Touch Hole Liners?

[aprayinbear]

:hmm:

So what's the real deal? Seems that almost everyone these days uses touch hole liners in their BP rifles and pistols. Caywood Gunmakers seems to be the lone voice against them, suggesting that liners are not historically correct, are potentially dangerous if installed incorrectly and are not necessarily any faster then traditional touch holes.

I don't claim to be any kind of an expert, but my thought is why bother? I clean, dry and oil my guns after each use, and get what I consider a fast ignition. And I figure, if years down the road the vent hole seems to be getting worn, I can just drill it out and install a liner at that point.

Hope I didn't just poke a hornets nest, but what do you think?

 

[thewho66]

Touch hole lines were used in very fine high end guns, usually made of gold or platinum. Military as well as everyday civilian guns didnt have them and in overall use were not needed. When they didi were out ( just the standard drilled though guns) they were repair but some one else here will have to tell you that because I cant remember how it was done. I do know that some of the current gun makes have tools to cone a barrel from the inside and that has been talked about in this forum. My opion is you dont really need them and I own a Caywood and have no problem with the gun going off.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I personally wouldn't own a flint gun with out a Chambers white lightnin' touch hole liner in it.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Vent liners were a take it or leave it item 20 years ago. Then Jim Chambers came up with a liner with a parabolic curve to the "cone", and people began noticing that ignition was faster. No one wanted to believe that a small change in this small item would change the ignition, but it did. Even Jim indicates he didn't think it would be a big seller. He really didn't put much of his money into marketing his " White lightning" liner. But, as word of mouth spread the word, he began getting orders from dealers, and gun builders for dozens of the liners.

So, that is the Big Deal about liners. Some people still don't believe they make a difference.

Caywood is correct that such liners are rarely seen on common rifles back in the 18th century. They did show up on high priced " sporting arms" that had other embellishments. John is also correct that you don't NEED a liner for your touchhole to get the gun to fire.

What a liner allows you to have is a way to replace a burned out vent hole after shooting a gun a lot. You can experiment with the shape of the vent hole that comes with various brands of liners, and make your own decision. If the vent hole in a liner is too small, and you are experiencing misfires, you can drill out the liner, and not worry about drilling it out too big. You can always replace the liner with a new one.

If you have a simply vent hole drilled into the barrel of your gun, and its too small, you get to drill it out to a larger size. However, if you drill it too large, Now what do you do?

( HINT: The CHEAPEST solution is to have someone drill and tap the barrel for a --- you guessed it--- vent liner!)

Other solutions include Replacing the barrel( expensive!), plugging the existing hole with a rod or screw, welded into place, and then redrilling a new hole through that plug.( very labor intensive and expensive.), and converting the gun to Percussion, using a drum and nipple arrangement! ( also expensive, and there is no guarantee that you can find a lock that will fit your lock mortise, and reach a nipple centered on your original vent hole.)

There were tens of thousands of Brown Bess, and French Charleyville muskets made over the centuries without vent liners in them. The guns fired. However, if you are a target shooter, and need or desire a flintlock that fires as fast as possible, then you should be looking at Jim Chamber's White Lightning Liner.

 

[rich pierce]

It's possible to get a Chambers liner made of steel and they don't show as much as the non-ferrous alloy ones. They are machined from the same free machining leaded steel many barrel makers use, I think.

 

[Vaino]

In this age of needing "instant everything", a "White Lightning" TH liner satisfies this "need". For years I used "homade" TH liners and although they worked w/o complaint, the first time I tried a LR w/ the "White Lightning" the thought came to mind...."this thing is taking all the joy out of shooting a flintlock". Instant ignition w/o a "wait", no question as to whether the charge will go off and the durability of stainless steel really had me wondering if I wanted to use such a "surefire", well thought out piece of technology. Well, outside of the fact that using a "WL" TH liner destroys the esthetics for some w/ it's "white circle", I've used it on the last 10 LRs w/o any complaints and in fact, rightly or wrongly, it's become a sign of "something special".....Fred

 

[Onojutta]

flehto,

I'm pretty sure 200 years ago instant ignition was just as needed and desired as it is now. :v

 

[paulvallandigham]

You are right, Fred. Its is something special. My worry about HC stopped when I realized that in all the demonstrations I had done and all the people who had looked at my gun, NOT ONE ever asked me if that liner was historically correct! Or commented about the different " color " of the liner against the barrel. NO one cares- but us!

It is special to be able to shoot a flintlock without worries that it will go off, go off fast, and go off every time. Just those things allow me to concentrate on my sight picture, and timing, so that I am a better shooter with my flintlock. I think its very nice to be able to shoot such a reliable gun and to demonstrate flintlock shooting to crowds of non-shooters. The fact that you can get the liners made from steel, and finish them to the same finish as is on your gun just goes further to get rid of any aesthetic reasons for objecting to their use.

 

[Vaino]

Considering that "life" was much slower 250 years ago and that even a "short" trip took days, I'm awonderin' just how fast and reliable the THs of period arms really were and the criteria that were used to assess these two factors.. Everything is relative and judgements made 250 years ago were correct for that time, but how would they compare today? Black powder wasn't as good, most flintlocks had a simple drilled TH and questions arise as to how often and how well these LRs were cleaned. Granted, the functioning of arms of that day was sometimes a matter of life or death and prime importance should have been placed on flintlock function. With what we know today and the research into arms of 200-250 yrs ago, we shouldn't be experiencing present day problems w/ flintlock arms and the question has to be asked....if the flintlock arms 200-250 yrs ago were fast and mainly reliable, why can't they be wholly duplicated today? Manufacturing short cuts, poor modern design and a lack of knowledge are just a few reasons as to why we possibly can't duplicate the reliabilty of the "old time" flintlocks, or....were the "old time" flintlock arms as good as we think or have their attributes been embellished as we are wont to do w/ things old?. Any thoughts?....Fred

 

[Onojutta]

A slower lifestyle doesn't mean less need for shooting accuracy. During an Indian raid or skirmish with the British, or even in the pursuit of game, I'm sure a fast and reliable ignition was just as important then as it is now.

But flehto I think I see the point you are trying to make in that white lightening liners are a modern convenient way to acheive this same reliable ignition rather than utilizing proper methods to duplicate a liner-less vent hole.

If all they were back then were straight holes through the barrel flat, then I don't know why that would be so hard to duplicate, both in form and function. Or if they were used back then on fine guns, why weren't they used on all guns?

And how do we know that most guns didn't come with liners, and the reason why we don't see them is because many of them burned out and were just drilled out and never replaced?

Also, what is the problem with the liners showing up like a silver button? Can't and aren't they browned with the rest of the barrel?

 

[Stophel]

Touch hole liners... In the 18th century, touch holes could be "bushed" with gold or platinum, and were seen on extravagant guns of the wealthy. With FEW exceptions, they just weren't found on ordinary grade guns. They may or may not be coned on the inside, I have never had opportunity to examine one. Many are quite small, and they couldn't be coned much anyway.

A plain drilled touch hole in the barrel works quite fine, actually. Usually people who rail against them have never shot a gun with one, or at most, they shot a gun with a tiny 1/16" hole, and then they complain about poor ignition. Make your hole at least 5/64", larger if necessary, and ignition will be fine.

They can be coned fairly easily too. Un-lined touch holes were coned on the inside in the 18th century. I don't know that it was done that much in America or not.

You can make a plain steel touch hole liner, cone it, and screw it into the barrel, but that's kinda pointless, even counterproductive, I think. You can drill the touch hole, even cone it, and if it ever erodes out too much, then you can bush it.

 

[Zonie]

As Stophel says, some barrels were "coned" from the inside.

To a gunsmith who was used to working with files and such this wasn't a major task if the breech plug was removed after the vent hole was drilled. It just took some time to hollow out the barrel wall around the vent.

Another method that was used was to drill the vent hole completely thru the barrel. A larger drill was then used to enlarge this thru hole from the far side, drilling into the wall of the barrel on the vent side to remove much of the material between the bore and the outside flat.
The larger hole on the side away from the vent was then threaded and plugged with a suitable piece of threaded stock.
This, in effect created a short vent hole to allow the powder to almost reach the outside of the vent hole, somewhat like the typical liner we use today. (Chambers liners are not the only ones that are coned from the inside. They are the only ones with a special parabolic shape).

 

[ghostdncr]

Am I the only one who has seen one of the early coning drills? I've looked through my bookmarks and Googled the thing but can't find a picture of it!

It looked like a tiny breast drill with a series of small gears mounted on a plate that would fit into the bore and the forward-most gear carried a small countersink. That was placed into a thru-drilled hole and cranked until the point could be seen from the outside at the flash hole.

Quite an apparatus, but beautiful in its simplicity.

 

[Zonie]

I've seen photos of it and your right. It is a neat little thing with a hand cranked set of tiny gears which transmit the rotation to a little burr that cones the vent from inside the barrel.

I've also seen small cutters that look like a nail with a tapered cutting blade where the head should be. This is inserted from the inside of the barrel so that the "shank" protrudes out of the vent hole. Then, using a hand drill to grasp the shank the cutter cuts a cone from inside the barrel.

As for unconed touch holes without vent liners, as Stophel mentions many of these were quite large (by modern standards).
I think that is why there are many references to using a bird feather to plug them while loading.

 

[tg]

I will never have another liner in a gun I own, I am sure the liners particularly the white lighting are faster in many instances, bullet boards are a fast way to reload as well, most using 18th century tech don't use them. the liners are a way to get an edge over the original guns in speed and are justified by the fact that some were used on high end guns or as a way to cure a burned out hole, many things are not used or frowned upon that have a lot better historical support than that, personaly I like to reproduce the experience as close as I can to the originals, a plain hole is a very easy way to do this,the fancy liners on plain guns are not much difference than the improvements Mr. Knight and others have added to MLs over the years, any downside to plain holes were there in the past and folks seemed to get along ok. I read somewhere that the abundance of liners was a result of re-converting old flinlocks from cap back to flint and it just became acepted as the way to make a gun.

"Also, what is the problem with the liners showing up like a silver button? Can't and aren't they browned with the rest of the barrel?'

Most guns of the period were not browned.

 

[rich pierce]

I've been back and forth on the issue. When I started building I was sold on what I read, that flintlocks are slow, that without a touchhole liner, it can seem like an eternity. This was before Chambers came out with the White Lightning liners. Then they came out and everybody had to have one. Most customers want them. I built my latest rifle without a liner because it's 1760's-1770's styling and not aged, so a liner would look wrong to me. I was surprised to find that ignition is fast. The lockplate, cock, frizzen and frizzen spring are custom but the lock has Siler internals. I can't tell that the gun does not have a liner. I think the lock has a lot to do with speed of ignition. If I had a big old musket lock, it might take longer for the cock to peck at the hammer.

 

[Onojutta]

So how long does it take to burn out an unlined hole?

Also, can anyone explain the science behind the chambers white lightening? I don't really understand what advantage a parabolic cone has over a straight hole when we're talking about an explosive flame that needs only travel the thickness of the barrel to ignite the main charge. Given that many have testified that a straight hole is just as fast, with a fancy word like "parabolic" and a reputable name like Chambers attached to it, I'm wondering if there isn't some placebo effect with them...

 

[Stophel]

So how long does it take to burn out an unlined hole?.

I don't know! Unless you are a HEAVY shooter, you probably never will. And, if you do, it's a simple thing to bush it then. (bushing in the 18th century would be plugging the hole with iron and simply redrilling the hole.)

 

[Vaino]

IMO, the main features of a "White Lightning" TH liner is the short TH land, the parabolic cone that ensures that the powder charge fills completely to the TH and the erosion resistant stainless steel. Using fine threads allows for a maximum sized parabolic cone. I also like the efficiency of a smaller diameter TH {.062-.067} that's possible w/ the "WL" TH liner. Don't really know if the parabolic cone {possible shaped charge?} aids ignition of the main charge because in reality, the powder in the cone is part of the main charge. Any other remarks or ideas? Personally, I'm satisfied that incorporating a Chambers flintlock and "WL" TH liner into my LRs yields the fastest and most trouble free ignition possible today w/o spending a lot more money. In the end....it's a personal choice as to whether one chooses a modern "WL" TH liner or a plain drilled hole that's HC, but isn't as efficient because of the larger required dia. TH......Fred

 

[Onojutta]

In a private thread someone mentioned that he believes the parabolic cone of the white lightening liner provides a thermodynamic effect (in addition to bringing the main charge powder close to the pan). Very interesting perspective. If I get a chance I'll have to ask one of the mechanical engineers here at work about it and see what they think...