Cool Priming Powder Experiment

[butterchurn]

[Bigsmoke]

Neat!  Sure wish it would not have stopped before the results of the second shot were said.

[butterchurn]

I know, I wanted to know.

[david32cal]

talk about leavin' a fella hangin'

[nessy357]

Here's the link to Larry Pletchers website. Lots of information.
I sent Larry some "foxfire"priming agent to time, still wainting to hear back from him.

 http://www.blackpowdermag.com/featured- ... 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.

[Uncle Russ]

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...

[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.

[Uncle Russ]

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...

[deadfallpaul]

Dumb question??  
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?

[Kermit]

My take is that there are other flintlock issues that make MUCH more ignition speed differences than does where the 4F sits in the pan!

[oomcurt]

Seems to me this whole discussion is more of an academic thing than it is of a practical one. Considering that "back then" there were no sophisticated time measuring devices like we have today, at least for ordinary people..and considering that those folks still were able to put meat on the table, defend themselves, and...participarte in some dang good marksmanship contests....why all this hullabaloo? Why is it that today unless there are all sorts of scientific documentation, all sorts of gadgetry....any results or conclusions are held faulty at best...if not invaid. Come on people....isn't it time we just put all this scientific junk to bed...if back then people were able to get by...and my hunch is more than just get by...why can't we?

[Kermit]

Sheesh. There's always one practical smart-alec in the crowd.

Thanks for bringing it back to earth.

[Wyoming Mike]

oomcurt is right in that it is an intellectual discussion.  The only thing I came away with was that you got more flash in the barrel with the prime under the touch hole.  More flash covers a lot of loading sins on my part.

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.

[Sir Michael]

While this is a very interesting experiment, I believe there are some very serious flaws in it that may lead the typical shooter astray.

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.

[snake eyes]

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