]]>
]]>
This series of experiments has evolved into one of greater scope than originally intended. Earlier intentions were to examine the ignition qualities when the position of the vent hole varied up or down in relation to the pan. The methods to investigate included a computer timing procedure used to measure times from a barrel stub and lock plate with a pan attached.
An L&R plate was chosen because the pan was attached. The plate was drilled and attached to a barrel stub with screws. The rear screw is attached to the barrel through a vertical slot in the lock plate. This allows for adjusting the height of the vent hole in relation to the plate.
At the rear of the plate a hole was drilled to provide a pivot point so that the barrel could be rotated to vertical for loading. The barrel is two inches long but is breeched by using a plug with an octagon shape, providing the same dimensions as the barrel.
The computer equipment used included a science interface designed for use in high school physics classes. The hardware was designed and built in the late 80’s. The computer is of similar vintage, but the combination allows measuring time intervals to the nearest 10,000th of a second.
This photo shows the fixture holding the barrel and the photo cells positioned at the pan and muzzle.
Pan Ignition Experiments
The experimentation has been broken into phases. The results of each section will be used in successive testing. The plan is to learn enough to control variables for our final experiment, which will be to the measure and evaluate of different vent locations. Each of the following parts is a link to the actual experiment. Methodologies used will be discussed as well as the experiment and the results.
Part 1 -- Black Powder Ignition Characteristics(Powder on sheets)
This phase of testing was suggested to me by Mr. Bill Knight. Its purpose is to identify how the ignition travels across blackpowder exposed to the air as in a flint pan.
Part 2 -- Initial Pan Experiments
(Card between barrel and pan)
The card test was designed to determine the intensity of the flame at the vent. An index card was cut and pinched between the lock plate and the barrel. The pan was primed in three different positions.
Part 3 -- Photography through the muzzleIn this phase I wanted to see if there was a visible difference in the amount of fire traveling through the vent. I used a digital camera to photograph the fire coming through the vent as seen from the muzzle. The camera is aimed to look directly into the barrel muzzle.
Part 4 -- Priming Powder Amount by Weight
In this part we will examine the amount of priming powder used. Weighed amounts of powder will be timed. Plans call for .5 grains, .75 grains, and 1.0 grains of swiss Null B priming powder.
Part 5 -- Timing Powder locations in Pan (Is it better to bank the powder away from the vent?)
The technique is to use photo cells to detect pan ignition and start the time. A second photo cell detects fire at the muzzle of the 2 inch barrel and stops the clock.. The methodology for this phase needed careful thought. Informal trials yielded some times that were out of predictable bounds. I suspect they were caused by an unknown variable, perhaps fouling.
Part 6 -- Timing Vent locations (high, medium, low)
This final test will explore the ignition speed when the location of the vent hole is varied vertically. The test will start with the vent centered on the top of the pan. Other tests will be conducted with the vent as low in the pan as one could expect to find and with the vent located well above the pan center line.]]>
This phase of testing was suggested to me by Mr. Bill Knight. He has been a valued advisor for many years. I poured a measured amount of black powder on a sheet of paper. The powder was ignited by a red hot copper wire in different locations around the pile of powder – center, right, and left. My result was the same as Mr. Knight described. When ignited in the center the burn traveled in all directions equally. In those where the powder was ignited on the edge of the powder, the fire traveled from the ignition point toward the farthest side, away from the starting point. Included here are photos showing this.
Photo 1 -- The burn radiates from the center as we would expect.
Photo 2 -- Burn marks indicate the strongest direction is to the left, away from the ignition point on the right.
Photo 3 -- Burn marks indicate the strongest direction is to the right, away from the ignition point on the left.
The burns marks above extended well past the area where the powder was placed. In the photos where the pile was ignited to the side, the burn marks extended considerably farther than marks left on the center ignition photo. This test was done with fffg (shown here), ffg, and ffffg powder. Each size left similar burn marks. When testing the ffg powder, I laid out all three sheets of paper side by side, thinking that I would then ignite them one at a time. When I ignited the sheet with the right side ignition, the fire moving to the left was strong enough to jump to the next sheet.
This test caused me to reconsider the long-held advice to place priming powder at the opposite end from the vent hole. This thought has been around for much longer than I have been involved in black powder. My concern is that if powder is near the outer edge of the pan, it is likely that sparks will land inboard of the powder. The experiment we just did caused me to think that the strongest part of the flame would be from the sparks across the powder- the opposite direction we want. What we desire is for the strongest flame to be at the vent end of the pan.
Pan Vent Experiments -- Introduction
Part 2 -- Initial Pan Experiments
Part 3 -- Photography Through the Muzzle
Part 4 -- Priming Powder Amount by Weight
]]>Photo 1 shows the fixture, barrel, and the index card in place for the first test.
Photo 2 shows the burn marks left on the index card with the priming powder banked to the outer edge of the pan.
Photo 3 shows the burn marks left on the index card with the priming powder placed in the center of the pan.
Photo 4 shows the burn marks left on the index card with the priming powder placed in the pan as close to the vent as possible without covering the vent.
From the first two experiments I am beginning to conclude that is might be best to prime closer to the vent. The next test was designed to gather more information about this possibility.
Pan Vent Experiments -- Introduction
Part 1 -- Black Powder Ignition Characteristics
Part 3 -- Photography through the muzzle
Part 4 -- Priming Powder Amount by Weight
]]>The pan was primed with .5 grain of Swiss Null B priming powder in three pan positions: banked to the outside, close to the vent, and as close as possible without blocking the vent. The pan powder was carefully positioned using a pencil with a round eraser. Since the eraser was the same shape as the pan bottom, this worked very well.
The camera was set to have the shutter open for 4 seconds. Once the pan was primed, the procedure was to fire the camera and then ignite the pan. The pan was ignited as earlier with a red hot copper wire. (There is NO barrel powder used until the last phase.)
Photo 1 shows the muzzle shot taken with .5 gr of Swiss Null B priming powder banked away from the vent.
Photo 2 shows the muzzle shot taken with .5 gr of Swiss Null B priming powder positioned close to the vent.
Photo 3 shows the muzzle shot taken with .5 gr of Swiss Null B priming powder positioned as close to the vent as possible without covering it.
Examination of the photos add evidence for stronger ignition with closer placement of the pan powder. Comparing the photos showing the close position and the “banked away” position shows a clearly stronger fire in the barrel and also traveling through the cleanout hole on the far side. While evidence continues to support a close priming of the pan, only timing of the positions will provide conclusive proof. That comes next.
Pan Vent Experiments -- Introduction
Part 1 -- Black Powder Ignition Characteristics
Part 2 -- Initial Pan Experiments
Part 4 -- Priming Powder Amount by Weight
]]>The fixture allowed the barrel to be rotated to vertical to load 15 grains of Swiss fffg for the barrel powder. The barrel was then rotated to level and the pan primed. Photo cells were checked to make sure they are pointed at the pan and the muzzle. The last step was to make sure the computer was ready. The pan was ignited with a hot copper wire and the readings recorded. The barrel was wiped between trials.
Photos of the fixture are shown below.
These two fixture photos also show the range of movement that can be used to test the location of the vent hole in relation to the pan. The top photo shows the hole in it's lowest location, while the bottom photo shows highest location. For all tests so far, the vent hole has been centered on a line level with the top of the pan.
The graph below shows the trials with the three different priming powder amounts:
In evaluating the results of this test, I found Joe Sharber to be of great help. Joe, a fellow blackpowder fan with statistical experience, provided help with the number crunching. He pointed out that there is no statistically significant difference in the average ignition times. However he also noted that the variability or standard deviation was statistically significant.
Joe suggested that the term "Coefficient of Variation" * may be of value as a measure of consistency. The CV listed in the chart helps to show the advantage in consistency of the trials done with .75 grain priming powder. Because of this .75 grain will be the powder amount used in future tests.
* Coeficient of Variation is defined as 100 x (standard deviation divided by the mean). It is given as a percent. My thanks to Mr. Sharber for his assistance.
Pan Vent Experiments -- Introduction
Part 1 -- Black Powder Ignition Characteristics
Part 2 -- Initial Pan Experiments
Part 3 -- Photography through the muzzle ]]>Early attempts showed a trend developing but had results that did not fit the rest of the range. A careful plan was developed to remove as many variables as possible especially those that were caused by fouling. Between firings the following were done:
The barrel was wiped. An additional step was added here and explained in the video.
A pan brush was used.
A pipe cleaner was used in the vent.
Compressed air was blown into the vent.
The priming powder used was Swiss Null B weighed on a balance scales. Since earlier testing showed its consistencty, .75 gr was used. Because the placement of priming powder was the variable, care was used in its placement. The charge was poured into the pan and moved into the test positions using pencil with a rounded eraser. Powder could be pushed to the outer edge of the pan as well as very close to the vent. In both of these positions I felt that I was using more care in the powder placement than the normal firing of the lock in the gun. I realized that I chose the extremes in powder placement, and that a shooter would fall somewhere in between.
The tests were run in a 24 hour period with temperature controlled by thermostat. The day was picked with humidity in mind. The humidity varied within a range from 60 - 66 %. This is noted on the spreadsheets. Each battery of tests consisted of ten trials each - prime banked away from the vent, and prime placed as close to the vent as possible without covering it. To insure that no priming method had a unfair advantage, the trials were alternated so that a complete testbattery includud 10 trials each, alternated for a total of 20 trials.
At the end of the test session the ten trials for each priming method were recorded and all parts cleaned. Battery 1 was done in the afternoon at 60% humidity. Battery 2 was done in the evening at 66% hunidity. The final battery was done the following morning at 60% humidity.
I made a short video that showed the processes involved:
The results are shown in the shreadsheet below.
The obvious conclusion is that banking the prime away from the vent doesn’t produce the most rapid ignition as we once thought. Banking the powder way from the vent actually reduced the ignition speed by 16%. This conclusion runs counter to conventional wisdom heard for years in muzzle loading circles. However, it is consistent with earlier tests where we saw photos with brighter fire from a close positioning of the prime.
While these results change the way I will prime my flintlock, there are other considerations that must be dealt with. In my tests the pan was ignited by a copper wire heated red hot. In the real flint world the sparks need a bed of powder on which to land, and this must be part of or priming procedure. This means that when I prime my locks, my emphasis will be close to the vent rather than away from it, but the bottom of the pan must have sufficient prime for sparks to land in. Thus, how well a lock places its sparks in the pan becomes an equally important consideration.
One other result of this experiment is that I have become increasingly skeptical of human senses in how I perceive flintlock ignition. And, there are more questions. What about low vent locations? This has always been rejected as a cause of slow ignition. Maybe we’re wrong about that as well. We’ll look at that in Part 6.
Pan Vent Experiments -- Introduction
Part 1 -- Black Powder Ignition Characteristics
Part 2 -- Initial Pan Experiments
Part 3 -- Photography through the muzzle ]]>Most shooters with this vent location use care to avoid covering the vent. In the first set of trials I primed three different ways:
1. Prime banked to the outside
2. Prime level in the pan (I tapped the fixture to level the prime.)
3. Prime close to the vent and covering it completely.
The equipment used was the same: computer, physics interface, photo cells, and the fixture for holding the barrel and lock plate. The location for the photocells remained the same. Priming charges were kept covered until they were used.
The amount of the prime for this test remains .75 grain of Swiss Null B priming powder. (This amount has been shown to be the most consistent in previous tests.) The methods used are the same as in earlier tests. The video link below shows the process. (This is the same video as in Part 5.)
Because I was worried about fouling causing unreliable data, every effort was used to eliminate it as a variable. As in the earlier tests, the following steps were used to prevent fouling from affecting the data:
Wipe barrel between shots.
Second cleaning rod designed to wipe the vent liner.
Pan brushed.
Pipe cleaner used through the vent.
Compressed air through the vent.
While these steps may seem unnecessary for normal shooting, I felt justified when trying to obtain meaningful data.
Below is the data gathered for the low vent test:
It is worth noting that the trials covering the vent and the level prime were as close as they were. I suspect that there is no statistical difference between these two variations. Both, however were faster than banked away. They were about 20% faster, in fact. I'll draw no further conclusions until the high vent location is timed.
High Vent Test Phase
As I worked on the high vent phase, humidity became a concern. I was uncertain if I could maintain a comparable humidity when this phase was done. Earlier testing had been done with humidity in the 50-60% range. I waited for weather to help me, but found that by using an air conditioner in the garage I could keep the humidity within this range. Humidity at the beginning of the test was 58% dropping to 51% as the testing concluded. Temperature throughout testing was 63-64 degrees.
The only variable in this phase was the location of the vent. The lock plate and pan were rotated to place the vent as high as possible. The bottom edge of the exterior cone on the vent was well above the level of the pan. Please note the photo showing the vent hole.
The procedure was to time 15 tries with each of three powder locations in the pan – just as I did in the low vent tests. The tries were alternated as follows: powder banked away, level prime, and as close to the vent as possible. In this last location, I had intended to cover the vent, but .75 grain of powder was not enough with the vent located this high. I considered increasing the charge to 1.0 grains, but concluded that it would introduce another variable. I decided against that and used a pencil eraser to position the prime as close as possible.
After each location was timed 5 times, I removed the barrel and cleaned everything. Then I timed the next series. After 10 times I again cleaned, and then timed the last group.
The chart that follows shows the data gathered. As happened in the low vent trials, banking the powder away was slower and less consistent than level or close to the vent. Close positioning of the prime was decidedly faster and more consistent.
Conclusions:
These conclusions are those of the experimenter. You may have different opinions.
I wish to point out that every trial produced a report that sounded as one sound. The fastest (.032) and the slowest (.060) sounded the same. Even though one was almost twice as fast as the other, the sounds were indistinguishable. So my first conclusion is that the human eye and ear are terrible tools to use to evaluate flintlock performance. If differences can be determined by human senses, then the trial was indeed very slow.
The idea to bank powder away from the vent to improve flint performance is flawed thinking. In every test I conducted, the banked away trials came in last. Percentages varied, but banking the powder away was always slower. I found no evidence to support the old "bank the prime away from the vent." (In the low vent test, banking powder away was 17% slower; in the high vent test, banking powder away was 30% slower.)
The idea that one should not cover the vent with priming powder because of having to burn through the vent instead of flashing through seems equally flawed. While I did not try to fill the vent, covering the vent did not cause slower times. The closer I could get priming to the vent, the faster and more consistent the results. In fact the consistency I found in positioning the priming powder close to the vent occured at all vent positions - low, level, and high.
The last conclusion involves the reason for this whole experiment - proper location for the vent in relationship to the pan. I found that the location of the vent in relation to the pan is far more forgiving that we have believed. Tests when the vent was extremely low or high both gave quick reliable ignition. A look at the chart below shows that all vent positions gave fast ignition when primed close to the vent (This is what we learned in the preliminary tests.) Also all vent positions gave uniformly poor performance when the priming powder was banked away from the vent.
--------------------------Banked way----------------Level Prime----------------Close prime
Low Vent-----------------.046---------------------------.037----------------------------.038
Level Vent ---------------.043---------------------------- * -----------------------------.036
High Vent-----------------.048---------------------------.043----------------------------.037
*I did not time level priming when testing the level vent/pan position.
I began this series of test thinking that the big variable would be the vent location. However, I am now concluding that it is of minor concern compared to the location of the priming powder in the pan. I still like a vent level with the plan flat won't loose sleep over a pan a little high or low.
All of the work represented here was based on igniting the powder "artifically" using a red-hot copper wire. This was done intentionally to remove the variables in amount, quality, and location of the sparks. In reality the flint shooter must manage his lock to minimize these variables. Regardless of what the experiments show us, the shooter must place priming powder where his sparks will land. Time with his gun will determine this. However the shooter need not be afraid of priming powder too close to the vent - that is to be encouraged. It is far better to have the prime too close than too far away.
Pan Vent Experiments -- Introduction
Part 1 -- Black Powder Ignition Characteristics
Part 2 -- Initial Pan Experiments
Part 3 -- Photography through the muzzle ]]>
David Price does the honors again, firing the locks as Grant Ferguson does the camera work. Grant is the rep from Olympus. David was great help all day long. He felt, as did I, that the same person should prime all the locks.I appreciated having such experienced help.
Grant Ferguson, Olympus Industrial, is shown working with the camera interface.
From my experimenter’s point of view this was a great day. We gathered a wealth of material from which to draw data, and I think we proved that this media could be used to improve lock function. Another experimenter feels the same way. Lowell Gard of “Bevel Bros.” fame asked if we could video his lock with varying numbers of trials on the flint. He wanted to see if we could see the flint deteriorate as the trials increased. We started with a new flint and worked up to 50+ trials.
Lowell Gard (left) and David Price (center) discuss the project with another observer.
Below are five links to high speed videos in which a number of locks are grouped by type or maker. Start the links by clicking twice on the center arrow. If you are on a dialup connection you may experience a wait.
Ketland Group---- This group includes three locks. The first two are done by Dennis Preddy. His first is an unmodified late Ketland lock. The second was modified by Preddy. The remaining video is Lowell Gard's experiment. We first did a video of his Late Ketland with a new flint. Lowell then snapped the lock 10 times and we did the next video. We continued this until we exceeded 60 snaps.
Priddy/Late Ketland (unmodified)
Priddy/Late Ketland (modified)
Gard/Late Ketland (new flint)
Gard/Late Ketland (11 snaps of flint)
Gard/Late Ketland (32 snaps of flint)
Gard/Late Ketland (63 snaps of flint)
The Chambers Group ---- This group (below) came from Jim Chambers. It contains four locks. The original Manton came from a double fowler and is perhaps the most important lock we filmed.
Chambers Golden Age
Robert Harn
Round faced English
Original Manton (fowler w V pan)
The Kanger Group ---- The Kanger group below has five locks. The Roller and Haddaway are important locks to study, in my view.
Kanger/Bob Roller
Kanger/Haddaway (note that there is no frizzen rebound)
Kanger/La Page
Chambers Round face
Chambers Round Face (up-side-down)
Pletcher/Jerry Eider
Assorted Group #1 ---- The Assorted group (below) again has a number of locks:
Bauer left hand lock (maker ??)
Pedersoli
Pedersoli
L&R Trade lock
L&R Manton
Assorted Group #2 ---- The locks included below are as follows:
Buckwalter Wheellock
Coggeshall (maker??)
Coggeshall (Chambers Roundface??)
Mortimer Pedersoli
Dale (L&R??)
Dale (Davis)
Dale (Sales)
Locks and Swivel Guns by David Price ---- This group of locks come from David Price - both conventional locks and those on his swivel breech guns. They include:
Price Double Rifle
Price large Siler
Price Siler 40
Price Siler Rifle
Same Price rifle (up-side-down)
I wish to thank Grant Ferguson for his effort in this project. Without his camera and special abilities, we certainly could not have attempted this. Grant, I hope we get a chance to work together again. David Price worked all day long with me, and I appreciate his help. I also thank him for the opportunity to handle his beautiful swivel breech. Thanks also to Barbie Chambers and Dick Miller for allowing us to work at Gun Makers' Hall. And last of all, a thank you to all the shooters who brought locks for us to record. I appreciate your willingness to share your lock with us.
]]>
I was pleased to have Steve Chapman, shown in the photos, help conduct these tests. Steve is a member of our local club and shoots at five other clubs. His shooting abilities eliminated variables that my shooting would have introduced. We also used his rifle which is convertible from flint to percussion. Having Steve and his rifle meant that all the gun handling was done by the same person, with the same rifle, and with the same equipment.
In order to load with identical seating pressures throughout a 5 shot group we adopted a method used by black powder cartridge shooters. We measured pressure not in pounds but in inches of compression. In our tests we used a stop on the ramrod that was set in the following 4 ways:
a. no compression
b. 1/16” of compression
c. 1/8” of compression
d. 3/16” of compression.
A collar was made with a set screw that could be firmly attached to a steel bench rod. This rod’s sole purpose was to seat the patched ball. The first setting was determined by seating a ball to just touch the powder. The collar was lowered 1/32 inch and attached. This left the ball “just a hair” above the powder. Each additional 5 shot group was loaded after adding a 1/16” shim between the muzzle and the collar and reattaching the collar.
The rifle was wiped with a wet and dry patch between shots. We were concerned that if the breech was not cleaned well, fouling would take up additional space, increasing the length of the powder charge, and alter the compression. We feel that thorough cleaning prevented this from happening.
We fired the rifle at 25 yards off a bench and through a chronograph. We recorded the velocities of each shot and noted those velocities on the targets as they were done. Our load was a .400 cast ball (Lyman mold) and pocket drill for patches. The patches were lubed with Murphys oil soap and cut at the muzzle. A powder charge of 40 grains of Goex fffg was used throughout all testing. After the velocity and ball placement on the target were recorded, a piece of black target paper was placed behind the target to improve the sight picture for the shooter. In effect the target was a fresh one for each shot. After firing the four groups in the flint gun, the vent liner was replaced with a percussion nipple and a mule ear percussion lock was installed. Then we repeated the four groups with percussion ignition.
Each 5 shot group was measured at the widest point and the width of the ball was subtracted to arrive at a center-to-center group size. The following chart shows the group sizes and the compression:
Compression ----------------- Flint ---------------- Percussion
Interpreting results can be tricky and should perhaps be left to the reader. My impression is that as a flintlock, the gun liked compression and responded to compression with smaller groups. The percussion version also liked compression but seemed a little more forgiving as far as the amount of compression used. The percussion shot far better with no compression, but when compression was added, both versions ended up essentially the same.
The obvious limitations of this test are that it was done on only one gun and only one powder brand. Will other guns or powder varieties respond the same way - only more testing will tell. Will this test change my loading? On flint guns the answer is probably yes. I will run more tests on my gun, but the seating pressure I normally use on my flint gun is too light based on this test.
Ideas for further tests might include:
Rescued by the Susquehanna Rangers]]>
This was my first trip to Dixon's Gunmakers' Fair. While I could only spend one day, I certainly was not disappointed. It was all I had heard and more.
It was drizzling on the short drive heading from Allentown to Dixon's, but it stopped as we parked the car. Not knowing where to start, we went to the first tent and found Don Getz, Wayne Dunlap, and Jim Chambers just inside. From there on everywhere we went there were old friends. Some I met before, and some were friends I learned to know through ALR.
I intended to take many photos but as usual I got too involved in conversations to do that. The few posted here are among the better ones. For instance, one can't look at Kieth Casteel's wheellock without reaching for a camera. It is an amazing piece.
David Price's table deserves a close look. David built the swivel breech for the raffle at the Fall Championships at Friendship. The raffle gun was the subject of his carving tutorial on the ALR site. He also helped me do the slow motion videos of locks during the Spring Shoot.
I remembered that Rich Pierce and Tom Curran mentioned being up the hill. As we headed to higher ground, the rain started. I heard a voice welcoming us out of the rain. The camp belonged to Gene Baldwin, one of the Susquehanna Rangers. This group does the F&I War reinactments. They made some of the cannon noise heard through out the day. The rain grew stronger and lasted perhaps 40 minutes. It gave us a chance to chew the fat with Gene. His group has a web site: www.susquehannarangers.com if you would like to become involved.
When the rain stopped we found the Pierce/Curran booth, but Rich and Tom were out and about. We happened by the horn tent. I didn't know there were so many horn makers. Everywhere you looked there was outstanding examples of horn work.
We continued on, retracing our steps. I hate to drop more names but we saw Allen Martin, Peter Alexander, Mark Wheland, and Larry Gardner. I found Bill Shipman's table but missed Bill. Here are a couple of photos of one of Bill's rifles.
Across the isle from Bill's was Allen Martin. Allen had a couple of rifles that begged to be photographed. The top one was much discussed on ALR.
There were many people to speak with, if I try to name them all I surely will miss someone. It did seem like old home week. I regret not getting photos of more makers with their guns. I should have slowed Taylor, Cody, and Brian down long enough for a photo. If they come back from BC next year, I won't make the same mistake.
Traveling to Dixon's is worth the trip. For us it's 660 miles one way. I'll be back.
]]>
The background behind this project started back in the fall of 2006. In a phone conversation, Grant Ferguson and I first discussed the possibility of taping both locks and the firing of a rifle. After a number of conversations we agreed that it might be helpful to try this by ourselves instead of having onlookers present. If we failed, we would rather not have an audience.
In January of 2007 Grant brought his equipment to northern Indiana, and we had our first try in my garage. By juggling a couple antique cars around, we had a heated space to work. During this time we taped a large Siler that has been the subject of many experiments over the past 20 years. We digitally recorded this lock in a number of “flint/bevel/priming powder” combinations. The lock even got a chance to perform up-side-down. Besides taping another lock with no frizzen spring, we recorded a flint rifle from the front so we could see lock ignition, vent hole ignition, and the ball exiting the rifle. (Just in case you wondered, a years' worth of “Guns and Ammo” duct-taped together makes a good bullet stop for a limited number of tries. Dixie Gun Works catalogs aren’t bad either. -- Remember, don't try this at home.)
Grant Ferguson, Olympus Industrial, is shown working with the camera interface.
Armed with the knowledge gained from this experience, I contacted Barbie Chambers, Dick Miller, and Roland Martin to get their take on the project. With their approval we looked for a date during the Spring Shoot. Barbie Chambers is the events planner for the Hall, and we soon had our date. As the time approached, I found a number of gun makers and ML fans willing to help. David Price, maker of the swivel breech raffle rifle, deserves much praise for his assistance. He volunteered to help me out, and as we were about to start, I mentioned that I hoped to use the same priming powder for all locks. David’s reply was, “I think the same person should prime all the locks too.” And he did just that. It allowed me to burn disks for the shooters and line up the next lock to record.
David Price (center) discusses the project with observers.
As we worked, the number of shooters grew and kept us busy most of the day. At one point Barbie came by with four locks from the Chambers booth. One was an original J. Manton from a fine smooth bore double. That had to be a highlight. Another was a wheellock. Leon Buckwalter’s lock is the only wheellock ever taped in slow motion - at least this slow. The frame speed we used for all locks was 5000 frames/second. At this speed it takes perhaps a minute to show the complete ignition sequence. An even faster frame rate could have been used, but the size of the screen would have been reduced. We felt this was a good compromise.
Leon Buckwalter prepares his wheel lock.
From my experimenter’s point of view this was a great day. We gathered a wealth of material from which to draw data, and I think we proved that this media could be used to improve lock function. Another experimenter feels the same way. Lowell Gard of “Bevel Bros.” fame asked if we could video his lock with varying numbers of trials on the flint. He wanted to see if we could see the flint deteriorate as the trials increased. We started with a new flint and worked up to 50+ trials.
All in all, it was a great day for students of the flintlock. I believe every lock owner received a working video of his locks. The NMLRA received them all. Lowell offered to place a few CDs at the Bevel Bros. booth if shooters were interested in purchasing the complete set. We may give that a shot this fall. Patch box side of David Prices's swivel breech rifle. This superb piece will be raffled in the fall..
I chose to include slow motion videos of the J. Manton and the Buckwalter wheel lock. The Manton locks from the late flint period are, in my opinion, the finest locks made. The wheel lock is included because I don't think one has ever been photographed at this speed.
I wish to thank Grant Ferguson for his effort in this project. Without his camera and special abilities, we certainly could not have attempted this. Grant, I hope we get a chance to work together again. David Price worked all day long with me, and I appreciate his help. I also thank him for the opportunity to handle his beautiful swivel breech. Thanks also to Barbie Chambers and Dick Miller for allowing us to work at Gun Makers' Hall. And last of all, a thank you to all the shooters who brought locks for us to record. I appreciate your willingness to share your lock with us.
]]>
Part B includes a pair of high speed videos of a large Siler lock firing up side down. The lock is tried with chipped English flints bevel up and down. Swizz Null B is used in both trials.
Also included in Part B are three tries at video taping a flint rifle firing. The camers used was monochrome are 15,000 frames/second - three times faster than the rate used on the locks. Lighting was a tough problem. We used 3000 watts on the gun and wished for double or triple that amount. The frame rate means a very fast shutter. In the first two tries, we started the camera on the sound of the trigger. In the last we simply let the camera run and fired the rifle.
]]>
Black Powder Magazine is pleased to bring you a series of digital interviews and discussions promoting black powder shooting sports. Our initial offering is a panel discussion taped at Gunmakers Hall during the NMLRA 2006 Spring Championships in Friendship, Indiana. Participants in the discussion are Jim Chambers, Wallace Gusler, Bob Harn, LC Rice, and Mark Silver. Because of its length, the discussion has been broken into segments. This is the last of six segments.
Part 6:
LC discusses lock geometry. Mark talks about touch holes and internal cones. The group discusses how placement of the touch hole can effect the threads in the breech plug and how this causes problems with breechplug removal.
Black Powder Magazine is pleased to bring you a series of digital interviews and discussions promoting black powder shooting sports. Our initial offering is a panel discussion taped at Gunmakers Hall during the NMLRA 2006 Spring Championships in Friendship, Indiana. Participants in the discussion are Jim Chambers, Wallace Gusler, Bob Harn, LC Rice, and Mark Silver. Because of its length, the discussion has been broken into segments. This is Part Five of the six segments.
Part 5:
The group fields questions about the number of grooves in rifling a barrel. Jim Chambers talks about freshing out a barrel with a freshening stick. LC Rice discusses English locks. Also discussed were decorative cuts on barrel muzzles and low front sights.