the priming to the vent the faster the ignition.)
Regards,
Pletch
2tall,
I'm not talking about piling the priming up against the barrel. I'm talking about the thickness of the metal of the touch hole that brings the main charge closer to the flare of the priming powder.
That's what makes for fast ignition. I'd it's too thick, it makes the flash channel longer, slowing down ignition
I'm not talking about piling the priming up against the barrel. I'm talking about the thickness of the metal of the touch hole that brings the main charge closer to the flare of the priming powder.
That's what makes for fast ignition. I'd it's too thick, it makes the flash channel longer, slowing down ignition
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,633
- Reaction score
- 4,777
If external coning aids flash efficiency from the pan, funneling the priming charge detonation inward to ignite the main charge than is it unreasonable to assume that the exact same dynamic occurs from the opposite direction when main charge ignites and pushes gas the other way?
Would not the absence of a funnel on the inside of the liner better inhibit the chamber pressure from escaping out the flash hole? As far as I know funneling aids pressure flow wither gas or liquid.
It could be that I am wrong but at this point in my leaning curve I think I will stay with what I think I understand currently about the problem.
I can see the need for another test to see just what the truth is.
I'm envisioning a three phase test along the lines of a test gun using a drilled flash hole through the barrel wall to begin with and checking the pressure against a media like perhaps a 3x5 cards at a few inches and the distance increased until no penetration occurs and then installing a liner with the same flash hole diameter with out an internal cone, retesting, removal and a internal cone machined in, reinstalled and the test done a third time.
An inexpensive pistol would be a good test bed me thinks. I'll be looking for one as I would really like to know the truth about what I think I know in this regard.
This would also help answer the question of ignition efficiency between the methods as well.
I remember being told that black powder readily excepted moisture and believed that myth for thirty years until proving to myself it was a false notion. Mike D.
Would not the absence of a funnel on the inside of the liner better inhibit the chamber pressure from escaping out the flash hole? As far as I know funneling aids pressure flow wither gas or liquid.
It could be that I am wrong but at this point in my leaning curve I think I will stay with what I think I understand currently about the problem.
I can see the need for another test to see just what the truth is.
I'm envisioning a three phase test along the lines of a test gun using a drilled flash hole through the barrel wall to begin with and checking the pressure against a media like perhaps a 3x5 cards at a few inches and the distance increased until no penetration occurs and then installing a liner with the same flash hole diameter with out an internal cone, retesting, removal and a internal cone machined in, reinstalled and the test done a third time.
An inexpensive pistol would be a good test bed me thinks. I'll be looking for one as I would really like to know the truth about what I think I know in this regard.
This would also help answer the question of ignition efficiency between the methods as well.
I remember being told that black powder readily excepted moisture and believed that myth for thirty years until proving to myself it was a false notion. Mike D.
I believe the operative word is, "if".
It is easy to convince oneself that their idea(s) are correct but proving them is another matter.
Whether the idea behind a exterior cone is right or wrong, I confess, I don't know the answer.
I do know that for almost 200 years some of the best minds in the world did their best to improve the flintlock system.
The gunsmiths were still working at this right up to the end of the flintlock era.
Among their goals was a desire to increase ignition speed, ignition reliability and resistance to inclement weather.
Out of this research came a number of lock improvements and changes to the breech design.
Nock's Patent breech and Manton's Chambered breech come to mind.
Also, among the ideas developed was the idea of reducing the length of the vent hole to speed ignition and reduce misfires.
The ideas of vent liners and coning the interior of the vent holes in barrels without vent liners came out of this.
There are a number of examples of barrels throughout the world with these features.
Giving men like Nock, Manton, Durs Egg and Wilkinson their due, am I the only one who notice that vent holes on none of their guns have cones on the exterior?
I would think if there was merit to the idea of coning the exterior of the vent, many examples made by these men and others would exist. In fact, I would think that because there are no examples I've ever seen or read about, the idea of coning the exterior of the vent would have been Patented.
Just something to think about.
PS: I do know that near sonic velocity gasses when encountering an object will be deflected.
If the object is of a parabolic shape the deflection will be towards the focal point.
If the focal point is between the source of the gas and a hole on the other side of the focal point, the deflected gas will temporarily block off the path into the hole.
To visualize this imagine a large stream of water from a hose hitting a bowl shaped parabola with a hole in the bottom of the bowl.
If the bowls shape deflects the water back towards the hose nozzle at all, the deflected water will converge at the middle of the bowl effectively blocking off access to the hole.
Yes, some of the splash will go thru the hole in the bottom of the bowl but not nearly as much as would have gone thru the hole if the bowl hadn't been there.
More stuff to think about. :grin:
It is easy to convince oneself that their idea(s) are correct but proving them is another matter.
Whether the idea behind a exterior cone is right or wrong, I confess, I don't know the answer.
I do know that for almost 200 years some of the best minds in the world did their best to improve the flintlock system.
The gunsmiths were still working at this right up to the end of the flintlock era.
Among their goals was a desire to increase ignition speed, ignition reliability and resistance to inclement weather.
Out of this research came a number of lock improvements and changes to the breech design.
Nock's Patent breech and Manton's Chambered breech come to mind.
Also, among the ideas developed was the idea of reducing the length of the vent hole to speed ignition and reduce misfires.
The ideas of vent liners and coning the interior of the vent holes in barrels without vent liners came out of this.
There are a number of examples of barrels throughout the world with these features.
Giving men like Nock, Manton, Durs Egg and Wilkinson their due, am I the only one who notice that vent holes on none of their guns have cones on the exterior?
I would think if there was merit to the idea of coning the exterior of the vent, many examples made by these men and others would exist. In fact, I would think that because there are no examples I've ever seen or read about, the idea of coning the exterior of the vent would have been Patented.
Just something to think about.
PS: I do know that near sonic velocity gasses when encountering an object will be deflected.
If the object is of a parabolic shape the deflection will be towards the focal point.
If the focal point is between the source of the gas and a hole on the other side of the focal point, the deflected gas will temporarily block off the path into the hole.
To visualize this imagine a large stream of water from a hose hitting a bowl shaped parabola with a hole in the bottom of the bowl.
If the bowls shape deflects the water back towards the hose nozzle at all, the deflected water will converge at the middle of the bowl effectively blocking off access to the hole.
Yes, some of the splash will go thru the hole in the bottom of the bowl but not nearly as much as would have gone thru the hole if the bowl hadn't been there.
More stuff to think about. :grin:
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,633
- Reaction score
- 4,777
I remember seeing one of your test sequences Larry and your mention of how much of the flash reached the opposite side of the barrel through the flash hole.
Those pictures I believe were shot through the muzzle of the test barrel,if I remember correctly, left an impression on me.
I guess I'm finding it difficult to believe that that much fire and gas coming through the flash hole from the pan would have any trouble at all spanning a few more thousands of flash hole to ignite the main charge. Mike D.
Those pictures I believe were shot through the muzzle of the test barrel,if I remember correctly, left an impression on me.
I guess I'm finding it difficult to believe that that much fire and gas coming through the flash hole from the pan would have any trouble at all spanning a few more thousands of flash hole to ignite the main charge. Mike D.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,633
- Reaction score
- 4,777
Good post and am enjoying the various thoughts and ideas to kick around.
The flash hole through the barrel wall would be a hole in the bottom of the side radius of a cylinder.
The flash hole in a liner with no internal cone would be hole in the bottom of a flat bottom bowl.
The flash liner with a cone would be a hole in the bottom of round bottom bowl.
I'm wondering which of the shapes would deflect the most water from the hose jet and most inhibit flow through the hole?
I would think a volume of water already present in the chamber area with a temporary flash hole plug like a bit of modeling clay and pressure applied from the muzzle would be a better representation of main charge detonation gas behavior.
I did think about most flash holes not being coned internally or externally for some odd 250 years and working quite well.
Were the patented chamber designs primarily made for ignition reliability advancement or accuracy enhancement? Mike D.
The flash hole through the barrel wall would be a hole in the bottom of the side radius of a cylinder.
The flash hole in a liner with no internal cone would be hole in the bottom of a flat bottom bowl.
The flash liner with a cone would be a hole in the bottom of round bottom bowl.
I'm wondering which of the shapes would deflect the most water from the hose jet and most inhibit flow through the hole?
I would think a volume of water already present in the chamber area with a temporary flash hole plug like a bit of modeling clay and pressure applied from the muzzle would be a better representation of main charge detonation gas behavior.
I did think about most flash holes not being coned internally or externally for some odd 250 years and working quite well.
Were the patented chamber designs primarily made for ignition reliability advancement or accuracy enhancement? Mike D.
Hello,
On my first build, the touchhole on my White Lightning liner is a bit high. I had slow ignition at .058". I went to .070" and still had slow ignition. I started using half a pan for a prime charge and my ignition became quite impressive (to me), just as fast as my Pedersoli caplock. The fuse effect was the culprit for me.
On my first build, the touchhole on my White Lightning liner is a bit high. I had slow ignition at .058". I went to .070" and still had slow ignition. I started using half a pan for a prime charge and my ignition became quite impressive (to me), just as fast as my Pedersoli caplock. The fuse effect was the culprit for me.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,540
- Reaction score
- 1,519
"Another big plus with the internal cone is placing the barrel charge so close to the priming charge. My gun has a thin vent web. There are granules visible in the vent. With priming against the barrel, the two charges are almost touching. It is my belief that 2 charges that close together ignite as a single charge. (Photography through the muzzle convince me that the closer the priming to the vent the faster the ignition." I fully agree Pletch. MD, I believe you are entirely over thinking this. It is a fact that an internal cone gives the fastest ignition, assuming proper loading of all. If it isn't obvious that having the main charge and the prime close together increases the speed of ignition, Pletch has proven it more than once with his extensive testing.
