Post by: butterchurn on September 26, 2008, 05:26:36 PM
Post by: Bigsmoke on September 26, 2008, 05:35:26 PM
Post by: butterchurn on September 26, 2008, 05:39:46 PM
Post by: david32cal on September 26, 2008, 05:53:44 PM
Post by: nessy357 on September 26, 2008, 06:45:48 PM
I sent Larry some "foxfire"priming agent to time, still wainting to hear back from him.
http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured- ... in-pan.php (http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured-articles/part-5-timing-powder-locations-in-pan.php)
Foxfire, was invented during the Civil War, it's a fine yellow powder, and all you need is 1/2 grain to prime. It's without a doubt, the fastest ignition in a flinter
Someone was manufacturing it in Oregon, until he was shut down, supposedly in his home.
Cheers Bob.
Post by: Uncle Russ on September 26, 2008, 06:59:31 PM
Quote from: "bigsmoke"
Neat! Sure wish it would not have stopped before the results of the second shot were said.
Dangnab it.....now why did he go and do that. :rt th
Uncle Russ...
Post by: Wyoming Mike on September 27, 2008, 08:13:32 AM
The results showed something that I had believed for years was wrong. The strongest flash into the barrel and the fastest ignition times were the prime was just under but not covering the flash hole. The case where the powder was bunched to the off side away from the flash hole, the way I have been doing it for years, was the slowest and had the weakest flash into the barrel.
The timing difference of ignition between all three configurations was not enough for a human to detect. I was more impressed with the amount of flash entering the barrel rather than the timing.
Post by: Uncle Russ on September 27, 2008, 12:07:09 PM
Quote from: "Wyoming Mike"
I saw the results of his testing on another forum. He also did a series of tests with just the prime in the pan and photographed the flash into the barrel.
The results showed something that I had believed for years was wrong. The strongest flash into the barrel and the fastest ignition times were the prime was just under but not covering the flash hole. The case where the powder was bunched to the off side away from the flash hole, the way I have been doing it for years, was the slowest and had the weakest flash into the barrel.
The timing difference of ignition between all three configurations was not enough for a human to detect. I was more impressed with the amount of flash entering the barrel rather than the timing.
Mike, I read that same thing awhile back on the Cast Bullet forum.
And, like you, I realized that all that good teaching I got back years ago was nothing more than speculation, and was propagated in error each and every time it was told and passed on.
Things like this make me wonder about other things too..............
-Was this and numerous other things actually done "wrong" all these years, or did they get turned around a bit in the "tellin"?
-Are we actually more advance, understand more, and do things a whole bunch better than they did in the old days?
-The marksmanship we hear so much about, from the old days...was it really that much better? Or, has it been s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d a bit in the "tellin"?
-With times and prices being what they were in the old days, did they practice as much as we do today?
-Did the simple carrying, cleaning, care, and life dependency of their muzzleloaders produce a better marksman?
-Was "old fashion" lube, powder, and ball that much better than it is today?
-Were the guns more accurate then, than those made now?
Many, many questions linger in the mind, and certainly makes one wonder where the real truth actually lies.
Still yet, we love the stories and try hard to emulate "exactly" what they did....right or wrong.
It's all part of the game, and every last one of us seems to thrive on it..... And, is that not "exactly" how it should be?
Just wondering about others thoughts......
Uncle Russ...
Post by: deadfallpaul on September 27, 2008, 01:13:30 PM
How much difference does it make since the ignition times are so fast?? In a practical application I'm talking about.
I mean it's not like a deer jumping a bow string noise is it?
Post by: Kermit on September 27, 2008, 06:06:52 PM
Post by: oomcurt on September 27, 2008, 10:31:21 PM
Post by: Kermit on September 27, 2008, 11:44:18 PM
Thanks for bringing it back to earth.
Post by: Wyoming Mike on September 28, 2008, 08:18:14 AM
As far as the past is concerned, I think they were pretty much the same as we are today. Probably the same ratios of good shots to bad ones, the same ratio of good firearms and junk.
I was going to say that the only edge we have today is that we are more safety consious. Next to disease the biggest cause of death on the migrations west was firearms accidents. The firearms community is very safety consious but then you read in the paper about people shooting themselves or someone else because they they were either ignorant or just didn't care.
The scienific stuff is fun to read about. After 30 years or so in this I have developed my own way of doing things just like everyone else. I use what works and pretty much ignore the stuff that doesn't. I'm sure our ancestors did pretty much the same thing.
Post by: Sir Michael on September 30, 2008, 08:33:12 AM
1 - He uses .75 grs of powder. The smallest priming valve I've seen on the market throws 2-3 grs.
2 - the touch hole looks awfully large to me. 1/16 to slightly larger is more typical.
3 - the touch hole looks awfully high to me. Most in my experience have their top at least level with the top of the pan. Many are below the top of the pan almost at the bottom of the pan.
What I'd like to see is the same experiment with a typical sized touch hole located in a typical location using 3 grs. of powder.
This experiment has been used to say that there is no such thing as the fuse effect.
If everyone used as small a priming charge as he uses then it probably makes no difference but they don't. Heck I've seen folks literally fill the pan full.
Post by: snake eyes on September 30, 2008, 09:21:32 AM
Quote from: "Wyoming Mike"
The scienific stuff is fun to read about. After 30 years or so in this I have developed my own way of doing things just like everyone else. I use what works and pretty much ignore the stuff that doesn't. I'm sure our ancestors did pretty much the same thing.Mike&oomcurt,
Oh,man do I love the way you fellows think.....If it works
use it,if it don't,don't! It just don't get any simplar than that. Now
or 200 years ago.IMO
snake-eyes
Post by: Loyalist Dave on September 30, 2008, 09:25:34 AM
As for it mattering..., well his test only shows what happens between the pan ignition and the ignition of the powder in the chamber. The bullet doesn't exit in .032 seconds. The charge merely begins its work in .032 seconds. The next question might be..., how much time delay before the bullet begins to move from its resting position...., add that to the .032 seconds, and THEN..... how long before the bullet exits the muzzle..., giving you total time from flash to exit, which then would tell you how much lag time for human error to cause a change in point of aim.
Is it possible that part of the reason the patched round ball is often more accurate than its heavier, conical cousin, because the lower mass of the patched round ball makes the ball to begin moving sooner, so lowers the time required to exit the barrel, and lessens the time for human error to effect the aim of the barrel??
LD
Post by: Captchee on September 30, 2008, 10:11:50 AM
there are alot of variables that have not been considered .
notice his flash hole . its very large . Even though he says it’s a chambers liner , I have never gotten one of jims that was that large .
this gives a very quick ignition .
However , this also reduces barrel pressures which results in lower muzzle velocities .
With this large a flash hole . A prime close to the hole would produce a fast ignition because there is less resistance for the flash to get a direct line to the main charge .
The other issue I have with this test is his ignition source .
While IMO it would be true that the sparks from a flint may be a lot higher in temp then his hot wire , his hot wire has 1000 times the area of heat source .
This his flash powders pressure spike faster as more powder is initially incinerated.
Thus IMO the temperature of his hot wire is also having an effect on the ignition .
What he is doing is saying when heating the wire , ahhhhh , that looks good .
But in effect what is happening is there is most likely 100’s of degrees of variance in his source of ignition . Which is effecting the burn rate of the flash powder
To get an accurate compression he should be using the full lock ignition
The other issue that I notice right off is that that the effects of the frizzen are not taken into account .
See the lid of the frizzen when open , creates a fence .
Now without the frizzen the only fence he haze is the rear fence from the Manton lock plate and the barrel wall itself .
Take note of the powder burns on the lock plate . These are all forward . Something you don’t really see a lot of on a working lock .
Why ?
Well pretty simple really . Because as the frizzen opens , the lid creates a another fence . So now what you have is a 3 sides box .
When the flash powder ignites , the main source of pressure is then forced away from the flash hole face , just as a shape charge does .
When the flash powder is placed to the outside of the pan , the pressure from ignition spreads both in towards the flash hole , as well as out away from the lock .
This has an effect when dealing with a smaller flash hole .
.
As to old myths . If you read many of Manton as well a those written by Nock what you find is that
Their thoughts were not that the placement of the pan powder was crucial . What was crucial was that no powder cover the flash hole or be aloud to enter the flash hole .
Also that the flash hole should be placed high enough so as to make the best use of the angle of the ignition which is like a V
This was the basis for the gates on self priming locks .
As the frizzen opened this gate cleared the prime away from the flash hole , which was very big so as to alow some of the powder from the main charge to actually load the pan . It also served to allow more area for the ignition source to enter into the main charge
I would also point out that the whole base for a liner is to move the flash closer to the main charge . The further away that flash charge , the slower the ignition will be if in nothing more but distance needed to travel .
This is also why a properly drilled flash hole “without a liner “ were often cherried from the inside so as to reduce barrel thickness and give less distance for the flash to travel to the main charge .
now ill tell you what i find in actual 20+ years of actual flintlock shooting with real locks , using actual ignition sources , outside of a controled enviorment .
a very large % of the time , when folks are having ignition problems . those problems directly relate to
1) poor lock performance
2) poor flash hole placement and hole size
3) placement of the powder in the pan .
remember we aren’t just talking about whats faster here , which is why IMO why this fella even listened to Bill Knight .
but its an issue of reliability and is why Knight doesnt make flinlocks . he couldnt get them to work cosistantly in the 1970 and i doubt he has figured out how to do that now .
As others have said , do what works for you . But if things aren’t working then you need to find out what your doing wrong and remember faster isn’t always better
Post by: Kermit on September 30, 2008, 02:48:34 PM
There is SO much to consider with a flintlock!
Dave raises the gnarly question of barrel length. Just for fun, is a shorter barrel more accurate because the ball exits the barrel faster, or is that offset by a longer sight radius and steadier hold (maybe) of a longer barrel?
Dang. Maybe I'll just keep on shootin' and learnin' and enjoying this strange game--and not lose much sleep over the fine scientific points. Still interesting stuff though.
Post by: Gordon H.Kemp on October 04, 2008, 11:57:34 PM
Post by: Sir Michael on October 05, 2008, 07:07:05 PM
The one thing this test didn't evaluate was the use of typical priming charge volumes and the effects of banking them up against the touch hole in a way that completely covers the hole. His use of 3/4 of a grain which is way less than most folks use is in my mind a rather academic exercise that demonstrates nothing of value.
:hairy
Post by: Loyalist Dave on October 07, 2008, 08:46:47 AM
Not only is the lock in question, so is the ability of the shooter.
LD