Post by: Mike R on May 20, 2009, 08:41:55 AM
Post by: Captchee on May 20, 2009, 09:42:44 AM
but with the advent of time laps photography, when know that this isn’t really the case . As to testing of this , I believe the NMLRA did those same tests many years back and found that a flintlock was only about 10, 1000ths slower In ignition IE pop of cap to flash in pan
Now as I recall , that was with perfectly matched locks . IE mainspring tension was matched , drag was matched .
Now actual ignition of the main charge was according to the article =
The reason being was that the flintlock had a shorter flash channel to the main charge , while a caplock had a longer one with a 90 deg turn . However , because of the design of the nipple which concentrated the pressure from the cap , it made op for the difference .
This was tested by filament burn basically using the same test set up , to test the burn rates of powder
Now I can tell you this much , with all honesty .
If your flintlock is 6X slower then a caplock , then you have issues somewhere . Either in the tuning of your lock , build up in the bore or design of your flash hole or liner is the case may be .
As to being more water proof . I think we have to discern what we are comparing .
In order to do a test of this subject , everything has to be like or = . If we don’t do that then we have to discern variables
If we are talking period caps , I would say no . modern caps , I would say a cap lock excels little over a flintlock with non experienced shooters .
Among experienced shooters . IMO the flintlock is more reliable in wet weather then a cap lock . Reason being is the ease of inspecting your ignition on a flintlock and the complete in ability to do so on a cap lock
The list could go on and on really
The point is however that there are draw backs to both designs . Speaking as a long time 20+ year shooter of flintlocks , who started out with cap locks , I chose a flinter for the following reasons
1) reliability , . I found that once i learned the flintlock , it was very much more reliable then a cap lock . When it failed , it was my fault ..
The days of popping gaps due to plugged nipple, replacing nipples because of distortion “ remember we have much better nipple and nipple designs then those used in the 1830’s “ no more issues with fouling build up in the bolster or Lube contamination in the bolster .
I also find no discernable difference in speed of ignition or length of hold
2) speed and easy of loading . No more fumbling for caps with cold hands . Or loading a quick capper , exposing the caps to moisture , causing weak or dud caps . Not to mention no more need to buy caps . For that mater searching for one brand of caps over another . Because one brand is found to be hotter , less failures in a tin , so as to negate all the other issues
Thus adding one more thing to the list of items making my shooting less self sufficient
3) the knowledge base about the rifle itself . There simple is a whole lot more going on . I have to be more aware of the rifle and its needs . If I fail in that aspect , then all is for not .
i rather enjoy that part . it makes the rifle more part of me as it relies on me as much as i rely on it .
As such I can tell you this much . If it came down to me having to chose between a cap lock and a flintlock for my survival. The flintlock would be my choice , hands down .
The over whelming reason for that is its reliability rests soul on me . Not on the competence of someone else . Its capability of being kept in a higher % of functional state “ fire able “ for a much longer period of time . IE no need for a supply of caps or replacement nipples .
With a flintlock worst case , you can lose the main spring , frizzen , frizzen spring and the rifle is still capable of being modified in the field to fire a projectile .
But with a cap lock . You run out of caps , damage a nipple and not have a replacement. Lose the main spring and you have nothing but a club or walking stick even though you may have powder and ball
So IMO #3 is why the cap lock for a very short time became so popular . Its simply human nature and is also why the caplock died, relatively speaking rather quickly
Post by: wwpete52 on May 20, 2009, 10:38:46 AM
Post by: Mule Brain on May 20, 2009, 11:27:48 AM
I found this article by Paul Vallandigham, to be rather interesting. I will quote a few things from it. I would like for others to chime in on this!!!!
I am not an expert on anything, but want to learn as much as possible. It just needs to be accurate information!
From Paul
Flintlocks are actually faster to fire than a percussion gun, all things being equal. By that I mean, if you have two side lock actions, one flint and other percussion, and the flintlock is tuned properly (has the flint mounted properly in the cock, has a good frizzen that sparks, the angle of the cock will throw the sparks into the middle of the priming pan, and the main charge has been poked with a vent pick to allow more than one granule of powder to be ignited by the priming charge at one time), the main charge in a flintlock will be burning before the hammer on the percussion gun strikes the percussion cap. The priming powder ignites and in turn ignites the main charge in the barrel before the cock finishes its stroke and comes to a rest. The percussion gun, by design, has to strike the cap between the hammer and the nipple to cause ignition, so the flintlock has to fire sooner. Flintlocks fire quicker, lock time being equal.
1. In a flintlock, you don't pack the powder by ramming the ball down hard on the powder charge. A flintlock has to burn the powder one granule at a time, while a percussion cap sends a flame burning or pushing its way through the powder charge, igniting lots of powder all at once. A percussion cap actually detonates the powder, much like the primer in a cartridge does today.
The flintlock was designed to start a fire that quickly ignites all the powder to create the gases needed to expel the projectile. Load the ball using a marked ramrod, so that you load to a mark you have made on the ramrod that represents where the ball just begins to touch the powder under it. (You can feel and sometime hear a grinding action when the ball touches the powder). Leave extra air between powder granules, to speed the burning process in a flintlock. Actually, there is enough oxygen in the powder itself to provide all the O2 it needs for combustion. But extra oxygen helps it burn faster. (That is the secret!)
3. Use a vent pick to poke a channel in the main powder charge in the barrel. This allows room for the flame from the prime to enter the barrel through the touchhole, and burn several granules of powder simultaneously. This speeds ignition so much that I have had club members come up to me while reloading to ask if I am shooting a flintlock or a percussion gun! When I show them the flint action, they all want to know how I do that. Now you know.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/flintlocks.htm (http://www.chuckhawks.com/flintlocks.htm)
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on May 20, 2009, 11:46:11 AM
Post by: Mike R on May 20, 2009, 11:51:28 AM
Post by: Mike R on May 20, 2009, 12:01:26 PM
Post by: LRB on May 20, 2009, 02:08:13 PM
Post by: SimonG on May 20, 2009, 04:09:37 PM
not sure what the point is mike? I might have missed it in the post, apologies if I read over it...
Caplock faster than flinter, CVA ARC electronic ignition faster than Caplock... gotcha...
still like my flinter better than either "Modern , faster" options, and wool over GoreTex...also don't shoot compounds with carbon arrows and keep shaving on ash staves and POC.....I guess I will take my "Backwoods Idiot Hick" sticker now, thanks.
Post by: jbullard1 on May 20, 2009, 06:10:18 PM
Post by: Captchee on May 20, 2009, 06:31:52 PM
tuning veries , spring wieghts very , frictionsvery
thats my point , nothing more
i have 2 mantons on my sxs , both flints , a left hand and a right hand . the right lock is faster in the fall then the left
Post by: Gambia on May 20, 2009, 10:26:07 PM
Post by: Mike R on May 21, 2009, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: "SimonG"
Ok.
not sure what the point is mike? I might have missed it in the post, apologies if I read over it...
Caplock faster than flinter, CVA ARC electronic ignition faster than Caplock... gotcha...
still like my flinter better than either "Modern , faster" options, and wool over GoreTex...also don't shoot compounds with carbon arrows and keep shaving on ash staves and POC.....I guess I will take my "Backwoods Idiot Hick" sticker now, thanks.
I thought the point obvious, but I expected flak [and got it] because many flint shooters have an almost religious attachment to them to the point of ignoring hard evidence--I was presenting some hard evidence of the first tests that I was aware of that were done with modern scientific methods and tools. That is all. Larry Pletcher has done everyone interested in the truth about how things work a great service by controlled testing of such things as powder and vent hole positions relative to the pan, lock/ignition speeds and now comparisons of flint vs caplock speeds [which if you believe many many anecdotes here and elsewhere would suggest no difference--he is testing it scientifically]. Larry will tell you that the experiments are not over--these are results of the first series of tests, but there is little doubt of the results. He has a superfast flintlock [customed tuned] that he intends to time next. Perhaps the 6.4X ratio will be less with it. I posted this simply FYI ,and if you don't care don't pay any attention to it.
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 21, 2009, 12:59:51 PM
I have been at this game a looong time....not the Rendezvous, PC, HC, developing a persona, etc, etc, but the actual gun part.
I have had a love for muzzleloaders that dates back to the 1940's when Grandpa promised me his old "homemade" muzzleloader that was built by some feller over in another county.
In those days there was no such thing as "custom"....It was either store bought, or homemade.
Be it a Capper, or a Flinter, no one can say these guns are not tremendously facinating, and a heck of a lot of fun learning to overcome what many see as short comings.
I mean after all, the only thing most folks have, or know, to compare a good muzzleloader to is a smokeless rifle of some kind, and they are just not the same breed of cat.
Reason tells me a Caplock is faster, but it seems to end right there.
Beaverman now has a .54 GPR Flinter that is as fast, or perhaps even faster, than any flintlock I have ever had the opportunity to shoot.
I have often "thought" there was a good chance that this particular rifle is possibly faster than any run-of-the-mill caplock....but that, of course, was based on perception and no actual measurements.
At any rate, there is no "flinch time" and no "hold through". You pull the trigger and the ball is on the way....is that fast? You bet!
My .69 cal has no flash hole liner, whereas all my other flinters do, and with age (since the early 1970's) I feel confident that particular flash hole has become enlarged, because I get the distinct feeling that the gun just may be getting better with age....Kirkland Turner sold these brand spanking new in the 60's and 70's for the ungodly sum of $135.00
But then we have to ask ourself, is it the fact there is better and better powder being made today than, say 35 / 40 years ago? or, have I just "learned" the gun? Heck! I dunnno. But I do know that .69 is a great old gun, both with roundball and shot.
With the "scientific" measurements I have read about, we talk about times that are so fast that I seriously doubt anybody can tell any actual difference...whether real or imagined.
When dealing with time measurements, it has always seemed to me that when we take a tennie tiny bit away from an already little bitty number, we stil have something very itty bitty...does that make sense?
Perception, and acceptance of fact, is a big thing to consider when shooting a muzzleloader.
If you have only one muzzleloader, be it capper or flinter, and you shoot it all the time under the "perception" that it is fast, then it will be fast...at least to you.
And that can be said about fast, or slow. (There is a lot in how you percieve the lock time.)
Now the "fact" may be that when I shoot that same gun, I just may feel the ignition is slow...slow, compared to what?
Slow compared to one of my very similar guns, because that is my own perception of how fast, or slow, that flinter or capper really is.
What I'm getting at here is the fact that no one can percieve a difference in .0005 seconds, and .005 seconds.
Can we live with what we have, and become proficient in its use?
I think so. I think that the more familiar we become with any gun, the more proficient we will become with that gun...be it slow, or fast.
Good thread with many good replies. I hope it continues.
By talking with others, and accepting the fact that our gun is what it is, after we have performed all the real tricks, along with all the old wives tales that we learn on the Internet, then I would say it would be time to turn to the fact that we have what we have...it is what it is, and we are going to learn that gun inside and out.
I think we will all have a fast, or fast enough gun.
Just my thoughts.
Uncle Russ....
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on May 21, 2009, 01:18:12 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on May 21, 2009, 02:01:10 PM
Quote from: "Mike R"
... the caplock was 6.4 times faster than the flintlock--that is purely a math calculation, 0.0115 goes into 0.074 sec 6.4+ times, that is you have to multiply 0.0115 by 6.4+ to get 0.074 sec. ...
As with all statistics you can make them say what you want.
I have no trouble believing that a caplock is faster than a flintlock given that all of or the vast majority of the flash from a cap is channeled directly to the powder charge and in a flintlock it is the luck of the draw as to when a spark will find its way to the powder charge.
As for reliability, I've witnessed caplock shooters have a bad day and have to snap two or three to get it to go off and some that have to snap a couple of times just to get the cap to go off. Of course I've had my bad days with my flintlocks and had to work hard to get them to got off as well. But, most of the time they are as reliable as any caplock I've seen.
Back to statistics. From the testing the caplocks ignited in 0.0115 seconds on average and the flint locks 0.074 seconds. Mathematically the cap lock is 6.4 times faster no question. But step back for a second and take a look at what you are analyzing.
[size=200]0.0115 seconds and 0.074 seconds[/size] one is about 1/100th of a second, the other is about 7/100ths of second. Try to measure either one using the second hand on your watch (ain't going to happen. :shake :toast
Post by: TomG on May 21, 2009, 05:27:24 PM
Yes the caplock is more efficient then the flinter.
Yes the flintlock demands more care and attention then the caplock.
But that is why I prefer the flintlock.
It takes that extra work and skill to handle.
It is more challenging to learn the flintlock other then the caplock.
Isnt that what its all about.
When I start a campfire, I could easily pull out a lighter or a match.
But the flint and steel is more challenging,takes some skill and is more fun.
I think everyone will agree that the caplock is faster and takes less work to make it reliable
And to use a flintlock and maintain the same reliability as a caplock takes more work.
Flintlock users like the extra work and skill it takes to handle a flinter.
Its not about speed, its about tradition.
Post by: snake eyes on May 22, 2009, 12:23:06 AM
To say you will take some flack from your comments is
great.What you have done is brought up an issue for
discussion and it has been handled in a civil manner by all.
That does not happen on every forum.
I am really not all that concerned about timing. Just that it goes bang when I pull the trigger. I would have to agree with
your report F/L vs P/L,but I am no expert and I have 12 P/L and
2 F/L. So my experience is more to P/L. In all honesty I like
shooting the F/L more than the P/L but B/P, is B/P and I love
the smell, coming from either!!!!
I hope if I ever go,they tell my wife,I died from B/P lung.
But my plan is to live forever,and my plan is working so far :shake
Post by: Mike R on May 22, 2009, 08:30:42 AM
Post by: bluelake on May 22, 2009, 08:36:33 AM
Post by: Mike R on May 22, 2009, 08:37:52 AM
Post by: Mike R on May 22, 2009, 08:38:39 AM
Quote from: "bluelake"
Hmmm... I wonder how matchlocks would fare? :) about like a bow and arrow but slower....
Post by: bluelake on May 22, 2009, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: "Mike R"
Quote from: "bluelake"Hmmm... I wonder how matchlocks would fare? :) about like a bow and arrow but slower....
Ah, good--then it's right up my alley
Post by: Gambia on May 22, 2009, 08:55:44 PM
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on May 22, 2009, 09:09:30 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on May 22, 2009, 10:58:17 PM
And, like I mentioned earlier, I do hope this thread continues in the same open mindedness it started with....basically, as I see it, which do you perceive as fastest?
Many folks condemn the Flintlock because they read things like "it's five or six times slower"...at first glance that is very, very, significant. However, as has been pointed out, slow is not really slow, and faster does not mean it's a runaway.....it's similar to a NASCAR race.
Yep, Car number 18, driven by Kyle Bush, was the fastest and the winner.
He beat Denny Hammlin in car number 11 by 1.100 seconds!
I think we can all see that Denny Hammlin was definitely not dragging his feet....and neither does the Flintlock....it may be a close second, but there is always people putting their money on that particular car.....
Please don't be disappointed in the way the thread is going. IMHO, it is very appropriate for folks have a difference in opinion, or attempt to say the same say thing in a totally different way...it's all a process.
Uncle Russ...
Post by: Three Hawks on May 23, 2009, 01:11:43 AM
In all honesty, The only thing I could possibly care less about is whether crappies or rainbows taste better broiled in front of an open fire.
My rifle goes off every time I pull the trigger and most of the time I put a little round hole in or near whatever I was aiming at. That is all I require of it or care about.
Your mileage, as always, may vary.
Three Hawks
Post by: Loyalist Dave on May 23, 2009, 12:46:09 PM
The idea of a caplock type system was developed by an avid bird shooter to help his hunting. The question then is, was it that big an improvement, or was it an improvement for him? In other words did he have some bad habits that made the system an advantage for his skills or lack there of??
LD
Post by: bluelake on May 23, 2009, 06:10:52 PM
Quote from: "Loyalist Dave"
The idea of a caplock type system was developed by an avid bird shooter to help his hunting. The question then is, was it that big an improvement, or was it an improvement for him? In other words did he have some bad habits that made the system an advantage for his skills or lack there of??
I thought the development of the caplock was in order to have ignition even in damp surroundings.
Post by: Loyalist Dave on May 24, 2009, 01:33:51 PM
Rev Alexander John Forsyth patented the use of fulminates for ignition of firearms by percussion in 1807. His system put fulminate into a container on the side of the lock, with a pin to strike the chemical, when the pin was struck by the hammer. He claimed the flash of the pan of his flintlock as the gun discharged gave roosting birds a warning so a possible miss if they took flight. His idea eliminated that possibility. His was the "scent bottle" lock.
Joseph Manton refined the idea into the "pill lock" where the hammer came to a point, and a pill of fulminate was placed into an open container similar to the drum on the side of some caplock guns. The point of the hammer would strike the fulminate pill, and cause detonation. This idea was adopted for a short time by the Austrian army.
The use of a cap over a nipple, the cap holding the fulminate, was patented in 1822, combining the quick reloading of the pill idea, with the foul weather improvement of a sealed system.
LD
Post by: Mike R on May 26, 2009, 08:45:55 AM
Post by: jtwodogs on July 05, 2009, 04:30:02 PM
This may make the slightest bit of difference from a "Benched rifle", I would say the diff. would be negligable from a standing position "Off hand".
Try sticking a laser pointer in the end of your barrel "Empty of course" even at 30 yds. with a one inch dot off hand the dottle factor is amazing.
In my case I try to catch the sights as they are passing through the dottle area and squeeeeeze. To each his own but I really do not think .062secs. is going to make or break when there are so many other Larger factors at play.
As to the waterproof and reliablity I have nothing to offer in experience.
I say shoot what you like and like what you shoot.
Post by: Dphariss on August 03, 2009, 11:15:06 AM
Quote from: "jtwodogs"
What we are talking is a diff. of .062 secs..
This may make the slightest bit of difference from a "Benched rifle", I would say the diff. would be negligable from a standing position "Off hand".
Try sticking a laser pointer in the end of your barrel "Empty of course" even at 30 yds. with a one inch dot off hand the dottle factor is amazing.
In my case I try to catch the sights as they are passing through the dottle area and squeeeeeze. To each his own but I really do not think .062secs. is going to make or break when there are so many other Larger factors at play.
As to the waterproof and reliablity I have nothing to offer in experience.
I say shoot what you like and like what you shoot.
I suggest you shoot some 50 ft smallbore with a 6-8 power scope on 2 different rifles. A fast lock time 22 and a slow lock time 22. Even a Small-Martini action verses a Stevens 44 for example. There is less time difference here than the flint verses perc but there is a significant difference in the scores on the target. Yes folks I have shot both. I shot the Martini all winter one year every weak 100 rounds or so in competition.
The Martini was fast enough that the bullet hole was always where the cross hairs were when the trigger broke. Even with the slightly slower 44, fast compared to a 1874 Sharps, there will be shots that are not "callable" you know where the cross hairs were when the trigger broke but the bullet hole is someplace else.
I have had one percussion gun that consistently had a "pop-bang" firing cycle. This puts it into the flintlock firing cycle. I have had others that were very fast like a modern fast lock time CF gun.
FLINTLOCKS ARE NEVER THIS FAST.
The breechloader/percussion ignition cycle is striker/hammer falls from cocked to the primer, primer fires and shoots a high pressure jet of fire into the propellant.
The only thing that can slow this is a gummed up firing mechanism or a convoluted/improperly designed flash channel. This is what will produce a "slow" percussion.
Flintlock cycle.
Cock moves off full cock and drives the flint into the frizzen, the flint tears metal from the frizzen and in the process the metal is heated to a temperature above the ignition of BP. The ensuing "sparks" are thrown or fall into the pan, they heat one or more grains of powder to the ignition point, the flame propagates. The heat builds and the HEAT then ignites the powder in the barrel/vent.
How ANYONE who has shot both can consider the FL to be faster is just beyond me. I have shot flint and percussion guns since 1965 or so. NEVER have I EVER thought flint was faster than percussion. I have some "fast" flintlocks. If I shoot my AR for a few days a "fast" flintlock is painfully slow. If I shoot nothing but flint they are really fast.
The tests show that the percussion is 6-7 times faster. 6-7 times. This means the centerline of the barrel can move 6-7 times as far before the projectile clears the muzzle. Its why flintlocks are harder to shoot well.
Dan
Post by: mark davidson on August 07, 2009, 02:24:26 PM
Post by: Uncle Russ on August 07, 2009, 02:32:35 PM
Quote
I think I have learned that knowing my gun is way more important than knowing about it!
That's the ticket!
Uncle Russ...