Touch hole liner vs straight hole

[phoenix511]

Has anyone done testing on the effect of a touch hole liner on reliability and the effect on lock time?

Very small changes in lock time are probably not an issue except for target shooters, but reliability is very important for hunters.
http://blackpowdermag.com/featured-articles/index.php has some great articles on flintlocks.

A touch hole liner places the main charge closer to the pan, so maybe a shorter time for ignition? But I know things are not always what they seem.

Is a touch hole liner more reliable? I have no idea how to plan and execute such a test (like the ever changing condition of the flint, for one thing), but then there are lots of folks smarter than me out there.

 

[Zonie]

Several of those articles were written by Larry Pletcher, known here on our forum as "Pletch".

He has posted many topics here on our forum and I believe reciently he wrote one about testing long touch holes vs liners.

Here is a link to many of the topics he has created.

PLETCH'S TOPICS

 

[Celt5494]

So I'm wondering what is the general consensus about a liner or no liner? It seems to me that with a liner there is more associated problems in the long run. Then again shooting a lot may lead to having to open up a drilled touch hole anyway over lots of use. I'd sure like to hear the opinions of those more learned than I on the topic. Another random question bouncing around my coconut like a BB in a small box is when did the liner come into existence? I'm a fairly simple man and tend to like to use the things that I know works but know enough to know I don't know much of anything............

 

[ebiggs1]

I have not shot enough to have "associated problems" with either. And I shoot a lot, a whole lot. Given a choice I would go with a liner, hands down, not even a close choice.

 

[hounddog]

Celt5494, I own guns with both the plain hole, and others with a liner. When the hole is clean and open both styles seem to work equally well. As for for preference I prefer the liners. However if it aint broke, dont fix it yours hounddog

 

[rabjr]

My first three customs have WL liners installed and I have no complaints as they are very fast ignition. I have however gotten an inside coning tool and my next two long guns and three pistols will be done with the inside cone tool. I just don't want the look of a liner installed on the next two long guns.

 

[Zonie]

From my little knowledge of history I don't think the use of vent liners was at all common on American made longrifles. I know of no examples.

That said, the use of vent liners in Europe goes back into the 17th century.
These were often made from gold or platinum and were installed on the guns used by royalty.

I"m a bit confused about the possible problems you feel could be caused by using a vent liner.
I cannot think of any unless they were installed on a gun which was supposed to represent an accurate reproduction of a American made gun.

In that case, if the rest of the gun was totally accurate a person would not want a liner on it.

As I mentioned, Pletch has done extensive research on flintlocks and although I do not dispute his findings I have my own theories about vent liners on my guns.

First and foremost on my list of theories is that the flash in the pan should have an easy, short path to the powder charge in the breech.

With a vent liner which is hollowed out on the inside leaving perhaps 1/32-1/16" of vent hole length, the main powder charge is within easy reach of the priming powders flash.
In a barrel without a vent liner and with just a hole drilled thru the barrel wall, almost none of the main powder charge will be closer than 3/16" from the pans powder flash and the flash will have to negotiate the length of the hole before it can ignite the charge.

Some of the American guns that were made without a vent liner do have the inside area of the vent hole removed to reduce the distance from the main powder charge to the pan which shows perhaps that my line of thinking about a short vent hole may not be entirely out of whack.
Removing the material at the vent inside the barrel is not an easy thing to do without special tools and unless the gunsmith that is building the gun has the tools and the knowledge to use them I think this opens a greater possibility of problems than installing a vent liner.

You didn't ask but most of the modern vent liners are made from stainless steel. This, of course cannot be browned or blued and visually it does stick out like a sore thumb.

For people who don't like this visual eyesore they should remember that making a vent liner out of a piece of threaded carbon steel rod is very easy and once installed it can be browned or blued to match the barrel.

 

[smoothy]

I've been involved in this topic before. All I'll say is that my flintlocks don't have liners. Don't know if they make a difference. Don't care to know either way. Never say never, but they just weren't common enough in the period/style my flintlocks portray and I want to stay authentic and have learned to shoot a flintlock with the challenges it has, including a 1/16" hole drilled right through the barrel to the main charge. A stainless steel liner would cheat me on this experience. But that's just my preference/opinion.

 

[Many Klatch]

I have guns with both. I drill them all out to about 3/64" whether lined or not. My Bess is closer to an 1/8 of an inch. They all work good. In my opinion the only valid reason for putting a liner in is that your touch hole got too big. As one gun builder once told me, the touch hole is too big when the ball rolls out.

Many Klatch

 

[DanChamberlain]

I'm wondering why - if a short distance between the fire and charge was necessary - old time gunsmiths didn't cone the flash channel from the outside. It would serve to "focus" the fire like a funnel to the touch hole. Once that burned out, a liner could be used if it eventually did.

Dan

 

[rich pierce]

I always figured that in the day, folks were used to lock/ignition times of flintlocks. They had never experienced percussion or cartridge. They didn't know they had a "problem".

Touch hole liners are for folks who want "best performance" more than authenticity. I am not confident to summarize, but IIRC, Larry's studies show maybe a 10-20% decrease in ignition time and some decrease in variability with a liner.

I've gone to coning the inside of the touchhole. It accomplishes the same thing, is easier and cheaper, and looks authentic. I really don't want to study originals, do all I can to emulate originals in every other way, then put a liner in a new rifle when that was essentially never done on American made flintlock rifles.

Note that no muskets of the period ever used liners. Ignition was a matter of great importance there.

Shooting is a matter of confidence. Once a shooter gets it in his head that w/o a liner, every ignition is long, he expects it to be long, and it seems long. Same guy with a liner can experience the same ignition time and think it's fast, way faster. If he thinks so, he'll probably shoot better. So he shoots better with a liner, for "mental" reasons rather than any physics.

If I was buildng for a customer who wanted a liner, I'd use a plain "barrel steel" Chambers White Lightning liner.

 

[Stophel]

I think most people who say something like "I tried a straight hole once, and it was real slow, so I'm never gonna try again" were using a tiny 1/16" hole. Which simply is too small for most guns. Usually, 5/64" is a good size. Even 3/32". You'll get reliable ignition, for sure at 3/32". That's usually plenty big enough.

I cone the inside of the touch holes now, because it's easy to do, and takes very little time, so why not, but honestly, I can't tell any difference with it coned or not!

I don't like liners generally, simply because they don't look right. They are unnecessary. I have used them, and I have a pistol project where I will have to use one, given the oddness of the old barrel I'm using, but generally I don't see the need and it just wasn't really done 200+ years ago. Even on European guns, liners (or rather BUSHINGS) were not common.

Oh, I remember some time ago Eric Kettenburg told me that he had been able to examine the Bethlehem/Christian's Spring gun (I believe it was number 43...I don't have RCA in front of me...) and it has a bushing in the barrel and he said it had the appearance of originality. I do not recall what he said the bushing was made out of..(gold or silver or something) It's the only American gun like this that I am aware of.

It was a common repair when the touch hole burnt out to drill it out and install a bushing (iron) and redrill the touch hole. These would be hard to see if well fitted.

 

[matt denison]

I'm sold on coned vent liners. I can't vouch for speed, Plech can handle that question. For me it is reliabillity. A coned touch hole is much easier to keep clean vs. 3/16" (plus-minus) tunnel through the side of the barrel.

Also I see no practical reason for a touch hole smaller than 1/16" diameter for the same reason, to be able to poke junk out of the way if it becomes neccessary.

 

[George]

It was a common repair when the touch hole burnt out to drill it out and install a bushing (iron) and redrill the touch hole. These would be hard to see if well fitted.

Here are two views of an original like that:

Spence

 

[Vaino]

Rich...I think your "points" are right on and the psychology involved is also quite pertinent. I presently install "White Lightning" TH liners in all my LRs and have certainly noted a difference in ignition speed and reliability in favor of the TH liner vs a straight hole. My HC question is this...the use of a SS "White Lightning" TH liner is very evident but w/ the use of a bbl steel TH liner and/or an inside coned TH, are we not just objecting to the aesthetics of the "WL" TH liner "circle" and using "hidden" features that weren't used on originals and which also aren't HC? Presently am comparing the use of an inside cone cutter vs the installation of a "WL" TH liner asre the time of installation. Seeing I mainly build spec LRs always w/ "WL" TH liners, the buyers don't seem to object to the "WLs" because the rifles sell quickly and only positive feedback has reached me as far as ignition speed and reliability. Perhaps the inside coned TH is the best compromise, but timewise, I think the "WL" installs faster....Fred

 

[rich pierce]

Certainly right, Fred, that for me, aesthetics of longrifles are important. I also don't like coiled mainsprings on a flintlock even though they would be invisible, and I don't think many makers of historically inspired rifles would, even if they were more reliable.

Flintriflesmith and others at colonial Williamsburg have used period tools to make an intenal cone, but we have no idea if that was a common practice on colonial and federal rifles.

I've just changed over in the past 2 years to my new "no shiny vent liners" stance. Who knows, I may drift back if I start building for customers if I am ever able to retire from science. Customers want them for sure. How can you not want something called "White Lightning"? They want them, they'll get them, but I will point out that rifles just didn't look like that. To me it's an oddity that customers want period finishes, styles, carving, locks, furniture, thimbles, nosecaps, sights, triggers, etc but then are happy to have something shiny at the vent hole that sticks out.

 

[tg]

I went to plain holes some coned a bit on the inside, I really have truble noticing any difference from the guns thhat has liner, my purpose in this sport is to try and experience the same feeling, sensation and overall experience that was felt by those who used the original guns, there atre many ways to improve upon the original ignition, sighting aperatus and projectiles to get a faster more efficiant weapon/tool to me this diffverts one from the reasons for stepping back in time to the use of ML's in the first place, if a plain hole is to slow for ones preference one can use a cartridle gun or one of the new improved MDL 70's that load from the front as due to this fact they are ML's. Everyone has a partiular point at which they want to take the sport, some prefer much more of the modern aspect than others, just one of the many issues that is decided by personal choice, no right or wrong, just very different levels of historical accuracy requirements.What is a bit diconcerning is that some things are tried to be justified because we use steel instead of iron and many other issues which really have no validity.

 

[DoDabber]

I'm with you. No touch hole liners for me, just a straight hole.
I am an avid believer in the KISS principle, as in
KeepItSimpleStupid. The more goodies you put on anything, even a flintlock, the more things that can go wrong.
Keep the sport pristine.

 

[Stophel]

Certainly right, Fred, that for me, aesthetics of longrifles are important. I also don't like coiled mainsprings on a flintlock even though they would be invisible, and I don't think many makers of historically inspired rifles would, even if they were more reliable.

Flintriflesmith and others at colonial Williamsburg have used period tools to make an intenal cone, but we have no idea if that was a common practice on colonial and federal rifles.

I've just changed over in the past 2 years to my new "no shiny vent liners" stance. Who knows, I may drift back if I start building for customers if I am ever able to retire from science. Customers want them for sure. How can you not want something called "White Lightning"? They want them, they'll get them, but I will point out that rifles just didn't look like that. To me it's an oddity that customers want period finishes, styles, carving, locks, furniture, thimbles, nosecaps, sights, triggers, etc but then are happy to have something shiny at the vent hole that sticks out.

Rich, I don't know if people really want period sights....period sights are TINY! :grin:

 

[ebiggs1]

Actually the original question was,

...Has anyone done testing on the effect of a touch hole liner on reliability and the effect on lock time?...

More or less, not whether it was HC/PC, or if it is shinny looking.