flintlock vs caplock speed

[Sir Michael]

...  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.    

[TomG]

Yes the caplock is faster and takes less work to operate then the flintlock.
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.

[snake eyes]

Mike,
        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

[Mike R]

Sir Michael, your statement that as with all statistics you can make them say what you want does not apply here--and yes, I am aware that we are dealing with fractions of a second--that is very obvious from the numbers I listed. I have been a shooter for nearly 60 years, a MLer shooter since ~1961, and a scientist for well over 40 years.  I think I know both guns and math a little bit.  I also agree that shooters perceptions can vary ALOT, that is precisely why hard scientific data is preferrable to human feelings IMHO on this topic--though I admit that my interest in it was based upon my own perceptions.  I also allow that there are variables not yet tested--as I mentioned, Larry has a superfast flintlock he wants to test as well--part of the control of the current test, as in all good tests, was to keep the "other" variables at a minimum by comparing two locks as much alike as possible--apples with apples so to speak.  So Larry chose 2 versions the fast and reliable small Siler to start, but also checked a muleear, as reported.  The results of the timing tests stand as stated, no statistical rigamarole, no obscure reasoning needed.  The parameters were well controlled.  Where statistics are misused, commonly, are in cases where the real physical control of something is hidden, not measured or observed in the study, or where no clear relationship is found and convoluted math is needed to find a trend.  This is not the case here.  Emotions take over on this issue as we see here from the responses and that is why a scientific test is so valuable--for those who care not, fine, keep on trucking.  I for one, after having fired countless thousands of rounds from various types of guns over the years offhand, CAN detect a difference in speed between a flintlock [I have 7 currently] and a caplock [I have 4 currently].  I can also hardly detect the difference between a caplock and a cartridge gun.  Firing offhand with a flinter requires more concentration and follow through--as admitted by all I know who shoot them--this is incontrovertible evidence supporting the tests that they are slower--yet we read protests.  I am NOT saying caplocks are more fun or better for YOU [although I am saying that in a purely mechanical sense they are an advance over flintlocks].  I am saying that I can tell the difference that many of you deny. That is all. And I am sorry I brought it up.  When I posted a similar note on another forum it raised no hackles at all.  Sorry guys, I will keep such info to myself in the future. I apologize for this thread.

[bluelake]

Hmmm... I wonder how matchlocks would fare?  

[Mike R]

P.S., I listed the number of MLer rifles I have above to indicate that I base my observations on multiple guns [and I have shot many more]---of my 7 flinters I can feel the differences in speed between them, that is not all the flinters are the same speed--and all are quality locks.  However in my 4 caplocks, all go boom the instant I squeeze of the sear.  I cannot tell the difference between them.

[Mike R]

Hmmm... I wonder how matchlocks would fare?   about like a bow and arrow but slower....

[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  

[Gambia]

Mike: Please don't stop posting this kind of information,you are experiencing what anyone with scientific training and experience goes through when bringing up test results in areas where there are strong personal opinions.I think its called "don't bother me with facts my minds made up syndrome"While I couldn't care less about which is faster and I shoot what I want to shoot, I am still very interested in this type of data.

[Gordon H.Kemp]

Mike, keep on posting . I believe you have presented the stastics in a humble and stright forward manner. Keep up the good posts.

[Uncle Russ]

Same what the others have said, it is a great subject!

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...

[Three Hawks]

Is a caplock faster than a flintlock?

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

[Loyalist Dave]

What will one do with the knowledge?  My skill level is such that with either ignition system, I obtain no advantage when it comes to speed.  I can miss any target on the field, and I'm not good enough at 100 yards to quibble about a 10 vs. an X (OK so in the black is good for me).  Either I am on target or not.  

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

[bluelake]

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.

[Loyalist Dave]

The caplock type system , the idea that a portion of sensitive explosive material could be used to ignite a main charge by the percussion impact of a hammer, rather than generation of heated piece of steel falling into a pile of powder.  

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