Snail vs drum ??

[Rat Trapper]

What are the benefits vs disadvantages of the snail as found on TC Hawken rifles vs the common drum?

 

[ian45662]

Well the drum you can hit but you will have to get drum sticks first :rotf:

 

[CoyoteJoe]

The patent breech, or snail as you say, is undoubtedly stronger since the drum requires a large hole drilled into the side of the barrel. But then the drum type has proved strong enough for any reasonable loads so is even stronger really a plus?
The negative of the patent breech is that the nipple is connected to the powder chamber by a very narrow passage or flash channel. In the most common form, T/C and Italian clones of T/C this is under 1/8" in diameter. If kept spotlessly clean some 3f powder may pass through the channel to reach the nipple, 2f certainly will not and even 3f will not after just a bit of fouling builds up in the flash channel. Therefore the flash of the cap has to jump through this narrow channel to reach the powder. That is the main reason such guns have trouble igniting the substitute powders and why you'll often hear the pop of the cap a split second before the muzzle blast, like "kaPow" rather than a clean sharp "Pow".
I've just measured the flash channels of two nipple drums I have on hand. One with 3/8" threads has an interior diameter of .186" and one with 5/16" threads has a channel of .146". Both are large enough that 2f powder or the coarse grained Pyrodex RS will flow right in under the nipple for sure and direct ignition. Also, the drum type normally has a large clean out screw in it's end which is easily removed to add powder in the event one has forgotten to do so.
Both types require a little special attention in cleaning but it is not nearly so critical with the larger passage of the drum.
With all that said it should be mentioned that many CVA and Traditions guns sort of combine the worst qualities of both types, a drum threaded into a breechplug with a very narrow powder chamber, don't ask me why, I guess some people just think they can improve on designs that took several centuries to evolve. :grin:

 

[Len Graves]

Here's my two cents worth. The drum was a way to convert the flint into a percussion gun simply and was really a make do conversion. That said. it worked very well. One draw back is that the hammer hitting the nipple on the drum bears on the lock. If the drum is not tight against the top of the lock eventually loose or broken drum threads or loose lock.
The snail or patent breech is a better way of bolstering against the hammer fall, and some say because the fire channel is not always at right angle turns, supposedly is more sure fire. There is sometimes the disadvantage of having a different diameter bore in the patent breech, which is difficult to keep clean. So I guess there are advantages to both as well as draw backs. I have used both successfully and had troubles equally. Kind of goes with what style of gun you are using. I would get one of each (two guns is always better) then shoot & shoot & shoot till you decide.

 

[Zonie]

I cannot agree that the drum method is simply a way to convert a flintlock to percussion although many flintlocks were converted that way.

I would say the vast majority of the original percussion guns that I've seen were all using the side mounted drum.
These guns were not conversions. They were percussion guns from the day they were made.

Properly done this drum is totally supported by the lockplate and if these original guns are representative of the side drum their long life (over 100 years) attests to the sound design.

The side drum flash channel is only about 5/8 of an inch long before it meets the main powder charge and I've found that in my guns it is more reliable than the long torturous path found in the snail type of breech blocks.

 

[J.D.]

IMHO, the main issue that would cause me to install a snail type breech, over a drum, is the thickness of the barrel wall, at the breech.

IMHO any barrel wall thinner than say, .200 is too thin to support a drum, over the long haul.

Remember that original barrels were much heavier, which means thicker walls, than modern barrels.

Just, kinda, thinkin'...typ'n out loud, so to speak...type.

God bless

 

[curator]

Snail-type breeches were stronger than drum-type and this was important as folks moved west. "Plains-rifles" were expected to fire heavy charges and occasionally double balls. Correctly made original snail (patent) breeches did not suffer from the too-small flash channel(that's a modern issue)and gave more reliable ignition. The angled flash channel drilled directly in to the base of the charge gave fast, reliable ignition. A good example of this kind of engineering is the change in the breech design with the US 1861 and 1863 rifle-musket. The 1861 had a right-angle flash channel with clean out screw (ala drum type) It was notorious for hangfires and misfires which were blamed on the Maynard tape primer. Ordnance officers fired these with standard musket caps and the reliability remained the same. The "fix" was to drill the flash channel from the bottom of the nipple mortise directly into the rear of the breech and ignition problems were solved on the 1863 model.

 

[Dphar]

What are the benefits vs disadvantages of the snail as found on TC Hawken rifles vs the common drum?

The drum and nipple is hands down the worst way the make a percussion gun.
But it was cheap and easy.
The TC Hawken breech is not a state of the art breech (circa 1830) either but its better than a drum and nipple.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

I cannot agree that the drum method is simply a way to convert a flintlock to percussion although many flintlocks were converted that way.

I would say the vast majority of the original percussion guns that I've seen were all using the side mounted drum.
These guns were not conversions. They were percussion guns from the day they were made.

Properly done this drum is totally supported by the lockplate and if these original guns are representative of the side drum their long life (over 100 years) attests to the sound design.

The side drum flash channel is only about 5/8 of an inch long before it meets the main powder charge and I've found that in my guns it is more reliable than the long torturous path found in the snail type of breech blocks.

Hi Zonie

This is more complex than it appears at first glance.
When comparing old verses new you need to consider the materials used as well. The new parts are surely made of cold rolled free machining steels, is thus prone to brittle fracture and the drums can break off as a result. Some grades are also VERY prone to fracture if notched, read notched as having threads cut into the steel or its being turned to a reduced diameter.
Lots of people just assume that newer is better, this is not always the case.

I had a drum break off back in the 60s and have only built one D&N gun since and that very carefully.

The vintage parts were made of what today would be hot rolled mild steel or wrought iron. Pretty good material for the job. Thus you will see original guns with unsupported drums. Poison for the modern versions.
A part made of GOOD wrought iron is actually better than a "modern" part made of free machining steel. Why? Wrought iron is very ductile and tough. Cold rolled, free machining steel (the list of alloys is long) is brittle.
While I do not consider the drum and nipple sound, good quality "old" materials or their modern counterparts are better in this case than modern cold rolled. So we have another very serious problem that does not exist in the patent breech design.

The better grade guns virtually all had patent breeches. For several reasons, much stronger, if designed right, as most were, they provide much better shooter protection from cap fragments and gas leakage. Things the drum and nipple types are very deficient in. They are also more reliable. Making the drum of better material does not change any of these things.

A poor patent breech or a sloppy installation can cause problems and there are lots of them out there with both problems. But if the buyer knows to buy the direct drilled type and perhaps taper or slightly enlarge the channel if needed there will be no problem (too big increases pressure on the nipple threads and yeah I had a nipple blow out years ago). A clean out screw is just another part to have problems with. Even many original drums do not have them.

The reason many vintage American guns have drums is COST. The better American guns with patent breeches cost much more than the common drum and nipple guns. The Hawken cost several times what a cheap factory made rifle did like perhaps 4-6 times in some cases. The average rifle maker had this hanging over his head, competition from low cost guns from Leman etc. If his guns cost too much they didn't sell.

I don't like being around D&N guns being fired since I have no idea how they were constructed. So I stay away from the drum side...
IIRC Pete Allen makes a cast breech that is shaped as a drum and nipple and should be superior to one made of cold rolled bar stock.

Dan

 

[rabjr]

So your saying I should give up my plans for someday in the future, building a N.E rifle that looks like it was converted from a Flintlock, which would have used a drum and lock that looked converted?

 

[CoyoteJoe]

IMHO, the main issue that would cause me to install a snail type breech, over a drum, is the thickness of the barrel wall, at the breech.

IMHO any barrel wall thinner than say, .200 is too thin to support a drum, over the long haul.

Remember that original barrels were much heavier, which means thicker walls, than modern barrels.

Just, kinda, thinkin'...typ'n out loud, so to speak...type.

God bless

That's a good point JD. In a 13/16, .45 caliber straight octagon barrel with a 5/16x24 drum thread there are only three threads holding and I'm a bit squeamish about that.
But then my first ML rifle as a kid was an old Ohio half stock with a back action lock and hand made nipple drum. The threads were so loose that both the drum and breechplug could be removed with the fingers. I used to wrap them with sewing thread to get enough friction to hold the nipple in line with the hammer. Nothing ever let go but I probably never fired more than 25 grains of powder in that .36 caliber bore, can't say for sure since I didn't own a powder measure. :haha:

 

[Dphar]

So your saying I should give up my plans for someday in the future, building a N.E rifle that looks like it was converted from a Flintlock, which would have used a drum and lock that looked converted?

I'm giving you my *informed opinion*. The issues concerning cold rolled steels used for pressure containment in ML firearms has been well known for decades now. Cold rolled is not used in modern firearms to my knowledge.
I also know that bringing up the problems associated with the use of cold rolled steels in MLs is very unpopular with some folks.

Firearms were converted to percussion using patent breeches after shortening the barrel or using brazed on lugs. Look at the US military arms converted by the arsenals. They did not use D&N. So far as I know neither did the European powers.
See one of the 2 rifles pictured at: http://www.bbhc.org/collections/BBHC/CFM_ObjectPage.cfm?museum=CFM&VarObjectKey=32976
One is a heavy Hawken match rifle obviously converted from flint by the installation of a patent breech after the barrel was shortened at the breech. This rifle is also pictured in Baird's "Hawken Rifles".
Using a patent breech in a conversion is just as HC as a D&N.
The drum and nipple at best is *less safe* than a properly made and installed patent breech. This being the case why would anyone make/sell/buy a less safe firearm? Would you buy a 308 bolt gun, for example, if you KNEW it was made in a substandard manner?
Firearms failures are serious, life threatening events, as a result firearms should be held to a higher standard than say a shovel or a table knife. Unfortunately in the world of American made MLs and some imports, too often this is not the case
If you decide to build a firearm build it the best, safest way you know.

Personally I don't want to be responsible, morally or otherwise for someone getting hurt or killed because something I made puked out parts or shrapnel when it was fired.

Dan

 

[rabjr]

Thanks Dan,

Actually the lock I have and plan on using, looks like it can be altered to look just like that one pictured with the snail drum.

 

[Leatherbark]

I'm in the process of finishing an Ohio type percussion 40 caliber with a 13/16ths inch barrel that was not breeched correctly for Drum and nipple.........The lock was not far enough forward to put the drum in front of the breech plug............So I made my own sort of patent breech by drilling out the end of the breechplg about 5/16ths inch deep by 1/4 inch wide and drilled and tapped the drum into the barrel through into the side of the breechplug to mate up with my 1/4inch communication hole........I have full engagement of the drum threads now. It was my only way of saving the stock which had some really nice inlays done by an oldtimer before he died and did not finish...............Wish I knew his name...........When I get her finished I'll post pictures and maybe someone will recognize his work..........He was from Ohio................Bob

 

[Rat Trapper]

Guys, appreciate all the input on this topic. I always liked the looks of the snail. It had always appeared to me, that the snail was stronger, but was wondering how everyone felt about the issue. Thanks.

 

[Zonie]

When building a new gun the builder should stick with what was used on the gun he's using as a guide.

If the original gun had a snail type breech by all means use one.
If the original gun used a side drum than it is what should be used.

As I mentioned, very few original longrifles used the snail type breech and they seem to be relegated to the Plains type rifles and later.

 

[Tumblernotch]

I'll have to disagree about the M1861 being notorious for hangfires. I've had an original '61 as well as a Richmond with the 55/61 breech and have never had a misfire (since 1983). And I've never seen any documentation alleging misfires. Also, the Maynard system was used on the '55, not the '61. They did have problems with the Maynard primer due to water getting into the tape compartment and wetting the primers as well as some feed problems.

 

[crockett]

Does the drum really have to be supported by the lock plate? The reason I ask is that on most flintlock conversions there is a large gap below the drum- wouldn't some sort of shim been put in there?

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I've seen drums used with back action locks where the plate comes no where near the drum.

 

[Dphar]

Does the drum really have to be supported by the lock plate? The reason I ask is that on most flintlock conversions there is a large gap below the drum- wouldn't some sort of shim been put in there?

People need to remember that the modern materials and the old materials are not the same and do not react the same in use. Thing that are acceptable with one material is not acceptable with some other modern steels. Modern steels are often engineered for specific purposes and the things that make them work well in automatic screw machines or as driven power transmission shafts or for high feed rate machining will make them unsuitable for other purposes. I get this from a steel maker, not from some end user who only cares about the material not wearing his tooling too fast or taking 3 times as long to machine.
With this in mind those using a drum had better support it.
But of course the ML world is full of people who "know" what is safe even though they have not spent 15 minutes thinking about it or looking at the properties of the material used to make the part they are using.
I have been repeatedly been told that since people make things they are "experts" and I should not question their use of materials no matter what the actual maker of the steel, who engineered the alloy for a specific use, might say. The steel maker is somehow less informed about it's own products than the people who buy them third hand solely for their ease of machining with all other considerations willfully ignored...

Dan