Dan I know the frizzen spring is suppose to hold it open and closed but they dont always do that.Just try it and you might be surprised what you find , i was.And I think thats where some of our wild flyers come from while shootin paper targets.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Tips to insure quick ignition
- Thread starter BobinIL
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Pete G
76 Cal.
Pletch's slo mo videos show that all locks have some degree of frizzen rebound. Some go far enough to hit the flint, others do not, but it seems that all of it happens after the main charge has fired.
We'll have to find something else to blame those unexplained fliers on. Mine are usually because of a loose nut on the buttplate. :hmm:
We'll have to find something else to blame those unexplained fliers on. Mine are usually because of a loose nut on the buttplate. :hmm:
Brokennock
Cannon
I've been saying the same thing on multiple threads about similar topic. I keep the touch hole plugged with a "pick" I made of coat hanger wire or a feather and I don't have the ignition issues or delays many people complain about. If I do it's either cause I forgot to plug or over primed.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,341
- Reaction score
- 4,514
I need to do some testing to verify a notion I have that packed powder is harder to light from a flint strike than is loose powder.
Just as a solid piece of wood is harder to light than is kindling made of the same piece of wood.
The soft iron pick left in the vent clear across the diameter of the bore while loading and then removed to fire not only leaves a void for more area of the flash to penetrate and ignite but also agitates the compacted powder around the void loosing the grains when withdrawn and making them easier to light.
Now to prove if the theory is correct or if it's applesauce. :rotf:
Just as a solid piece of wood is harder to light than is kindling made of the same piece of wood.
The soft iron pick left in the vent clear across the diameter of the bore while loading and then removed to fire not only leaves a void for more area of the flash to penetrate and ignite but also agitates the compacted powder around the void loosing the grains when withdrawn and making them easier to light.
Now to prove if the theory is correct or if it's applesauce. :rotf:
Brokennock
Cannon
I don't "pack" the powder real tight, I just try for a consistent firmness. I agree with the removal of the pick leaving a void for the flash to access and possible more surface area of the powder for the flash to contact (like a "feather stick" to use your fire making analogy), and it also ensures a clear vent hole. No matter the reason, it seems to work.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,341
- Reaction score
- 4,514
The powder is still packed into the liner it just doesn't block the vent hole. Any flash that traverses the white lightning or any other vent will still immediately contact the charge it just has more powder surface area to start the fire.
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
Flint ignition is always an interesting topic. I have used a number of methods to study flintlock ignition, usually breaking the testing down into two different parts.
One area is obviously a flintlock's pan ignition. Here no hot wire is used. We're concerned here with the number of sparks, quality of sparks, spark placement, and type of priming powder. The first three are controlled by how well the lock is made and how well the shooter maintains his lock. The fourth, priming powder type, does make a measurable difference. The fastest Goex fffg time was slower than the slowest Null B time in tests that I did. (I ran the tests 20 times and found the average. Trials were timed to the nearest 1/10,000 second).
I also have 80+ slow motion video of various locks, a few originals, many from current lock makers, with varying powders, some up side down. The advantage here is that you can see the number, quality, and placement of the sparks. There is a whole lot to learn here.
The second part of flint ignition is of course how the pan ignites the barrel. Here I don't care how the pan is ignited because I'm not measuring that. My time begins with pan triggering a photo cell. A hot wire is used because it eliminates the variables caused by the flint edge and the amount of sparks. (My wire touches the surface of the powder, not the bottom as someone suggested.)
If I wish to time the whole event from sear to barrel ignition, I do not use the wire. It just depends of the purpose of the trial.
If I were to make a list of things to get the fastest flintlock ignition, these would be on the list:
1. Use the fastest lock you can afford. (Since most of us can't afford an original English lock from the late period), buy a quality lock from a well known maker and have it tuned by someone really good.
2. Use the best flints for your lock. Most get best results from knapped black English or imported sawn agate. (In my tests these both did well in my large Siler test lock.) All sawn "flints" are not the same - be careful.
3. Don't try to get 50 fires out of a flint. Swap when needed.
4. Use the fastest priming powder. Powder should cover the entire pan to give the sparks a bed of prime to land on.
5. Make sure priming powder is against the barrel. I want prime as close as I can get to the vent.
6. Make sure the vent is squeaky clean. I want to see barrel powder at the entrance of the vent. I strongly believe that barrel powder and prime this close together ignite as one charge.
One last thing: Be wary of gaging the ignition speed by human senses. In many tests, I have recorded times that sounded exactly the same that were 15% different from each other. (I demonstrated this to class at the Log Cabin Shop.)
I'm sorry for the length of this. Sometimes it's hard to stop.
Regards,
Pletch
One area is obviously a flintlock's pan ignition. Here no hot wire is used. We're concerned here with the number of sparks, quality of sparks, spark placement, and type of priming powder. The first three are controlled by how well the lock is made and how well the shooter maintains his lock. The fourth, priming powder type, does make a measurable difference. The fastest Goex fffg time was slower than the slowest Null B time in tests that I did. (I ran the tests 20 times and found the average. Trials were timed to the nearest 1/10,000 second).
I also have 80+ slow motion video of various locks, a few originals, many from current lock makers, with varying powders, some up side down. The advantage here is that you can see the number, quality, and placement of the sparks. There is a whole lot to learn here.
The second part of flint ignition is of course how the pan ignites the barrel. Here I don't care how the pan is ignited because I'm not measuring that. My time begins with pan triggering a photo cell. A hot wire is used because it eliminates the variables caused by the flint edge and the amount of sparks. (My wire touches the surface of the powder, not the bottom as someone suggested.)
If I wish to time the whole event from sear to barrel ignition, I do not use the wire. It just depends of the purpose of the trial.
If I were to make a list of things to get the fastest flintlock ignition, these would be on the list:
1. Use the fastest lock you can afford. (Since most of us can't afford an original English lock from the late period), buy a quality lock from a well known maker and have it tuned by someone really good.
2. Use the best flints for your lock. Most get best results from knapped black English or imported sawn agate. (In my tests these both did well in my large Siler test lock.) All sawn "flints" are not the same - be careful.
3. Don't try to get 50 fires out of a flint. Swap when needed.
4. Use the fastest priming powder. Powder should cover the entire pan to give the sparks a bed of prime to land on.
5. Make sure priming powder is against the barrel. I want prime as close as I can get to the vent.
6. Make sure the vent is squeaky clean. I want to see barrel powder at the entrance of the vent. I strongly believe that barrel powder and prime this close together ignite as one charge.
One last thing: Be wary of gaging the ignition speed by human senses. In many tests, I have recorded times that sounded exactly the same that were 15% different from each other. (I demonstrated this to class at the Log Cabin Shop.)
I'm sorry for the length of this. Sometimes it's hard to stop.
Regards,
Pletch
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,502
- Reaction score
- 1,438
Don't apologize. Your testing and the info you pass on is never boring. Many thanks for your work.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,341
- Reaction score
- 4,514
Larry, have you any idea if loose powder ignites faster/easier than compressed powder?
I am always wondering about stuff like this and got to thinking about compressed/packed powder in a pan. Would it resist spark ignition more or less than loose powder as the frizzen would compress a full pan full to some extent when seated at battery.
I am always wondering about stuff like this and got to thinking about compressed/packed powder in a pan. Would it resist spark ignition more or less than loose powder as the frizzen would compress a full pan full to some extent when seated at battery.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,341
- Reaction score
- 4,514
Amen!
The old boys believed compressing it slowed ignition:M.D. said:
Pteryplegia
George Markland
1727
Nor Prime too full, else you will surely blame
The hanging fire and lose the pointed Aim.
Should I of This the obvious Reason tell:
The caking Pressure does the Flame repel
And Vulcan's lamed again by his own Steel.
Spence
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
M.D. said:
I haven't done any testing with compressed pan powder. With no data to back up an opinion, I'll not offer one.
The only compressed powder I tested was with compressed barrel charges. Here barrel charges responded well to moderate uniform compression both in velocities and accuracy. However, I don't think this should be used to judge compressed pan charges.
Regards,
Pletch
IMO, pricking the powder load after it is rammed can really improve the reliability of a quick ignition.
Looking at the surface area of the powder exposed thru the vent hole vs the surface area of the powder after a vent pick was inserted and withdrawn tells an interesting story.
Take for instance, a 1/16" diameter vent hole.
It has a surface area of .003 square inches. That's three thousandths of a square inch.
Now, if one were to insert a tapered vent pick that was 1/16" diameter and tapered to a point 1/2 inch away from the full diameter into the vent hole, shoving the powder out of the way and then withdrew the pick, it would leave a tapered cone with a surface area of .049 square inches.
That's a exposed surface area that is 16 times greater than the exposed area of the unpicked hole.
The amount of increase depends on the size of the pick and the length of the taper but there can be no denying the picked hole always has a greater surface to catch the flames from the pans prime.
I know. Em ol' timers never used em numbers an fancy figgering. Throw em numbers out. :grin:
Looking at the surface area of the powder exposed thru the vent hole vs the surface area of the powder after a vent pick was inserted and withdrawn tells an interesting story.
Take for instance, a 1/16" diameter vent hole.
It has a surface area of .003 square inches. That's three thousandths of a square inch.
Now, if one were to insert a tapered vent pick that was 1/16" diameter and tapered to a point 1/2 inch away from the full diameter into the vent hole, shoving the powder out of the way and then withdrew the pick, it would leave a tapered cone with a surface area of .049 square inches.
That's a exposed surface area that is 16 times greater than the exposed area of the unpicked hole.
The amount of increase depends on the size of the pick and the length of the taper but there can be no denying the picked hole always has a greater surface to catch the flames from the pans prime.
I know. Em ol' timers never used em numbers an fancy figgering. Throw em numbers out. :grin:
Larry Pletcher
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 67
Jim,
I wonder if the use of the pick will yield a measurable difference. A science instructor of mine used to say, "Design an experiment to answer the question you have." I think I should set up the timing equipment and run a series of trials with and without the vent pick. Keep all the methodology the same except for the pick.
Questions: Will the use of a pick give an increase in speed? Will the use of a pick give an increase in consistency? Any predictions?
Regards,
Pletch
I wonder if the use of the pick will yield a measurable difference. A science instructor of mine used to say, "Design an experiment to answer the question you have." I think I should set up the timing equipment and run a series of trials with and without the vent pick. Keep all the methodology the same except for the pick.
Questions: Will the use of a pick give an increase in speed? Will the use of a pick give an increase in consistency? Any predictions?
Regards,
Pletch
Pletch said:
Pardon my butting in... I believe the pick reduced the number of flashes in the pan - these were probably all due to my lack of experience, but the pick seemed to help. Just a thought.
Jamie
PS I (and everyone else) find your experiments very informative, please keep asking the questions and designing the experiments!
I think it should produce a measurable difference.
It will most likely be far less than the difference the math says it would be because there are other factors coming into it such as, the cone formed by the pick will not be a true conical cavity.
Indeed, when withdrawing the pick, some of the powder particles in the upper area may fall, blocking off much if the cavity produced.
Also, the extreme end of the cavity where the pick comes to a point will not exist because the size of the powder granules are considerably larger than the sharp end of the pick.
As I said, even though the cavity will not be a true cone, I think you should be able to detect a difference.
From my reading I've found that "picking the vent" was rather common and I suspect they had good reason for doing this.
Clearing fouling might have been a part of the reason but I think the reliability of ignition because of the increase in the exposed powder surface had more to do with it than just cleaning up the vent hole.
It will most likely be far less than the difference the math says it would be because there are other factors coming into it such as, the cone formed by the pick will not be a true conical cavity.
Indeed, when withdrawing the pick, some of the powder particles in the upper area may fall, blocking off much if the cavity produced.
Also, the extreme end of the cavity where the pick comes to a point will not exist because the size of the powder granules are considerably larger than the sharp end of the pick.
As I said, even though the cavity will not be a true cone, I think you should be able to detect a difference.
From my reading I've found that "picking the vent" was rather common and I suspect they had good reason for doing this.
Clearing fouling might have been a part of the reason but I think the reliability of ignition because of the increase in the exposed powder surface had more to do with it than just cleaning up the vent hole.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,341
- Reaction score
- 4,514
Sure I'll venture a guess.
I think the speed will be about the same but consistency will improve.
I quit using hard, tapered, pointed picks and went to mild steel wire near vent diameter with a radius ground on the end.
The reason is I don't like stabbing the off side of the barrel with hard steel and I want the pick to push the fouling out of the vent leaving it full diameter, not just sticking a hole through it.
Also hard picks can swage alter the vent hole even though it too is hard.
This design can be left full in the vent traversing to the far barrel wall while loading as a safety and only withdrawn when it's time to shoot thus insuring a clear clean vent and a cavity in the compressed powder charge.
I think the speed will be about the same but consistency will improve.
I quit using hard, tapered, pointed picks and went to mild steel wire near vent diameter with a radius ground on the end.
The reason is I don't like stabbing the off side of the barrel with hard steel and I want the pick to push the fouling out of the vent leaving it full diameter, not just sticking a hole through it.
Also hard picks can swage alter the vent hole even though it too is hard.
This design can be left full in the vent traversing to the far barrel wall while loading as a safety and only withdrawn when it's time to shoot thus insuring a clear clean vent and a cavity in the compressed powder charge.
hanshi
Cannon
Sometimes I'll hit the lock panel opposite the lock and get a few kernels in the pan before priming. Ignition and firing are a given when I do this.
