BlackPowderMag.com

Category: Articles

Touch Hole Ignition Timing

Touch Hole Ignition Timing

Reprinted from February 2000 issue of MuzzleBlasts magazine by Larry Pletcher. I was assisted by Fred Stutzenberger who provided the barrel and any needed machining. The tests conducted here are of straight cylinder vents. This article is a work in progress.

In earlier articles on timing flintlocks, I expressed my belief that touch holes caused some of the slow ignition times experienced occasionally by flintlock shooters. In a pair of articles I hope to shed some light on this idea. This article will report on the testing of touch holes of varying diameters. The touch hole shape for this series of tests is a straight cylinder. These tests are planned as a baseline for future testing. A second article will explore the various touch hole liners available to the flintlock shooter. These liners will have a number of configurations, including cones inside and out, as well as different shapes used in making the cone.

The tests done for this article were conducted on a very short smoothbore barrel in which increasingly larger touch holes were drilled. Another barrel was threaded to this section to conduct smoke away and to provide some space between the photo cells used in the timing process. I am indebted to Fred Stutzenberger for his help in providing the barrel and any machining needed to conduct the tests.

I began with a touch hole which both Fred and I considered too small. We used .040 in. as a starting point. Additional diameters were .052, .055, .0625, .070, .078, .082, .094. These holes correspond to drill numbers 55, 54, 1/16, 50, 5/64, 45, and 42, respectively.

Here you see the shield that prevented both photocells from triggering when the pan flashed. (From another test but using the same equipment.)

The barrel was held in place with a lock plate and pan attached to the barrel with screws. One photo cell was placed to “look” into the pan while the second “looked” across the muzzle of the barrel. A shield was dropped into place between them to keep the barrel photo cell from triggering on the pan flash. Both photo cells were connected to a computer by an interface.

The testing process involved loading the barrel with 15 grains of FFFG powder. This amount of powder filled the barrel to a level above the touch hole. This was verified using a cleanout hole on the other side of the barrel opposite the touch hole. The barrel was gently lowered into horizontal position so the powder in the barrel would not fall away from the touch hole. The pan was primed, taking care not to cover the touch hole. The pan was ignited using a propane torch. It was found that the propane torch would not trigger the photo cells and could be directed downward into the pan. Special care was used to separate the torch from the powder used in the tests.

The .040 hole was tested only twice because I felt that it was too small to be practical. Each other hole size was tested 20 times. These tests are located in the spread sheets at the end of the article. After each touchhole was tested, it was drilled out to the next size and testing was continued.

When I got to 1/16 inch, I permitted myself the experimenter’s prerogative of throwing in an extra variable. I have an exterior coned 1/16 inch touch hole in my rifle, so I used a center drill to produce a similar cone on the test barrel. Its results are also included.

The barrel and lock plate are attached to the fixture. (from another test using the same equipment)

During the testing, a number of trends began to develop. It was noticed that with the small touch holes, a number of pan flashes did not ignite the barrel. This decreased as the diameters increased. When .055 in. was reached, this largely disappeared. Touch holes 1/16” and larger had no misfires.

A second result was that the ignition was faster as the hole size increased. The increase was dramatic in the smaller sizes. However, a point of diminishing returns was reached, in my opinion, somewhere above 1/16 in. At some point the improved performance that a larger touch hole seemed to provide was over ridden by the disadvantages of increased vent hole blast and decreases in consistency.

The standard deviation and variation within the tests can be used to demonstrate these trends in performance. Both standard deviation and variation improve as the touch hole size increased to 1/16 in. Above 1/16 inch, elapsed time, standard deviation, and variation are all more erratic.

As I mentioned earlier, the amount of gases escaping from the touch hole increased rapidly. It the larger diameters it was difficult to keep the torch from blowing out. While this was expected, it did serve as a reminder that large touch holes require that the shooter be considerate of the person standing to the lock side of the rifle.

The results of the testing are summarized in the chart below. Complete results of each test are included at the end of this article on the next page.

While cleaning the barrel between tests, I learned something that may be important in firing flintlocks. Looking through the inspection port opposite the touch hole, I saw that the touch hole was partially clogged. A vent pick was pushed into the touch hole while watching from the inspection port. I could see the dirt being dislodged as the vent pick went through. However, as the pick was withdrawn, the dirt was deposited back in the touch hole where it was at the beginning. This was seen more than once. It made me think that running the pick through the touch hole might not do as much good as I once thought.

It might be important to have a big enough touch hole so that even when partially clogged, it still has enough opening to ignite the barrel powder. Another possible solution might be to use a pipe cleaner before loading for the next shot. (In all my flintlock rifles I now use a vent large enough to permit cleaning with a pipe cleaner. – editor)

By the end of my testing, I arrived at two conclusions that will be incorporated in any future rifles I build. One conclusion is that if no liner is used, any touch hole will need to be 1/16 in. or larger in diameter. The other is that it will have an exterior cone. I believe that an exterior cone improved the 1/16 in. touch hole enough to be included. It would, however, be good to test an exterior cone on different touch hole diameters.

As was explained earlier, this article ignored touch hole liners. It was felt that a baseline was necessary for any future comparison. The next article will be devoted to liners. I personally like the idea of having barrel powder lie as close as possible to the pan. I am probably not alone in thinking that liners will show an improvement over cylinder touch holes. However, I am willing to rely on science to demonstrate this. Human senses are not perceptive enough to detect the differences we can measure with the computer.

There are numerous liners and methods of installation that should be examined. I would like to try a sampling of those currently marketed. A liner that seems to function well has been developed by Mark Silver, Robert Harn, and Jim Chambers. It is based upon information from Lynton McKenzie. It will be interesting to compare these liners with the results of this series of tests. As in any scientific study, I hope we will be able to draw some meaningful conclusions.

I do not consider this to be a complete study of cylinder-shaped touch holes. We do have much to learn. However, I have confidence in the results collected and in the methods that Fred and I devised to do the study.

I am open to any suggestions that will further our understanding of flintlocks. Soon I hope to have a web site devoted to flintlocks. In the meantime, please feel free to write me at 4595 E. Woodland Acres, Syracuse, IN 46567 or email me (larry@blackpowdermag.com)

Summary Chart

Larry Pletcher, editor – www.blackpowdermag.com

Because this article was published 19 years ago, I am having trouble locating the photos that were used in the magazine. I added photos of more recent testing that uses the same equipment and methodology. My summary chart is also missing. It appears above, cut and pasted to fit the page. The spreadsheets below are original to the magazine article.

March 10, 2019
Flint Elk Rifle — Part 2

Rifle has a .58″ Sharon barrel, L&R flintlock, custom stock built by Steve Chapman

When I wrote “Flint Elk Rifle” in 2016, I explained the water test that Rick had done in Colorado. Back in Indiana Steve Chapman and I thought through a number of things we wanted to learn in our water test. Our main goal was to compare penetration and expansion of the ball. Our thinking was that with a ball as large as .58” more expansion wasn’t necessary and might limit the ability to penetrate far enough for large game.

We decided to compare a pure lead ball with an alloy ball in our test. The alloy ball was cast from melting down “hard cast (alloy 2)” pistol bullets from earlier reloading days. The result was a ball that weighed 273.5 to 274 gains. They weigh about 7 grains less than the pure lead ball, but we felt it was not enough different to worry about. I cast enough pure and alloy balls for our test.

We set up in Steve’s back yard with a shooting bench for the shooter, a bench that held 10 one gallon milk jugs full of water, and three cameras. A GoPro camera would do a video, a Canon would take stills at about five per second, and another Canon would do an HD video.

We planned to fire the pure lead ball first and recover the ball. Then we would replace the jugs and fire the alloy ball and recover it. With all cameras ready and Eric helping run the cameras, Steve fired the pure lead ball. There were no surprises here. The ball was found in the fifth jug, having destroyed the first four. We replaced the jugs and got ready to shoot the alloy ball. Our initial thoughts were that the alloy ball would penetrate more jugs than the pure lead ball and expand less. In fact we thought that the ball might deform so little that it might be reused.

The alloy ball shot surprised us. Not only did it penetrate farther than the pure lead ball, it went through all ten jugs and ended up in the woods well beyond Steve’s yard. So, we could not recover the ball to compare expansion. We did notice that the ball destroyed the first 4 jugs and then simply holed the remaining 6 jugs. We have no idea how many jugs would be necessary to stop and recover the ball.

Below are the series of stills of the alloy shot. The action occurs in the .2 second between the first two frames. Fragments of jugs and caps are in the air, and water can be seen coming out of the tenth jug. However the water eruption increases through the next stills.

Last still before firing.

#1 First still after the shot.

#2 Second shot

#3 Third shot

#4

#5

#6 All later shots are covered by water and by smoke from the gun.

Conclusions: It’s safe to say that the alloy ball (#2 alloy) penetrated far better than the pure lead ball. The load of 90 gr. Swiss fffg was chronographed earlier at nearly 1700 fps. The alloy ball penetrated 5 more jugs than the pure lead ball, but we have no idea how many more jugs we would have needed to capture the alloy ball in a jug. Steve reported that the ball loaded as easily as the lead ball.

Neither Steve, Eric, or I have hunted elk, but we feel that this gun and the alloy ball load would be an ideal setup for elk. Note that we used primitive sights and think the sights should determine the effective range of the gun.

The following video is the #2 alloy ball fired at the 10 jugs. It destroyed the first 4 jugs and holed the next 10. We obviously could not recover this ball.

Larry Pletcher, editor

January 12, 2019
Lock Timing at the 2017 Spring Shoot

Our lock timing and photography project is finished. My son, Kevin, arrived from Denver on Thursday night. We began Friday morning working the bugs out of our equipment. Our goal was to time the shooters’ locks and take photos showing the spark production and where the sparks landed. Along with the photo, the owner got a paper copy of the lock times we recorded. The software allowed timing to the nearest 10 thousandths of a second.

Some unknown problems arose, but one at a time we seemed to solve them. Sometimes we could suggest cures for lock problems that we uncovered. An example was a lock with a badly worn frizzen and a strangely located retaining screw hole. Another lock was improved with a flint bevel change.

Susie Szynalski looking over the lock mount. Among those looking on are Dave Schnitker, Colton Fleetwood, Steve Chapman

Each different sized lock meant adjusting the plunger location. This meant time spent between locks. Because of this it was a pleasure to have a few identical locks in a row.

Our most difficult challenge was to alter the fixture to time a left-handed lock. The lock owner and I worked together. The advantage of the lock owner’s help was important. We could carefully eliminate any clearance issues caused by mounting the lock on the “wrong” side of the fixture.

I’m replacing a photo cell. Behind me is the slow motion video we ran during the shoot.

One surprising addition was the chance to do a side-by-side test of Swiss Null B and a possible new Swiss product. I’ll be curious to hear what Swiss decides to do.

Kevin was a great help during this process. He managed the photography so I could concentrate on the lock stuff. He recorded stats on his computer until he had to catch his plane in Indy. Without him, the process changed to paper. At that point two other friends stepped up. Steve Chapman and Dave Kanger did the stat recording when I was by myself.

Steve Chapman helped to answer the many questions.

Kevin used Light Room to adjust the photos we handed out before he left. Those I took after he left I sent to Kevin this morning. When he works his magic on them I’ll email them to the owners.

This lock liked a bevel change.

All in all, I felt good about the project. We pretty much did what we hoped. I turned in the donations to Carrie in the office. I don’t know about the September Shoot. I need to get with the NMLRA folks and find if they want this repeated in the fall.

More than anyone else, I’d like to thank my son, Kevin, for his photographic help. You don’t see him in any pictures because he was busy doing his photo thing. His second set of eyes on the project helped with details, large and small. I also valued his advice in helping with explanations of the processes we used.

Kevin on a trip to Alaska with us.

Larry Pletcher, editor

June 18, 2017
Flintlock Timing and Spark Photography at Friendship

BlackPowderMag’s next project will be at the NMLRA Spring Shoot in June. I have received permission to time and photograph locks in Booth 112. Some of the details remain to be worked out, but I hope to be set up and working Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

I plan to time a shooter’s lock for 10 trials and find the average. A photograph will be taken of the lock making sparks. We want to look and the quantity and quality of the sparks and see exactly where the sparks are landing.

I can handle most lock sizes from a Bess on down. Extreme sizes mean some fixture adjustments, but size is generally not a problem. The only requirement is that the lock be drilled and taped for a lock retaining screw. I will have 8-32 and 10-32 screws to hold the lock. If imported guns use metric threads, I may ask the shooter to bring his lock retaining screw with the lock.

I would like the owner to install a sharp flint, installed to best advantage. I will use Swiss Null B for the priming. (I have received special permission to have a small amount of priming powder in the booth. I will ask the head range office to watch the process to make sure he is satisfied.)

When we are finished, I hope to give the shooter a couple of things:

A copy of the lock times and average

A photo I’ll print in the booth

If you have an email address, I’ll email you a high density copy of the spark photo.

There is no fee, but we’ll set out a donation jar, whose contents will go to the NMLRA.

The photos included above show the equipment I use and a couple photos of one of my Silers’ sparks.

March 7, 2017
Flint Elk Rifle

The history of this rifle began years ago when my friend Rick Shellenberger in Colorado cleaned out an old muzzleloading shop. Among other items, he brought home 2 Sharon .58 caliber rifle barrels. Both were rifled at 1 turn in 72 inches. These barrels have eight lands and grooves. Rick kept one barrel and gave the other one to me.

Back in Indiana, years passed until I began collecting parts to complete the rifle. My friend Steve Chapman gave me hard maple rifle stock. It was a half stock with a 1 inch barrel channel and a mortice cut for an L&R lock. Steve suggested we look for an L&R lock that matched the mortice, and both of us like Davis triggers. I bought parts at the Friendship spring shoot, and Steve took them back to his shop.

Steve knew that time wasn’t a factor, and had a number of other gun-making projects to finish ahead of mine. When he began to work on the gun, a couple decisions were made. One decision was to use Tom Snyder’s vent coning tool to make the vent. This process consists of drilling a 1/16″ hole, inserting Tom’s threaded pin, and installing the cutter through the open breech. We used a cordless drill to cut the internal cavity. The cavity is very similar to Jim Chamber’s vent liners.

The barrel was shortened to 32 inches as stock proportions were considered. Considerable wood was removed to give the rifle much better lines. Steve poured a very nice pewter nose cap. A removable aperture rear sight was used to help a pair of 70 year old eyes.

Here you can see the .58 caliber hole and the crown Steve cut.

Final shaping of cheek piece (Photo S Chapman)

Lock installed, wrist shaped (Photo S Chapman)

Barrel Lugs (Photo S Chapman)

The finish used on the stock was a mixture of stains that Steve likes, and I like the way the stock turned out. I didn’t quiz Steve on the exact mixture, but I know that it was a mixture of Homer Dangler’s stains.

Cheek piece (Photo S Chapman)

Pewter nose cap (Photo S Chapman)

Forearm and nose cap (Photo L Pletcher)

Lock area (Photo L Pletcher)

When the rifle was finished, we went to the Stones Trace range to sight it in. With the rifle shooting to point of aim, we played with powder charges. A Swiss load of 90 grains of fffg gave us almost 1700 feet/second. I expect that a load of ffg may be found that will give similar velocities with less pressure. At this writing, I expect to experiment with different powder brands and grain sizes. Right now it is a potent rifle at both ends.

Rifle by the hearth Stones Trace Historical Society (Photo L Pletcher)

As we finished up our chronograph session, Steve said, “ Since this gun puts the ball at the top of the front blade, you could head shoot squirrels with it, or bark them.”

I said, “Well maybe not with 90 gr. of Swiss fffg.”

“Yah,” Steve said. “Wonder what it would do with a squib load, like maybe 30 gr.”

So, we chronographed a 30 gr. Swiss load of fffg. This load drove the 280 grain ball an average of 870 fps. Maybe we need to think lower for a squib. On a whim, we also clocked a load of 30 gr of Goex. It averaged less than 500 fps. This does seem more squib-like.

As a side bar, my friend Rick in Colorado stocked a rifle with the other .58 barrel that I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Rick wanted to recover a ball to see how much it expanded. During my time visiting him, we filled a garbage can with water and fired a 90 gr ffg load down into the can. The garbage can split down the side, but we did recover the ball. We taped the can together as best we could and fired a .58 cal. mini ball. Below is a pic of the expanded ball with the mini ball before and after. These rifles will make a big hole in about anything in North America. If my health and physical condition permitted, this would be the gun I’d use for elk.

Left is the .570 ball before and after recovery. On right is a mini ball for comparison

Rifle by the hearth (photo L Pletcher)

Back here in Indiana, Steve and I will need to do some form of Rick’s water experiment. We haven’t decided what we want to destroy, but it will be something filled with water.

Steve Chapman is a close friend with rifle-making and machinist skills. We have worked on many projects and experiments together. Whenever a project needs more hands, Steve is the person who helps. He usually pulls the trigger in any test that measures accuracy. While we both fired this gun for accuracy, Steve’s shooting skills have been necessary in many of our experiments. Steve’s many skills have been a benefit in many of these experimental articles.

Future tests, thoughts,etc

Thought: We might learn more from a different water test. We’re thinking of a row of milk jugs filled with water. A .308 is caught in the fifth jug. We think the .58 will do better.

Also: Build a water box to hold 1 gallon plastic bags. With this setup we could repeat tests and compare different calibers and loads. Compare the 90gr ffg Goex load and the 90 gr fffg Swiss load.

September 28, 2016
Two Hole Vent Test

This test is a long time coming. A couple years ago at CLA, Steve Chapman and I were looking over a flint gun made by Allan Sandy. The vent Allan used had two smaller holes located horizontally. Allan said the vent was internally coned but used two .052″ holes. Allan said he didn’t know whether it was faster or slower than a normal vent. My reply was that I could time it. Allan offered to provide me a vent, and on the way home, Steve and I planned how the vent would be tested.

Time passed with many interruptions in the way. In the meantime Fred Stutzenberger entered the picture. I believe Fred saw the “double-hole vent” on Sandy’s table at the same show that we did. Fred however, was more prompt than we were and published an article on the vent in the August 2014 issue of MuzzleBlasts.

Without great detail, Fred’s article compared Allan’s double-hole vent with a single-hole vent that had the same area as the sum of the two smaller vents. His findings showed that shots fired with the double-hole vent had slightly higher velocities than the single-hole vent even, though the vent area was the same. The “choked-flow principle” (comparing circumference to area) is the likely cause. Fred explains this better than I do; please read the article.

Our testing focused only on ignition speeds. We compared ignition time of the double-hole vent (two .052″ holes) and the single-hole vent (.073″) Both vents have the same area, but vary in their circumferences.

The main question I have is, “If the choked flow principle tends to restrict flow leaving the vent, might it also restrict flow entering the vent, causing slower ignition?”

We used a 10″ barrel stub with a small Siler flint. The test used a double-hole vent with .052 holes and a single-hole vent with a .073 hole. We did 10 trials each and lit the pan with a red hot copper wire. Our reason for this was to prevent a changing flint edge from entering into the test. The single .073 vent was better both in speed and consistency.

Before finishing, we ran 5 trials each in which the pan was ignited by the small Siler. In those trials the single-hole vent was better, but by a smaller margin. None of the trials sounded abnormal to the ear. No matter the range from high to low, human senses could not tell the difference. In fact, Steve tried to guess and was invariably wrong.

Here you see the shield that prevented both photocells from triggering when the pan flashed

Interpreting the results can sometimes be misleading. In this case, I like the single-hole vent. However, I do have two doubts. (1) I have questions about the reliability of a vent as small as .052”. A double-hole vent with larger holes might alter the result. (2) I wonder if the shape of vent’s exterior would change the result.

The included photos show the fixture and the position of the photo cells used in the timing. The photo cell at the pan trigger the start, while the photo cell and the muzzle triggers the stop.

The last pic is a close up of the vent. These holes are .052″. BTW, the stock is a heavily mutilated factory second supplied by Jim Chambers. It was important because it allowed the sear to be struck from below by the plunger. It also allowed us to use a small Siler lock for an earlier test. At that time it allowed three different locks to be tested using the same lock mortice.

To conclude, I’d like to thank Allan Sandy for the chance to time his vent. I feel that this vent type is well worth studying. I’d like to repeat this with a .055” 2 hole vent.

My thanks also to Steve Chapman and Mike Coggeshall for their assistance in the testing.

Of course every experimenter needs a furry assistant

Larry Pletcher, editor

September 21, 2016
Rifling a Barrel – Friendship Fall 2014

During the first weekend of the fall 2014 shoot, Bill Hoover and his friends did a demonstration of rifling a muzzle loading rifle barrel. While Bill’s rifling machine can cut multiple grooves, today the machine was set up to cut five grooves and a progressive or gain twist. In this set up the twist varied from 1/68” to 1/34” in a 42” barrel.

As we talked, Bill and Philip Iles worked on the machine. Philip would pull the cutter through a groove 10 times. Bill would then re-index the machine and clean the cutter with thread-cutting oil. After the cutter had been through each groove, Bill added a .001” steel shim under the cutter. The process would continue until he reached .006-.007” deep.

Bill’s cutters are made from taps. Since the bore of this barrel is .465″, a cutter made from a 1/2″ tap was used. the result is a groove with a radius that matches the radius of the bore.

Beside Bill’s rifling machine, John Kleihege was reaming a barrel on his machine. He had just finished reaming the rifling from an old rusty barrel. When his barrel was completely smooth, it would be ready for Bill to cut the rifling. The photos here were taken while I talked with Bill as he operated he rifling machine.

The cuttings from the rifling process.

Larry Pletcher, editor, www.blackpowdermag.com

September 19, 2014
Bucks County Hunting Gear

A Bucks County rifle and accouterments article has been on my mind for a number of years. The motivation for this came from three different people. First, Samuel Pletcher was my great, great, great grandfather. He lived in Lancaster County until he was about 40, then took his family by wagon to the Howard area in north central Pennsylvania around 1790. I’ve been interested in stories, tools, and possessions that would have been a part of his life.

Gary Brumfield was another influence. Gary was important to me and to others who study flintlocks. One area I appreciated was his knowledge of regional styles.   Gary went through some of the factors that assisted in the evolving of these styles. I was intrigued by these factors as they applied to the region of Samuel Pletcher.

Gary , doing a carving demo at Bowling green.

Since the area of interest is SE Pennsylvania, it is probably logical that Allen Martin would play a part in a Bucks County project.   Allen is among a very talented group of Pennsylvania gun makers, and one who is widely respected in his study and making of the guns of this area. It would be difficult to mention Bucks Co, Berks Co, or Lehigh Valley guns with out mentioning Allen.

Allen and I have discussed the architecture of these guns at the annual CLA show. I handled a wonderful Bucks County Schimmel and decided to have Allen make one for me. We discussed the typical ageing health and eye problems, and he assured me that the schimmel would meet all my health issues. He was certainly correct.

Allen Martin Schimmel

I received the schimmel at the 2014 Spring Shoot at Friendship. It is a delicate little .40 caliber: long and slim, with wonderful balance. It may not weigh 7 pounds. It is slightly aged, but not distressed. The stock is dark maple with very nice curl. The beauty of this rifle comes from the architecture.   As Allen told me, “Architecture is everything.”

The Bucks County Kit now needs a bag and horn. Frank Willis was my next stop. At CLA Frank had an original bag found in lower Bucks County. I bought a copy that Frank made from this original. There are some unique features about this bag, perhaps unique only to the original maker. These features are discussed in Frank’s article.

The old bag and Frank’s copy.

A rifle this fine and a proper original bag needs a proper horn. With many horners at CLA and many horns, the one that caught my eye was at P ete Hutton’s table. Pete makes screw-tip horns of various regional styles. One of the prettiest ones there happened to be a Bucks County screw-tip.   I figured it would look just fine with the Martin schimmel and the Willis bag, so it came home with me.

It is worth noting that horners have been studying and making screw-tip horns for many years. It was Art DeCamp who put the information on regional styles together. After years of careful research, he published a book detailing these styles called Pennsylvania “Horns of the Trade” Screw-tip Powder Horns and Their Architecture. It has become the definitive work on Pennsylvania screw-tip horns.

A Bucks County screw tip horn made by Pete Hutton

When I studied the Bucks County section of Art’s book, I looked for the characteristics that Frank incorporated in his screw-tip. Frank’s is quite similar to #36 on page 128-129. Art describes this horn as an early horn, probably Bucks/Chester county just north of Philadelphia. The collar and tip show a Philadelphia influence. Art mentioned that Bucks County horns were “less refined and of a coarser nature than Philadelphia horns.” Frank’s horn, however, is finely finished, second to none in workmanship.

Bucks County Gear: Martin Schimmel, Willis Bag, Hutton Horn

The schimmel, bag, and horn make a great combination. Besides equipping me for Indiana’s squirrel season, it serves as a reminder of three very talented makers whose work deserves recognition. We should also remember the study of Gary Brumfield, Art DeCamp, and many others have advanced our knowledge of Pennsylvania firearms history. I hope you will take the time to explore the links above.

Bucks County Gear: Martin Schimmel, Willis Bag, Hutton Horn #3

The links associated with names in the text above take you to the artist’s page on this site. The links below take you to their own site.

Gary Brumfield

Allen Martin

Frank Willis

Pete Hutton: powderhorn1@consolidated.net

Art DeCamp

Larry Pletcher, editor: www.blackpowdermag.com

August 31, 2014
Projects to Come

This is an informal list of future project ideas. Nothing cast in stone here; just a place to keep notes on ideas.

1. Vent shape experiments — this will include an exterior tool made by Tom Snyder, a friend who also makes an interior vent coning tool, as well as other tools for the gun maker.

2. A before and after test of Jim Chambers‘ late Ketland lock. We’ll time various combinations of the current and new parts.

3. Find an elapsed time for a double set trigger. This will pretty subjective, and we’re not sure of a methodology. Lowell Gard and I are brain-storming on this.

4. Slow motion video session with Olympus Industrial. I have a few friends with original English locks that we’ll want to video tape. We will also tape locks of any shooters who would like a video tape of their lock.

5. Because of missing a chance to get an interview with Gary Brumfield, I’d like to collect thoughts from his many friends. This is just in planning stages, I want to make sure this gets done.

6. A photo session done at the Seminar in Bowling Green.

7. Continue doing video interviews.

8. Add two more lubes to the lube test.

9. Jim’s experiment with golden age tumblers.

June 17, 2014
Allen Martin builds a Schimmel

Friendship will be very special this spring. Allen Martin will be bringing my new Schimmel to the spring shoot. Allen and I have talked about this project numerous times at CLA. I remember handling an incredible Martin gun and heard Allen say, It’s all in the architecture.”

I was worried about my own shoulder issues and voiced this concern to Allen. “Don’t worry,” he said. “I’ll make you a long, slim, light flint schimmel that will be a joy to handle. And he did.

A few weeks ago, Allen sent me a few photos of the gun. Below are photos. I’ll tease you with just a couple photos and add more when Allen and I get together at Friendship. I want to add photos of him and his boys — and the gun of course.

Bucks Co. Schimmel 2

Allen Martin Schimmel

Allen Martin Schimmel

I think the only preference I gave Allen was that I like pretty wood. (I prefer to make few requests and then get out of the way of he maker. ) The nature of a Bucks County Schimmel is that it is a plain gun. The beauty of this rifle is not in decoration, as it has none. The beauty is in its graceful lines. As Allen says, It’s all about the architecture. That certainly is true in this case. In just a few days, I’ll hold this gun in my hands. I bet the photos don’t do it justice.

June 9, 2014
Blackpowdermag Gets a Facelift

It’s been a long time coming, but Blackpowdermag has a new look!

For some time we have considered revamping Blackpowdermag, and when a group of files were corrupted, we changed to a WordPress authoring system. The result is a new, fresh-looking format that reads well on smart phones and tablets, as well as computers. We are especially pleased with this improvement that was made possible by WordPress.

We also will connect with a Blackpowdermag Facebook page. We envision notifications on Facebook with the appearance of new articles and photos on blackpowdermag.com.

Dealing with the damaged files and articles presented some challenges. Upper most in my mind was to prevent the loss of important experiments and the articles that reported the findings. Since the site’s materials came from a variety of sources, different solutions were used. The result is that all the MuzzleBlasts articles are back, looking better than ever. Other experiments have been saved as well. The slow-motion videos of 80+ flintlocks are back. Photo galleries are organized with material from Friendship, Conner Prairie, CLA, and Dixon’s Gun Fair. And, as I write this, the taped interviews of gun makers are being finished up.

Much of the credit for the new, revised Blackpowdermag belongs to my son, Kevin. Kevin has extensive experience in internet commerce, currently employed by Bloomreach, a premier Internet technology company. Without his help, I’m afraid this site would have simply faded away.

June 9, 2014
Flintlock Lube Test

In choosing to do this experiment, I will look only at how the lubes affect lock speeds. Others have examined a lubes resistance to rust formation. Many lubes have been suggested. I will try to choose those that are widely used or represent a group of lubricants.

The text here is in progress. It’s kind of like diary entries showing all the problems associated with a test of this kind. I’ll straighten it up later.

I brought my testing set-up into the basement . My garage is heated but I’d rather not run temps up and down because of some old cars. Will if I have to. I will be testing infrared gates and beginning to figure out the methods.

I have to thank an ALR guy for a real stroke of luck. He offered me a sample of colonial period oil to include in the tests. That gives us a chance to include what I expect is the best of colonial lubes available.

Progress has been slow today. I spent my time solving problems with infrared gates. They have always been troublesome, but today static electricity in my dry basement and the sensitivity adjustments have taken too much time. A potentiometer may need to be replaced. There are a few fixes to try before I resort to that though. During teh afternoon I did get a dry run done using Rem oil on the lock. Numbers ran from .0160 to .0220 seconds. This won’t be used as a bench mark because the sensitivity may change the results. So, nothing final here, just some slow progress.

I finally solved the gate sensitivity today. I replaced the two potentiometers on the interface board. These seem to adjust smoothly and give me much more control of the gate sensitivity. I did a short test and feel I’m ready to begin the testing.

The cleaning method is my next problem. My plan is to do a three stage cleaning. First the lock goes into warm water with a little dish soap added and be scrubbed. Next into rinse water and blown dry. Lastly I’ll use acetone or alcohol to do a final rinse and blow dry. That should leave the lock absolutely lube free.

Beginning each set of trials and after applying lube, I’ll snap the lock a couple of times before timing the first trial. Hope things go well.

Today I tested six lubes against a trial with no lube at all. My gut said that the lubed tests would be pretty close with the no lube slower. This was not the case, however. The no lube trial averaged in the middle of the lubed scores. Below are the lubes in the order they finished with their average for 10 trials:

A few comments need to be made about these scores and lubes. First it was very hard to clean the lube off between trials. I had to wash the lock carefully in alcohol. This last step had to be done more than once in some cases. I timed the no lube first and realized I didn’t wash it thoroughly enough, and had to toss the times. If I used those numbers, no lube would have been in first place. Cleaning definitely is the crucial step here.

The trials are in the order of testing left to right. The “no lube” in the left column is the one in which I felt I did not clean well enough to use. Instead I decided to retest at the end. That trial is on the far right. The times within each trial are in order from top to bottom. This is probably not as significant as it would be if a flint edge was used. The range within each trial was wider than I expected. The exception is in the Ballistol group where the range is significantly smaller than the rest. It was the slowest in the group also.

The infrared gates worked better than before I swapped the parts on the board. I got a few scores out of range, but not many.

The Chambers product was a 2 part lube. A white grease was used between main spring and tumbler and also on the frizzen spring. A thin oil was used on the rotating parts. The white grease was very hard to clean off after this test.

The “Colonial” oil sample was the only sample that would be historically correct.

The individual times in each set were more widely spread than I was expecting. The averages were in the ball park with earlier timing. The mechanical times for this same lock, published in the JHAT vol IV, was .0151 seconds IIRC. .

I have a number of other lubes to try, however my cold wore me out and I stopped with these today. I will probably try to get a few more done, but after today I think I know how it will turn out. (I didn’t do my favorite which is Rem Oil.) I’ll continue to look at the numbers for any trends.

I want to continue to mull all this over, but I think the differences are statistically insignificant. The ranges of trials were too wide to be decisive. In fact the narrowest range was for Ballistol, the slowest average. This would be easier to see if you could see the group of scores for each lube. I’ll try to see to that.

I do like Jim’s lube combination. The lube for sliding surfaces makes sense. Between shooting sessions, I would use a lube based on its rust prevention. I better let it go for now. This needs more thought.

Here are a few photos of the setup and the spreadsheet that includes all the trials:
This is the overall setup I’m using.

This pic shows the fixture with the Siler installed. The orange RCA plug in the forground holds the led emiter, while in the background is the detector (black). The infrared beam is positioned right above the frizzen. When the frizzen rises, the beam is broken.

This shows the fixture from the back. Now the detector is in the forground. Here you can see the plunger below the sear with a thin brass blade between. When the plunger pushes the brass against the sear, the contact is made that starts time.

This last pic is the interface. The glowing green led lets me know that the infrared beam is not broken.

The mention of ultrasonic cleaning sounds interesting. Using brake parts cleaner sounds good too. Would the parts cleaner leave a coating that could be removed by alcohol? BTW, I figured alcohol would leave no coating. Hope that’s right. I should mention that I would use compressed air on the lock until no alcohol was left. I was surprised to see alcohol coming out of the sear and sear spring screws on the front of the lock plate.

The overlap is one reason these are IMHO statistically insignificant. As far as lube not removed, I think I got that solved after the first cleaning. After that I used plenty of alcohol and used compressed air until no alcohol came out – even from screw threads.

The real surprise was the substantial reduction in range shown by the Ballistol. While it had the slowest average, the lock was far more consistent with this lube. Methodology was the same throughout, so I have no explanation for Ballistol’s consistency.

I need to think about what material is the last step in the rinse before re-lubing. Is there a better fluid than alcohol? Other than ether (starter fluid) does anything leave NO residue? I feel that key to a clean lock means a final rinse with nothing left, including a residue of its own. Any ideas better than alcohol or ether?

The problem with a trace of oil in the compressed air was a possibility I hadn’t considered. As you probably read I moved my stuff from my garage into my basement when I didn’t need to use priming powder and flint. My garage air would have been filtered, but my basement compressor lacks a filter. I can rule out the problem by leaving the stuff in the basement but doing the lock cleaning in the garage. It adds a bit of time to the process, but lock-cleaning takes more time than running the tests anyway.

If I had a real lab behind me, some of those methods would probably be the answer. Since I’m a retired teacher working from my basement, I may have to settle on the best solvents readily available. I used alcohol as you know, but also have acetone and ether (starter fluid). One of my friends may have a couple more. I’ll give this more thought over the weekend and pick the brains of a couple local engineer friends.

In looking over the stats I am beginning to doubt what I know so far. Numbers within a trial vary so widely, I am beginning to look for an unknown variable. The problem is that solvents and methodology used so far have been the same throughout the tests. Is there a variable that widens the data that we haven’t anticipated. Just thinking. . .

Today I ran tests on more lubes plus another run of no lube. I have more photos to add but photobucket freezes every time I try to add another photo. The chart below contains both day’s work with day 2 at the bottom. I decided to leave in all the no lube groups when I saw that today’s was in about the same time category. I also highlighted the fast and slow time in each group. In a couple of cases the fast time and the slow time were next to each other in sequence. The ranking now includes all the trials from both days.

I changed cleaning methodology today. First I’m using filtered conpressed air to rule out the possibility of trace amounts of oil when drying the lock. Also, after using warm soapy water and a tooth brush on the lock, I used a series of 4 baths in acetone. I chose acetone over MEK because it evaporates more quickly. The purpose of the 4 baths was explained in an earlier post so I won’t go into that again. But I have confidence that trace amounts of oil are not involved in the testing.

After 2 days of timing, I feel that we will not find a super lube that is head and shoulders above the rest. Since the lock seemed faster with no lube, perhaps the trick is how to apply a very small amount. The containers that the oil comes in may play a part in this.

The wide range of times, especially overlapping as they do, make me conclude that lube quality does not influence the mechanical time of the lock. The question then is why not. My gut says that the very small amount of rotation is prehaps too brief to accurate measure the effect of lube. If we were dealing with a machine that rotated a number of revolutions, maybe we could see the difference. I don’t know.

If we do not choose a lube for speed, my choice would be to choose a lube for it’s ability to increase the life of the lock. I asked this question to Jim at Friendship. His answer was that he would choose a lube with the longevity of the lock in mind. My gut says we should too.

January 14, 2013
A Study in Lock Timing

[box type=”note” align=”aligncenter” ]”A Study in Lock Timing” was originally a part of the Journal of Historical Armsmaking Technology, published by the NMLRA in 1991. It is reproduced here with permission from the NMLRA.,[/box]

I’d like to thank Gary Brumfield for his encouragement and advice during the data collecting and writing of this article.

The Siler below is the lock used in the ’80s for the JHAT article. It has been fired probably thousands of times, but never was mounted on a gun. The article below listed all the modifications that were done when the lock was made. It has served as a test bed for many different experiments.

I still have that exact same lock. However only the plate and the cock are original. In 2010 Jim Chambers planned to change the cracked frizzen. By the time he was finished only the cock and plate were left. It continues to be my test bed lock.

December 12, 2012
Martin’s Station Rifle Project

Martin’s Station is thought of as a great place to view and become involved in living history. Their calendar is filled with living history activities for the observer as well as the re-enactor. In the midst of these experiences is a great new project.

The Martin’s Station Rifle Project is the brainchild of Billy Heck. Billy’s idea was to build a Virginia rifle that would be raffled off as a fundraiser to benefit the Friends of Wilderness Road, a support group for the Park and Martin’s Station.

The actual work on the rifle began in May, 2010 when the barrel was hand forged. (The “Raid on Martin’s Station” was that same weekend. We hope the barrel makers were not inconvenienced by the attack.) Andy Thomas, Billy Heck, Ryan Teague, and Ron Eddy, from Martin’s Station, worked with Richard Sullivan (Colonial Williamsburg) on the hand forged barrel. Mike Miller built the hand forged lock as the project continued.

While most of the rifle work was done on site, the rifle makers had the rare treat of rifling the barrel at Colonial Williamsburg. While there, using CW’s tools and expert advise of CW’s journeymen, the reaming and rifling were done. This experience had to be a highlight of the project!

A few more steps and the rifle will be finished. The raffle will be in May of 2012. Tickets are available. Hopefully the photos here and the many on Martin’s Station Rifle Project web page will draw those who would like to own such a fine piece.

As a side note, Billy Heck and Richard Sullivan will be at the Martin’s Station booth at CLA this August. Mike Miller will have his own booth. Please stop in; I bet there will be raffle tickets available!

Websites:

http://www.historicmartinsstation.com/

Andy Thomas has additional photos at the link below:

Martin’s Station Rifle Project

———-

Martin’s Station Rifle Project Interview

We’re at the CLA Show in Lexington. Sitting around me are the fellows who made the rifle project possible: To my right is Andy Thomas. On around the circle is Carroll Ross, Richard Sullivan, Ron Eddy, Billy Heck, Ryan Teague, and Mike Miller. Each of these men played a part in the project. We’ll try to get each to join in the conversation.

August 12, 2011
NMLRA 1 of 1000 Endowment

The NMLRA’s “1 of 1000 Endowment Program” was the brain child of former president Merrill Deer. He hoped to find 1000 members who would each contribute $1000, to support the NMLRA. The funds go into a restricted endowment fund.

David Wright’s painting, “The Spirit of America” will be used to support the program in a variety of ways.

David Wright’s talent is widely known, especially to those of us with a passion about America’s past. His many paintings virtually place us back in time as America unfolds. Sometimes the view is an everyday moment like his painting “Plumb Wore Down”, one of my favorites. Other times, his paintings give us a glimpse of monumental importance. “The Spirit of America” is such a painting.

As chairman of the “1 of 1000 Endowment Program”, Robert Copner commissioned David Wright to create this work. Limited edition prints are reserved for new members of the endowment as they sign up. Others will be sold with funds going into the “1 of 1000 Endowment Program and the Association’s Education’s Building Fund.

You can be a part of this:

To find out more about the “1 of 1000 Endowment Program” and how you can take part :http://www.nmlra.org/

To find out more about David Wright’s artwork: http://www.davidwrightart.com/

August 2, 2011
Filled Vent Test – Is it Slower?

Filling a flintlock touch hole with priming powder causes a slower ignition. The pan fire has to burn through instead of flash through the vent. Is this “fuse effect” true? Can the difference be measured? Are the “hang fires” experienced by black powder shooters caused by something else? Reporting the answers to these questions is the purpose in this article.

The purpose of this test was to see if there was a measurable delay in ignition when a straight cylinder vent was filled with priming powder. (We did not deal with vent liners in this test.) For the purpose of this experiment I will define this “fuse effect” as an ignition delay caused by the priming powder having to burn its way through the vent to ignite the main charge instead of “flashing” through the vent. I’m personally not fond of the term because it implies that we know what caused the delay. I like the term “hang fire” because it does not suggest a cause.

The test was set up using a fixture we used earlier to time lock ignition speeds. We used a “pistol” with a barrel stub, small Siler lock, and my computer with photo cells “looking” at the pan and barrel muzzle. The barrel is loaded with 30 gr 3fg and a sabot to hold powder in place. The pan is primed, and ignited with a red hot wire to eliminate lock variables. Between firings, the barrel is wiped with two patches, a vent pick used, and compressed air is blown through the vent to insure that the vent is clean. The pan is primed with Null B close to the barrel. The only difference between the two test phases was that the vent was completely empty in one, while in the other, we picked priming powder into the vent until no more would go in.

The barrel used was octagon 7/8” across the flats and was .45 caliber. It had a flat flint-type breech. The vent was a straight cylinder with a 1/16” diameter approximately .21 inches in length. Time starts when the pan photo cell is triggered and stops when the barrel photo cell is triggered. Thus barrel time is included in this test, however this obviously the same for both vent conditions.

We recorded 5 trials for each vent condition. The average time for the clean, empty vent was .028 seconds. The filled vent average was .031 seconds. As you would expect, the slowest time we recorded was in the filled vent phase (.0363). However the fastest time of the day was also in the filled vent phase (.0233). (We also did a single clean vent trial where we banked the prime away from the vent and recorded at time of .067 – more than two times slower than the clean vent average.)

These averages are quite close together. We expected a larger difference because our ears tell us a hang fire has taken place. And, here is the most unusual finding. The fastest time (.0233) we recorded sounded as if it was a hang fire. The slowest time (.0363) recorded sounded like a sharp crack – no hang fire – sounded like a .22 rim fire. This reinforces a belief I have long held that our eyes and ears are terrible tools for judging flint events.

This all makes me wonder what we are really hearing. Maybe our ears send us false information. Consider this: You are three shots into a target and have 3 tens. You shoot the 4th shot and it’s a nine. Sounded fast, but you think it was just you. You shoot the 5th shot, and it has an audible hang. You look through the scope, and no. 5 is back in the 10 ring. Maybe the fourth shot was slow, the fifth shot was fast, and your ears are at fault. With what we learned here, it could be possible. I truly don’t know the answer. Sometimes experiments leave you with more questions than answers. I do know that I trust my ears less than the numbers.

There are so many variables that can cause delays that in most cases it can be impossible to rule out all but one. That was the purpose in our experiment. We wanted to put a number on the amount of delay, if any, caused by packing a cylinder vent with priming powder.

The delays we found were measurable but not large enough to account for the delays we have measured in pan ignition – where the variables were flint edges, priming, particle size, and location of the prime in the pan. I have measured far larger time variations caused by these variations. The other big factor is the delay caused by fouling in the vent. A vent full of priming is one thing, but a vent filled with fouling is quite another. Besides causing huge hang fires, I believe fouled vents are the flint shooter’s biggest cause of failures to fire.

If I were to list the top causes for delays based on my testing they would be:

1. Lack of good spark production from good flint edge

2. Improper priming location in the pan with good priming powder

3. Vent not absolutely clear of fouling.

(A clean vent filled with prime is not a major cause IMHO.)

February 21, 2011
Bedford Co. — John Stoudenour

—pretty neat original Bedford County gun—

photographs by Larry Pletcher

An original Bedford Co. rifle recently surfaced in northern Indiana. The name plate on the barrel identifies it as John Stoudenour. The Stoudenour family included John Sr.and his sons, Jacob and John Jr. This gun is likely to have been made by John Jr.

Some of these photos were shown on the American Longrifles forum. When these were posted on ALR, they were uploaded for identification purposes. It is now apparent that they may be used, in part, to determine the rifle’s condition by a potential buyer. I have added additional photos here to give the most accurate view of the rifle’s condition. (The rifle does not belong to me. I have assisted the owner only in locating information about the rifle and in providing the photography.)

Larry Pletcher, editor

December 21, 2010
Blackpowder Slug Guns – Precision Paper Punching Machinery

Blackpowdermag editor, Larry Pletcher

For years I’ve been fascinated with the slug guns during the Muzzleloading Championships at Friendship. This year I decided to do an article on these remarkable guns. This article is the first in a two part series on slug guns. The second will look at the largest slug gun I have ever seen.

Slug gun shooting has a long tradition in the NMLRA. During my 30+ years of trips to Friendship, visits to the slug gun range have been a part of my plans. This year I decided to write up my experiences

The slug gun is unique among the various types of blackpowder guns. The typical muzzleloading slug gun is heavy often 30-40 pounds. The largest known slug guns exceed 100 pounds. One of these amazing guns was shot this year. The barrels are large diameter, shorter than round ball bench gun barrels, but do use a false muzzle. The actions are the underhammer variety with sealed ignitions. (Sealed ignitions completely enclose the cap, preventing gases from escaping the barrel at the nipple.)

Typical barrels are rifled for a .45 bullet with a 1 turn in 18” twist. Other calibers are seen at Friendship from .40s to the huge .69 caliber that appeared this year. Mounted on the barrel is a target quality telescopic sight. These vary in power; 24x seems to be the optimum for this type of shooting. (Higher powers tend to have greater problems with mirage.) Scope adjustments are in the mounts.

The typical .45 caliber bullet weighs 550 grains while the .69 caliber bullet weighed more than three times as much. The bullet is normally swaged from two pieces – a harder nose swaged to a softer base. This prevents the nose from deforming but allows the base to bump up into the rifling. Many shooters design their own bullets, casting their own cores, and swaging the complete bullet. A typical bullet design would use three calibers as the length.

The bullet is wrapped in a paper patch. Most shooters use the cross patch method. Narrow strips of paper are positioned on the false muzzle, the bullet placed on top, and the bullet carefully seated with a mechanical seating tool. The seating device may be a plunger whose nose is machined to fit the nose of the bullet. Another device uses levers to provide mechanical advantage.

Every trick is used to produce the smallest groups. Even though bullets are swaged, they are culled very close tolerances. Powder is pre-weighed. I saw one shooter with an enclosed weighing and charging station, designed to prevent a breeze from changing the delicate scale’s reading.

Shooting a slug gun involves many skills, among those is the ability to handle the wind. The ability to read wind flags is not unique to slug gun shooting, but shooting paper targets at 500 yards requires a shooter to develop these skills. That being said, George Mitchell, who shoots the 100 pound, .69 caliber gun, said he didn’t worry about wind too much. He probably does, but his huge, 1785 grain, bullet does have wind-bucking abilities.

I found the slug gun shooters a helpful group when I gathered information for this article. I was careful to wait for relays to end before asking questions. I was allowed access to take pictures and to develop the loading sequences shone in the photos. All were free with details about their guns, scopes, loading equipment, and bullets.

The guns, equipment, and the shooters make slug gun shooting a truly unique experience at Friendship. Take the time to visit the slug gun range. Part 2 of this Slug Gun series will zero in on the largest gun at Friendship this fall. The photo below, I hope will whet your appetite.

October 12, 2010
Blackpowder Slug Guns – The Mitchell Gun

Slug Guns Part 2 allows a unique look into the world of slug guns. Blackpowdermag.com is pleased to bring you this look at the “Mother of all Slug Guns.”

Blackpowdermag editor, Larry Pletcher

In Part 1 the topic was slug guns in general; Part 2 zeroes in on one of the largest slug guns ever to be fired at Friendship. This gun, built by George Mitchell, is one of four guns in existence made in .69 caliber. All four of these guns are very heavy. The Mitchell gun is over 100 pounds, and it may be the heaviest of the four. It is the only one of the four currently in use.

The gun uses a Morse underhammer action and a sealed ignition. The barrel has a 1 turn in 28 inch twist and uses .004″ deep rifling. The telescopic sight is also built by Mr. Mitchell (Mitchell optics). In fact Mitchell scopes were seen on many of the slug guns shooters on the line.

In most cases these scopes are 24X because larger powers tend to increase the effect of mirage. The adjustment of these scopes is in the mounts like the Unertl target scopes.

Caption: The bullet on the left is 550 gr. .45 caliber ; on the right is the 1785 gr bullet for the Mitchell gun.

The Mitchell gun uses the same basic accoutrements used by most slug guns. Mr. Mitchell uses a chase patch for his 1785 grain two piece bullet. The precut paper is wrapped around form and inserted in a specially made die. The bullet is inserted into the die and the die fit into the false muzzle. A plunger type seating device is used to give the bullet a perfect start into the bore. A bench rod seats the bullet on 300 grains of fg Goex powder.

Caption: The paper patch is wrapped around a form.

Caption: The patch is inserted into a die up to a shoulder using the tool at right.

Caption: Here the bullet has been inserted up to the same shoulder.

Caption: The patch is folded over the bullet’s base. It is now ready for the false muzzle.

Caption: This plunger type seating tool is used to seat the bullet.

One subject that needs to be mentioned deals with the handling of the extra weight when going through loading, cleaning, and benching the gun prior to shooting. Mr Mitchell uses a swivel mounted on the top of his shooting bench. With the gun on the swivel the gun rests on the muzzle and on the swivel; the stock is a few inches off the bench. To ready the gun for firing, a pin is removed from the swivel and the gun is lowered so that the stock rests on the bench.

After firing, the stock of the gun is raised and the gun placed on the swivel. The gun is then rotated on the swivel until the stock can be lowered to the ground. After cleaning and loading, the gun is swung back unto the bench where the swivel can be disconnected and the stock again lowered unto the bench. It seemed that this process was well thought out, and the only time the full weight of the gun was lifted was when it was taken to the bench at the beginning of the shooting session. Moving to and from the range was done with a two-wheeled cart adapted for that purpose.

Caption: Please note the swivel in the center of the bench. This holds the weight until the pin is pulled and the stock lowered to the bench. The gun can be rotated and the stock lowered to the ground. (You may have noticed the false muzzle remaining on the gun while on the bench. Mr. Mitchell had just placed the gun on the bench for taking photos. The false muzzle is left in place when the gun travels and moved to the bench to protect the muzzle.)

Caption: George is making adjustments to his scope.

Caption: You saw this photo at the beginning, but it’s worthy of a second look!

I’d like to thank George Mitchell, his wife, and all those slug gun shooters on the line for their cooperation. Their willingness to help with information and helping to set up photography shots was invaluable.

October 11, 2010
ITX Non-Lead Field Test for Accuracy

Do you live in a lead-free hunting zone? Are there alternatives for the traditional muzzleloading hunter? BlackPowderMag examines one possibility.

Recently I received a quantity of ITX non-lead balls made to be fired in a muzzleloading rifle. The maker is Continuous Metal Technologies Inc located in Ridgeway PA. Brad Clinton is the contact person. The company produces non-lead projectiles for hunting applications. If, for a variety of reasons, hunting with lead becomes unlawful, these products may prove to be a viable alternative.

You can see a belt running around the ball. This ball measured .487 when not measuring the belt. Around the belt it measured .002″ larger. We seated the ball with the belt level – (with the belt thought of as the equator, the North pole was up). We speculate that if the belt went in slanted, it might be possible to damage a land.

This week Steve Chapman and I worked on testing the non-lead ball in a .50 caliber muzzleloader. Two samples were available: .487 and .490. We planned to test both. The goal was to determine the potential for accuracy with a non-lead patched ball.

The rifle used was a light bench/x-sticks gun, which Steve used to set a National muzzleloading record. The barrel is made by Green Mountain (1 in 70” twist) and is equipped with target apature sights. When firing the record target Steve used .495 lead balls patched with Teflon. The barrel was wiped between shots.

Before heading to the range I weighed out the balls. The .487 balls ranged from 156-159 grains. I sorted them into groups to minimize the weight differences. The same was done to the .490s. They weighed 152-155 grains – less than the .487s. I don’t understand this. The weighing was done in the same session on the same surface with the same scales.

At the range while Steve was sighting in with lead balls, I pushed a .487 patched ball through a barrel stub. We wanted to check on patch cutting with the harder ball. With this barrel stub the ball cut patches with every patch material we tried. We determined the cause to be the crown on the barrel stub. My reason for reporting this is that if your barrel has any tendency to cut patches, this very hard ball will increase this tendency. We saw NO deformation in the ball, no matter how tight a patch we tried.

We then tried to seat a patched ball into Steve’s target barrel, pull it out by the patch material, and look at the ball and patch. Instead the patch material tore off, leaving the patched ball in the barrel. We removed the nipple, added a squib powder charge, seated the ball, and fired it out. We concluded that if one dry-balls with one of these, pulling the ball will not be an option. You will have to be able to get powder behind the ball to remove it. It’s possible that if a ball was seated against the breech plug, one might need to unbreech the rifle to remove it. (We did not try using a CO2 discharger; that may or may not have worked.)

Not wanting to risk Steve’s barrel with a cut patch, we started with a 20 gr load and worked our way up 20 grains at a time, looking at patches for cutting. We determined that with the excellent crown on Steve’s barrel we could use pocket drill with Murphy’s oil soap at normal velocities with no patch damage. (Later we used Teflon moistened with spit with equal success.)

At 50 yards, Steve used 70 grains of Swiss ffg behind the .487 ball and pocket drill w Murphy’s oil soap full strength. Compared with a normal lead ball, it chronographed faster, but elevation on paper was the same. This group measures 2 inches.

At 100 yards, Steve used 85 grains of Swiss ffg, .487 ball. And pocket drill w Murphy’s oil soap full strength. We also tried Teflon with equal success. This group measured 4 inches.

We feel that the non-lead ball is capable of hunting accuracy and informal off hand target work, but would prefer lead ball for serious offhand or target work that allowed a rest – such as bench or X-sticks. We feel that it will take a serious competition shooter to detect a difference. The added complications with a dry-ball during a competition match may be a factor weighed by some as well.

In order to make a valid comparison, we included a target that Steve shot at Friendship that shows the potential of the patched lead ball with Steve behind this barrel. This target, shot at 100 yards, measures 1.875″ and holds a National record. It was shot with Teflon patching. That is the reason Teflon patches were included in the testing above. Teflon does require wiping between shots, and pocket drill would be the reasonable choice for a hunting load.

Today, wind was our biggest variable, but on two occasions Steve clover-leafed three balls with a lead ball when doing comparisons. He couldn’t do this well with the non-lead ball, but hunting accuracy out to 100 yards is quite acceptable. We expected the non-lead ball to strike lower on the paper at 100 yards, but it did not. I expect that being lighter; its higher muzzle velocity (50-60 fps) may have helped. At distances beyond 100 yards the non-lead ball may drop faster, but we did not shoot beyond 100 yards.

We do feel that shooting this non-lead ball places different responsibilities on the shooter. Dry-balling with a lead ball is a minor inconvience, compared to dry-balling one of these. Good muzzle crowns become much more important. This is not to say that a good crown isn’t important with a normal lead ball, but it is huge with non-lead. Strong, tough patch material is vital with this ball as well. We don’t know what damage might be done if one shoots a ball this hard with a patch that is cut as it enters the barrel. We were prepared to stop the test if that happened rather than risk Steve’s barrel.

We did not test the larger .490 ball for the reason mentioned above. It cut both Teflon and pocket drill when we tried it. The cutting was not the fault of the crown because we worked all day with the smaller ball and with the lead ball with no cutting. Obviously special care is required in choosing the patch material for the non-lead ball.

In our testing we were concerned with accuracy and made no attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the ball on a game animal. However, based on our accuracy testing, we conclude that the non-lead ball is a viable alternative for hunting use within the range we tested. We speculate that the harder ball will deform less and penetrate deeper than a lead ball. Accuracy is quite acceptable within the ranges that a traditional rifle would be used. As mentioned above, loading and patching techniques are different from handling a lead ball. The shooter will need to adapt to handle the harder ball in order to protect his barrel.

For further testing, we suggest that a ball that measures .015 – .020″ less than the bore (on the belt) may help to make the ball more forgiving to shoot. For .50 caliber, a belt measurement of .482-.485″ might be worth considering. Obviously this will mean a very thick patch, but may help to protect the rifling.

The following is contact information:

Continuous Metal Technologies Inc. 439 W Main Street Ridgeway, PA 15853 814-772-9274

Brad Clinton email: bclinton@powdered-metal.com

July 21, 2010
Part 1 – Horn-making

March 26, 2010
Screw Tip Horn Class repeated at Conner Prairie

Art DeCamp’s instruction and horn-making techniques were invaluable to me in making screw-tip horns. Thank you, Art, for the class and the extra help you provided. Art has a new web site at:www.artspowderhorns.com

Samuel Pletcher grew up in southern Lancaster County in the 1750s. He apprenticed to a weaver, and by the time of the Revolution he was married with a family. One family source says he fought in the war, but this is uncertain. He may have participated in the Lancaster militia along with his brother Henry, but this has not been verified. After the war he remained in Lancaster County until 1790 when he and his brother took their families to Howard PA. From here the Pletcher family spread out, with Samuel spending his later days in central Ohio before passing away in 1830.

Samuel was my great, great, great, great grandfather, and it is because of him that I developed an interest in screw tip horns. He would have been working as a weaver in Lancaster at the same time the horn shops would have been operating, as well as Jacob Dickert and other Lancaster gunmakers. It would be quite reasonable to assume that he owned a horn from one of these shops and perhaps a gun from a maker like Dickert.

My interest in screw tip horns continued to increase when I met Art DeCamp. I took horn making classes from Art in 2008 and 2009. It was between these two classes that I realized that there were characteristics that distinguished Lancaster horns from other screw tips. I had to know what those characteristics were, and I couldn’t wait until the class in the fall. I went to Art’s table at CLA and said, “Art, I know you will tell us about the differences between Lancaster screw tips and other horns, but I can’t wait until the class. Will you explain that now?”

Art patiently began filling me in, and I impatiently waited for the horn class in the fall. I was going to make a horn like my ancestor Samuel probably carried when he left Lancaster.

The class is now over, and it was all I expected. Art covered screw tip horns in general and Lancaster horns specifically. He brought many original examples, numerous screw tip horns he made, and of course the raw materials for us to take home a reproduction of our own making.

We began with a discussion of the history of screw tip horns and differences in regional styles. Here we were, a bunch of old codgers, writing and sketching like mad, afraid we’d miss something. (I probably shouldn’t say codgers because Jeff is too young to be a codger.) Art admitted that we spent much more time on this than he planned, but the questions kept coming. I think he was pleased that the research he did on regional styles was appreciated. Art’s work on this isn’t over; he is close to publishing a book on screw tip horns and their history.

Below – Several original Lancaster tips

Below – Two of Art’s Lancaster tips

After picking out our horns and tips, Art started us preparing the spout end of the horn. We cut off the end and drilled the spout hole. Art cautioned us that the angle of the hole was vital because all the lathe operations done on the spout and the screw tip used this as the center. A poor drilling angle would result in a poorly angled screw tip. Art encouraged us to have another person watch the drilling from another angle to help us get the hole straight.

Below – (DeCamp photo) The tap is chucked in the lathe.

Turning the spout for threading, cutting the shoulder, and threading the spout came next. Art brought a variable speed lathe and had very useful tips for producing really good threads. This was tricky on the lathe even with the turning speed quite slow. Using a tap to chuck the spout end of the horn was a method that worked well with the slow lathe speed we used. Art’s threading guide made threading the spout work well.

Below – Jeff Bibb is preparing to turn the spout for the 5/8×11 die.

Below– (DeCamp photo) The threading guide is installed. We will add lube and cut the exterior threads.

We worked on the plug end of the horn next. After cutting off the horn, we formed it round by heating the horn in hot lard and inserting a tapered plug. This plug was also the mandrel we used to chuck the horn in the lathe for cutting the horn wall to uniform thickness. These operations left us with a round end with both inside and outside concentric.

Turning the large end of the horn on the mandrel brought a bit of excitement to the class. Even when turning slowly, sometimes the horn would fly off the mandrel. The trick here was to adjust the speed fast enough to cut well, but not so fast that the horn would fly off. At times this was a delicate compromise. The better the match between the taper of horn and mandrel, the easier this operation was.

Below – Jeff Bibb is turning the the wall thickness and then parting off, providing a clean edge for fitting the plug.

Turning the plug was more or less a basic wood lathe operation. The lathe could be used at normal speeds. A inside/outside caliper as a very useful tool for measuring the horn, especially considering the taper inside the horn. We discussed the type of wood used and the variations in plug styles. The method of fastening the plug also varied with location.

Below – Art uses an inside/outside caliper and does a trial fit of the cherry plug.

Below – Art uses a parting tool to cut the inside diameter of the plug.

Below – A student cuts the final shape of the plugs exterior.

Making a good screw tip begins by making a good choice of blank material. Art cautioned us to keep the proportions of the horn in mind. We want the diameter and the length to look pleasing when attached to the horn. Color is also a consideration. In choosing the material, I looked for material that matched the horn reasonably well – at least I did the second time.

Art looked at my first choice and said, “Are you sure you want to use that piece?” I try to learn from mistakes and ended up with a piece that fit far better regarding color. I might add that sometimes as you turn, you uncover some very nice color variations. Other tip possibilities might include horn, antler, and wood.

Tip preparation involves drilling and tapping the large end, drilling the through-hole, and turning the profile to match the style we have choosen. We did this on Art’s 6″ Atlas metal lathe, although it was set up to use as a wood lathe. When the drilling was done we tapped the large end. We left the tap in place and used it to turn the plug’s outside profile of the tip.

Below – When tapping the tip, we chucked the tap and locked the chuck, turning the tip by hand. Pressure was added to the tail stock when starting the tap.

Below – Art assists a student with lathe technique.

Below – A student begins cutting the tip’s profile.

Higher turning speed, sand paper, and steel wool were used to produce the final finish. Art reminded us, “Be careful that your steel wool doesn’t get caught on the tap.” I’d swear there was a carefully covered grin as he said that. I think almost all of us did it. You’re watching the buttery smooth surface you’re getting on the tip, and suddenly there is a puff of dust that explodes from the steel wool as it wraps around the tap.

Final shaping of the horn was done with few surprises. We did learn that a draw knife works well when used away from the tip. Since the horn layers run out as you get away from the tip, you can peel layers. Going ther opposite direction won’t work.

Below – Art discusses the dying techniques he uses. Here he adds his secret ingredient – a “carelessly” measured amount of white vinegar.

Below – A student’s horn comes out of the yellow dye.

Below – Another student is using the brown dye to darken the spout end.

We had a chance to dye our horns with Art looking on. Art’s secret ingredient is vinegar. He has a “unique” method of measuring the amount of vinegar he adds.

Our final step was to fasten the plugs the horn. We used iron nails, but different regions used wood pegs of even thorns.

Above – Art prepares cold forged nails for attaching the plug. Here he uses 1/16″ wire and Belowshapes the head with a ball peen hammer.

My goal at the beginning of the class was to make a screw tip horn that would be proper for my ancestor Samuel to have carried. I am pleased also that I could make a second tip at home with what I learned from Art.

Below – The solid color tip on the left in the next two photos was done in Art’s class. The marbled one was from a horn chunk I found at home. Both fit on my Lancaster horn.

In my opinion, the class was a great success. It was a shame that only 11 students had a chance to learn from Art. That problem has been solved with the announcement that the screw tip class will be offered again in October of 2010. The fall program in on Conner Prairie’s web site, and the brochure with the fall schedule is in the mail. I hope this report on the completed class, and unashamed plug for next fall, has convinced you to sign up. I’m sure the fellows pictured below would agree.

Above – This is the class photo from the 2009 Conner Prairie Class. Front row from left: ——-, Glenn Sutt, Jeff Bibb Middle: Ginny VanMeter Back row: —–, Dave Gundrum, Joe Rushton, Alan Hoeweler, Larry Pletcher, Art DeCamp Missing: Chuck Brownewell (I would like to add the names of the unnamed students if anyone can provide them.)

Larry Pletcher, editor

January 14, 2010
Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns – Intro

Art DeCamp’s instruction and horn-making techniques were invaluable to me in making screw-tip horns. Thank you, Art, for the class and the extra help you provided. Art has a new web site at:

www.artspowderhorns.com

Samuel Pletcher grew up in southern Lancaster County in the 1750s. He apprenticed to a shoe cobbler, and by the time of the Revolution he was married with a family. One family source says he fought in the war, but this is uncertain. He may have participated in the Lancaster militia, but may have been more valuable making shoes instead. He remained in Lancaster County until 1790 when he and his brother took their families to Howard PA. From here the Pletcher family spread out, with Samuel spending his later days in central Ohio before passing away in 1830.

Samuel was my great, great, great, great grandfather, and it is because of him that I developed an interest in screw tip horns. He would have been making shoes in Lancaster at the same time the horn shops would have been operating, as well as Jacob Dickert and other Lancaster gunmakers. It would be quite reasonable to assume that he owned a horn from one of these shops and perhaps a gun from a maker like Dickert.

My interest in screw tip horns continued to increase when I met Art DeCamp. I took horn making classes from Art in 2008 and 2009. It was between these two classes that I realized that there were characteristics that distinguished Lancaster horns from other screw tips. I had to know what those characteristics were, and I couldn’t wait until the class in the fall. I went to Art’s table at CLA and said, “Art, I know you will tell us about the differences between Lancaster screw tips and other horns, but I can’t wait until the class. Will you explain that now?”

Art patiently began filling me in, and I impatiently waited for the horn class in the fall. I was going to make a horn like my ancestor Samuel probably carried.

Now you see my interest in screw tips, especially those from Lancaster. This topic will be covered in parts with sections devoted to the preparation of the horn spout, turning the base and butt plug, as well as preparing the threaded tip. Again, I wish to thank Art for his help in this project. His information and encouragement have been invaluable.

Links to Parts 1-3

Part 1 of the tutorial deals with making the spout end of the horn. We discuss bits and taps necessary and show the lathe proceedures used.

Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 1

In Part 2, we prepare the large end of the horn. This includes forming, and lathe turning the horn, as well as shaping and fitting the plug.

Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 2

In Part 3 we discuss the making of the screw tip. We limit our examples to Lancaster style and also to using horn rather than other materials such as wood or antler.

Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 3

Author/Editor’s Notes

Photo credits: The photos used here with a few noted exceptions were taken by me. Most were taken at the horn class at Conner Prairie. I supplemented these with photos from Art. These are identified in the captions. A few more were taken at my home to fill gaps in the photo record.

First a disclaimer:

I do not consider myself a horner. I enjoy teaching and learning, especially learning from knowledgable folks in the area of black powder. Please take this tutorial as a learner who is using this as a chance to organize horn-making information, or take this as a teacher with new information he can’t keep from sharing. However, I’m no horn expert. Art is the expert, and the chance to learn about screw tip horns from him has been a treat.

Lathe considerations:

This project presents unique demands on the lathe. Spinning an object out of round must be done slowly. An electronic speed control is invaluable. Most pulley-driven lathes can be slowed down to 800-900 rpm. Spinning a horn as Art does requires under 300 rpm, and that would be considered too fast. Art estimated his lathe speed at 80 rpm. My seat-of-the-pants calculation was 240 rpm. Having no electronic speed control, I worked out a geared-down belt system that produced a calculated speed is 130 rpm. A little faster would be preferable. Be aware of these speed problems when spinning a horn. Another issue is that the horn will require a larger swing. You will probably need to attach the chuck to the left end of the headstock to have enough swing.

Wood lathe chucks:

The use of the modern chucks simplifies a couple of the operations discussed here. Art uses a face plate with a screw center for the tutorial. This is used when turning the plug in Part 2. With this method, Art must remove the plug to test fit it into the horn. Art is so good at this that he only had to pull the plug twice to get the fit he wanted. I’m not nearly as capable at this. To make up for my lack of experience, I use a chuck that lets me grab the plug from either end. When I turn the taper that fits into the horn, I chuck the large end of the plug, leaving the taper open. I can fit the plug without removing it each time. When I’m ready to finish the exterior of the plug, I reverse the plug. The type of chuck you use will determine the methods you use.

(Larry Pletcher, editor)

January 12, 2010
Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns – Part 1 (Large Pics)

Art DeCamp’s instruction and horn-making techniques were invaluable to me in making screw-tip horns. Thank you, Art, for the class and the extra help you provided. Art has a new web site at:

www.artspowderhorns.com

When you select a horn, there are some dimensions that should be considered. For Part 1 we will deal with preparing the tip end of the horn. For the horn used in this Tutorial a 5/8″x11 thread will be used for the screw tip. We will be drilling a 5/16″ spout hole. To turn the exterior threads we will need to turn the spout end to .600”. These facts should be considered as you select your horn. We need a tip that has enough solid material to do these operations. There is nothing magic about the tap and die sizes mentioned above. You might decide to use ½” for the exterior and ¼” for the spout, based on the size of the horn.

First let’s begin by cutting off the end. I determine where to cut by going away from the tip until the horn is at least .600” thick. The cut can be made with a hacksaw. Envision the hole you will drill and cut as square to that as you can. However we will face off the end later on the lathe.

Before you drill the horn it will be helpful to know how long the solid part is. Take a wire and push it into the open end. By holding the wire outside the horn you can tell how deep the hollow part is. This can be marked on the side of the horn.

Now drill the tip. I filed the end smooth so the bit wouldn’t slip. In fact it would be a good idea to center drill to insure that your starting point is in the center. Art suggested that we drill the hole with the finished bit size. He said that often “chasing” a smaller bit with a larger one may cause the larger bit to catch.

It helps to watch the drilling process from two planes. In Art’s class we chucked the 5/16” bit in the lathe and drilled horizontally. I looked straight down while Art looked horizontally. He would help to adjust me if I wasn’t straight from his perspective. Two sets of eyes are better than one, especially with this being my first screw tip. It is important to note that the angle of the screw tip is determined by this hole. All spout work will be determined by the drilling angle of this first hole.

Below – Back home from class, I’m drilling the spout without the second pair of eyes.

Our next step is to turn the tip to .600” in the lathe. To hold the tip in the lathe, we thread the hole we drilled. By threading the hole and leaving the tap screwed in place, we can chuck the end of the tap in the lathe. (Some makers remove the tap and screw in a 5/16” bolt with the bolt head cut off.) We tapped the hole by hand using oil for a lube. At home I have tried things like Crisco or Lanolin (Bag Balm).

Below – The spout is tapped. We’ll leave the tap in place to use it to chuck in the lathe.

The use of a lathe to turn the end for exterior threads needs some explanation. Because the horn is curved, it can’t be concentric with the lathe center. At normal lathe speeds it would flop terribly. Art’s lathe has an electronic speed control. We estimate that we ran at 80 -130 rpm. (The slow speed on my wood lathe is around 900 rpm – too fast for this operation.)

When turning the tip, we need at least ½” of threads to screw the tip to. So we will turn at least ½” of the horn to .600” inch. I think I turned mine back at least 9/16”. When turning this section I used a scraper and a skew to finish. I took the horn to “round” and then used a caliper and a parting tool to get down to .600”. Once you have gotten to .600”, the diameter of the horn spout should be considered. Turn the spout “round” behind the threaded portion to the diameter you want the screw tip to tighten up against. This horn will be thinned to the shoulder diameter with a rasp or draw knife. (Note this shoulder in the photo just below. The use of a rasp to shape the spout will be covered in part 2.)

Below – (DeCamp photo) The tap is chucked in the lathe.

Below – Jeff Bibb is preparing to turn the spout for the 5/8×13 die.

Before removing the horn from the lathe, face off the turned end. You will lose a small bit of length doing this; that is why you turned the round part a little long. When facing off, take care keep the parting tool from touching the tap. You can always file any small amount away after the tap is removed.

Now we’re ready to thread the turned exterior. Art showed us a threading guide to use when starting the die. See the photo. These can be made on a metal lathe. (I used a piece of threaded rod and drilled a hole centered in one end. This hole is tapped for the size used to tap the interior of the spout hole.)

Below – (DeCamp photo) The horn is shown with the die and the threading guide.

Below– (DeCamp photo) The threading guide is installed. We will add lube and cut the exterior threads.

Thread on the guide and lube the horn. Spin the die unto the guide then begin threading. With lube, the horn should thread easily. I spin off the die and reverse it, and spin it back on backwards. This will cut the threads closer to the shoulder. Remove the die and the threading guide. You should have perfectly formed exterior threads, all ready for the screw on tip. In the next part we will prepare the butt of the horn and turn the plug.

Go to Part 2: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 2

Go to Part 3: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 3

Go back to the Intro: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Intro

January 11, 2010
Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns – Part 2 (Large Pics)

Art DeCamp’s instruction and horn-making techniques were invaluable to me in making screw-tip horns. Thank you, Art, for the class and the extra help you provided. Art has a new web site at: www.artspowderhorns.com

In this part we will discuss the preparation of the butt of the horn. This will involve trimming, shaping, and turning. We will also turn and fit the plug.

Let’s first look at the horn. There is probably material at the end that needs to be trimmed. Decide where to trim to get rid of any damaged or unflattering parts. Cut this part away as square as possible and use a disk or belt sander to make it as true as possible. When turning we will face off the end, and final edges will be cared for there.

Below – Notice the rough end of the horn before cutting off.

The horn will now be heated and made round. Art had a number of tapered forms which the class used. These can be made on the lathe. I have made a couple with mild tapers and will make additional ones as different size horns are made. With a suitable tapered form ready, the horn can be heated.

In Art’s class we used his small deep fryer filled with lard. We used a thermometer to keep the temperature no higher than 350 degrees. The horn is placed in the grease deep enough to heat it thoroughly. Be aware that since you have the spout end open, grease can run out if the horn is tipped up to look at the plug end. Watch how you hold the horn, being mindful of the open end.

Below – The horn is heated in hot oil.

A useful tip was given to us as we wondered how long to heat the horn. Before heating the horn, tap it on the side of the fryer and listen to the hard clicking sound. When the horn is heated enough, a tap on the side of the fryer will give a dull thunk – very different from the sound you heard before heating. This was very useful to me. I dunked the horn for a few seconds, tapped it on the side, dunked again, repeating until I got that dull thunk. Shake off the oil and push the form inside the end. Push the form into the horn until the horn completely conforms to the round form. If it doesn’t, another heating is necessary.

Below – The plug is installed in the horn and is ready for turning.

Below – Jeff Bibb is turning the the wall thickness and then parting off, providing a clean edge for fitting the plug.

With the forming step complete, we know that the horn is round on the inside. If the wall thickness was the same, the outside would be concentric with the inside. Obviously this will not be the case, and we must turn the exterior so that it is uniform in thickness. With the form still in the horn, the form now becomes the mandrel that is chucked in the lathe. Here again the lathe speed must be quite slow. If my lathe was a variable speed, I would start slowly and gradually increase the speed until the tools cut well – probably under 200 rpm. A scraper is a good tool to use. We want to cut the thick parts down to the same thickness as the thinnest part. Another way to put this is that we want to stop when we are cutting all the way around the horn. As you get close you may want to change tools to a skew. Your lathe experience will come into play here. Stop though, just as soon as you are cutting all the way around. Now would be the time to part off the horn to give a perfect fit to the plug.

A couple of unexpected things may happen as you begin turning the butt. If any oil remained in the horn, it will be flung from the end of the horn as you turn on the lathe. Count on that happening, even it you tried to wipe out the horn. I’d stand to one side as you start the lathe the first time. Once the lathe has run briefly, the oil will be gone.

Another possibility is that the horn may come flying off the mandrel. If the taper of the mandrel matches the taper of the horn fairly well, this is less likely to happen. If the horn needs to be reattached, try a piece of damp paper towel over the mandrel, and then push the horn firmly on. In class we had some horns fly off more that once, but we still managed to get them turned concentric.

Below – The wet paper towel trick is being used to reattach the horn to the plug/mandrel.

Below – I use a draw knife to peel back material from the shoulder behind the threads.

The horn body can be worked down any time. Whatever tools you are comfortable using can now be used to work from tip to butt. Art’s use of the drawknife saved us much rasping. Art does this while the tap is in the spout and the horn is still in the lathe. He simply pries up on the material on the shoulder and peels it back. When using this method, always work from the tip to butt because of the way the horn fibers run out as you go toward the butt.

My experience with finishing a horn is that I always find scratches that I thought were gone. In class I thought I had the horn done quite well until it came out of the dye. When dyed, all kinds of marks suddenly appeared. The dye made the flaws much easier to see. After hearing other horn makers mention this, I may do a quick dye job just to make the flaws show up – planning the real dye work later.

With the horn largely done, we need to turn a plug. If you are making a screw tip styled after a particular location, some research will help. In our class we used cherry, as it was commonly used and turns well. Other fruit woods were mentioned also. (I had a chance to get some apple wood and will try it on my next horn.)

Below – Art uses an inside/outside caliper and does a trial fit of the cherry plug.

Inside and outside calipers will be useful tools in turning the plug. From a square piece of cherry, I located the center and drew a circle to the exterior dimension of the plug. For depth, I left enough for the taper inside the horn as well as enough to chuck in the lathe. I cut the corners off the piece to save extra lathe work. In Art’s class we used a face plate with a center screw.

Measure the exterior of the horn and turn the plug down close to the final dimension. Determine where the shoulder will be and measure the inside diameter of the horn with an inside caliper. With a parting tool, carefully cut down to the inside diameter. Keep the shoulder of the cut straight, as this is where the horn will fit. Now work the taper to match the taper of the horn. An inside-outside caliper is a great tool for this. You can find the diameter of the horn at the depth of the taper and work toward the shoulder you have already determined. At this point you will need to remove the plug from the face plate and see how it fits the horn. You will probably need to do this a couple of times. With each try, mark the tight places with a pencil, reattach to the face plate, and remove wood carefully from the tight places. (I use a slightly different method of fitting the plug because of a different type of lathe chuck. See the editor’s note in the Intro.)

Below – Art uses a parting tool to cut the inside diameter of the plug.

Below – A student cuts the final shape of the plugs exterior.

When your plug fits well, begin turning the final shape to the exterior. Keep in mind the style of the horn and tip you are making. Your plug style should be in keeping with the rest of the horn. As you work to the final shape, carefully match the diameter of the horn. With some exceptions, you will want to match the horn’s diameter.

Sand and finish the plug. I like to do as much of this on the lathe as possible. Extra time spent here will be worthwhile. Various finishes work well. I used lanolin (Bag Balm) on my last horn and plug. I will probably use it again.

You may wish to dye the horn or add some protective finish. Because I had so many marks show up after dying the horn in class, I refinished my horn at home. I tried to use the same techniques as we used in class. My horn was dyed with a yellow and brown dye in two separate pots. I started with yellow and then a little brown on the tip end. One of the last trips into the yellow, I added a small amount of orange. The screw tip didn’t go into the dye because I liked the buttery caramel color without. The horn, plug, and tip were rubbed with lanolin as the final step. I think lanolin is good for both horn and wood plug.

Below – Art discusses the dying techniques he uses. Here he adds his secret ingredient – a “carelessly” measured amount of white vinegar.

Below – A student’s horn comes out of the yellow dye.

Below – Another student is using the brown dye to darken the spout end.

At this point your horn should be done except for the screw tip – the part that gives this style of horn its name. This will be the subject of Part 3.

Return to Part 1: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 1

Go to Part 3: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 3

Go back to the Intro: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Intro

January 10, 2010
Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns – Part 3 (Large Pics)

Art DeCamp’s instruction and horn-making techniques were invaluable to me in making screw-tip horns. Thank you, Art, for the class and the extra help you provided. Art has a new web site at:

www.artspowderhorns.com

Part 3 will deal with the turning of the threaded tip. First let’s choose the tip. Keep in mind the proportions of the horn. We want the diameter and the length to look pleasing when attached to the horn. As long the blank is large enough for the length and diameter of the tip we want, we’re OK. In choosing the material, I looked for material that matched the horn reasonably well – at least I did the second time.

Art looked at my first choice and said, “Are you sure you want to use that piece?” I try to learn from mistakes and ended up with a piece that fit far better regarding color. I might add that sometimes as you turn, you uncover some very nice color variations. Other tip possibilities might include horn, antler, and wood.

Once a choice was made, we began by drilling the tip for the threaded end and for the through hole. We found the center of each end and center drilled them. We chucked the bit for the threaded end in the lathe. We placed the tailstock against the other end to keep the blank centered. We held the blank in one hand and advanced the tailstock with the other. We used the graduations on the tailstock to drill the hole 9/16”deep.

Below – The end that eventually will be threaded is being drilled here. The bit size matches the the tap we plan to use.

Next we drilled the through hole. Here we used ¼” bit, drilling from both ends of the blank. The tailstock was always used to maintain the center.

Threading the large end comes next. We chucked the tap in the head stock and locked it. We used a ball-bearing center in tailstock and pushed against the small end of the tip to keep everything centered. We turned the blank by hand, keeping lube on the tap and reversing often to clean it.

Below – When tapping the tip, we chucked the tap and locked the chuck, turning the tip by hand. Pressure was added to the tail stock when starting the tap.

Below – Here I used a channel lock to turn the tip.

By going slowly you should have very nice threads. I had trouble with this step as I have damaged nerves in my hands and have no grip. Since the surface of the blank had not been finished, I used a channel lock to turn it. That has worked well for me here at home as well. This by itself is a good reason for turning the exterior last. When finishing up, you may want to use a bottoming tap to thread closer to the inside shoulder.

When turning the exterior, we left the tip threaded on the tap. We unlocked the chuck and used it to turn the tip. The ball-bearing center is used in the tail stock to support the small end of the tip. Again I liked using a scraper for this operation. I worked until the scraper was cutting all the way around and from end to end. This would be a good time to face off both ends of the tip.

Below – Art assists a student with lathe technique.

Below – A student begins cutting the tip’s profile.

For the profile of the tip, again consider the type of horn. The profile of the tip used for this tutorial is in the style of the Lancaster shops. The diameter of the threaded end needs to be proportionate to the neck of the horn. The length, as well, should be in the style of the area. Pictured here are the tips of a number of original Lancaster horns that Art brought. Studying originals pays off here as well as in the study of the long rifle.

Below – Several original Lancaster tips

Below – Two of Art’s Lancaster tips

When I returned from the class I hunted through my scraps of horns for a piece to make another tip. I found a chunk of horn that had a nicely marbled tip inside. That tip is the one pictured in a number of the photos. The one turned at Conner Prairie is there, as well.

Below – The solid color tip on the left in the next two photos was done in Art’s class. The marbled one was from a horn chunk I found at home. Both fit on my Lancaster horn.

When finishing the tip, I like a faster lathe speed and do as much sanding on the lathe as possible. Stay with a grade of paper until all marks larger than the paper makes are gone. Each grit size after that should only have to remove the marks from the previous paper.

The class finished with 0000 steel wool. Be careful as the steel wool readily catches on the tap. Inevitably I do this no matter how much I try to prevent it. By this time, you should see no marks, and the sheen should have a buttery look.

You are ready to fit the tip to the horn. It should turn on well, but I like a bit of lanolin here. As you turn it completely, you will notice that the tip won’t thread up to the shoulder of the horn. The incomplete threads are the likely culprit. A little carving with a knife on the threads of the tip will gradually bring the tip up to the shoulder. A little scraping on the first thread on the horn may help too. With a careful fit up against the horn shoulder, you are pretty much finished with the mechanics of building a screw tip horn.

Below – I’m paring away part of the outside thread to seat the tip.

The hole in the tip should now be tapered. A tapered reamer is a excellent for this. Another method that works well is to twist the handle of a file in the hole. I have used both. The amount of taper should be worked with the type of plug you intend to use.

Attaching the plug can be done in a number of ways. If your plug-fitting job was a good one, you can blow through the spout and not hear air escape. A fit like this could be attached without bees wax, glue, etc. In class we made nails out of wire or brads, cold forging a head. The number of fasteners used will vary with regional styles. Art mentioned that he has seen as few as 4 and as many as a dozen plus. I used 5 on my horn. I drilled one size through the horn and into the plug, and then opened the horn very slightly to sink the nail head a bit. Based on regional styles, other materials may be used, such as wood pegs and locust thorns. If desired, you could use glue or wax on the taper. I have done that, but it was probably unnecessary.

Above – Art prepares cold forged nails for attaching the plug. Here he uses 1/16″ wire and Below shapes the head with a ball peen hammer.

Now that you’re done with the horn, look it over. This is the time to evaluate your project, looking for strengths and weaknesses. Think about how changing a proceedure might improve the quality of the horn. If you should choose to follow a style different than a Lancaster, note where changes should be made. I hope that completing a horn using this tutorial resulted in a horn you can be proud to carry.

Above – This is the class photo from the 2009 Conner Prairie Class. Front row from left: ——-, Glenn Sutt, Jeff Bibb Middle: Ginny VanMeter Back row: —–, Dave Gundrum, Joe Rushton, Alan Hoeweler, Larry Pletcher, Art DeCamp Missing: Chuck Brownewell (I would like to add the names of the unnamed students if anyone can provide them.)

Return to Part 1: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 1

Return to Part 2: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Part 2

Go back to the Intro: Making Lancaster Screw Tip Horns Intro

January 9, 2010
Flintlock Timing, MuzzleBlasts January 1990

[box type=”note” align=”aligncenter” ]Reprinted from MuzzleBlasts January 1990 by Larry Pletcher —- This article is the first in a series of three reprinted articles that measure a flintlock’s ability to ignite black powder. L&R’s Durs Egg and Manton locks are the subject of this article. Both performed well and provide a standard of comparison for flintlocks in future articles.[/box]

During the past two years I have had the opportunity to measure the ignition time on a number of different flintlocks. The locks varied from superb original locks to modern day reproduction locks. Some were in mint condition, while others were somewhat used.

The equipment that I use to time locks consists of a computer and interface made to scientifically measure time in a high school or college physics lab. It has the ability to measure times to the nearest ten thousandths of a second. The lock is fired electrically, and time is measured until a flash in the pan triggers a photoelectric cell, stopping the clock.

The time taken by the computer interface is monitored and deducted from the lock time. The system seems to work well, and I have confidence in it.

The Manton and Durs Egg flintlocks, made by L & R Lock Company, were used for this article, the first of a series of articles dealing with the timing of locks in current production. I received the Manton in the mail and the Durs Egg at Friendship. To my knowledge, neither lock received any special treatment beyond normal care during production.

The locks were primed with FFFFG powder, measured with a small dipper. The flint and frizzen were cleaned after each firing. Each series of 20 trials was begun with a new flint. Flints were knapped when they became dull during the test.

A series of 20 trials on both locks was done with the flint bevel up and again with the bevel down. I felt that most locks work better one way than the other, and I needed to report both ways. The following chart contains the results:

Chart of times recorded

I found myself liking both of these locks. With flints installed to their best advantage, they worked very well. Neither lock seemed to be hard on flints. Little knapping was required while running the tests.

The Durs Egg lock showed a preference for flints installed bevel down (up side down to most of us). Its best average was obtained in this way. Its variation was twice as small with the bevel down. Also, the standard deviation with the bevel down was half that when the bevel was up. If I were shooting a rifle with this lock, I would place the flint bevel down.

The Manton lock had a different preference in flint installation. It performed best with the flint bevel up (right side up). However it worked quite consistently with the bevel down too. Its variation shows that it was quite uniform in its operation. I would probably shoot the Manton bevel up, but would not be at a disadvantage if the bevel were down.

I think it’s interesting to note that the best average from each of the locks were only .0010 seconds apart. This is, of course, impossible to detect with human senses. In fact, after watching probably more than 800 trials with different locks, I cannot tell the difference between a normal time (.0390) and one twice as large (.0780). In order for me to visually detect a slow time, it has to be over .1000 seconds.

The point of all this is that if a shooter analyses a shot and thinks to himself, “That sure was slow”, it must have been VERY slow, probably three or four times as slow as usual. Anything less than this, the shooter would not have noticed. It is also possible that a slow shot was not caused by the lock at all. I am convinced that problems with touch holes cause more “slow” shots than poor lock ignition.

I believe that there is much to be learned about lock timing. This article just scratches the surface. In future articles I would like to study and time other locks currently available to shooters. I would be interested in ideas or study methods that others might have to extend what we know about lock ignition.

Photo #1

Shown .011 seconds after firing, the flint has just struck the frizzen. Notice the flint chips spraying off the contact area.

Photo #2

At .013 seconds the flint is nearing the bottom of the frizzen. Flint chips are still flying. Top jaw screw shadow shows where the parts will be when the lock is at rest.

Photo #3

At .015 seconds, the flint movement is almost finished. However, the frizzen has considerable travel left.

(Standard Deviation insert)

Standard deviation is a measure of consistency of the statistics. High standard deviations indicate large deviations from the average. The more uniform the trials are, the lower the standard deviation should be. Sixty-six percent of the times should fall within one standard deviation from the average.

(Photo explanation)

The photos were taken with the shutter open in a dark room. The computer fired the lock, caused a measured delay, and then fired the electronic flash. A faint shadow can be seen where the parts come to rest (top jaw screw and frizzen). The sparks are illuminated not by the flash but by their own light. They were not formed at the time the flash was fired. They show because the shutter remained open after the flash ended.

January 27, 2009
Priming Powder Timing

[box type=”note” align=”aligncenter” ]Reprinted from MuzzleBlasts April 2005 by Larry Pletcher —- This article is another in a series of reprinted articles that measure a flintlock’s ability to ignite black powder. This article compares ignition time of black powder varieties used for priming the flintlock pan.[/box]

As a retired educator and a student of the flintlock, I am fascinated with what we can learn by applying technology to the field of black powder. This is another in a series of articles that uses a computer interface to experiment with our black powder hobby. The first articles (1990-1992) described experiments timing various flintlocks. Another article (2000) described the timing of touch holes. This article explores the timing of different grades of black powder used for flintlock priming.

My initial goal was to compare priming powder. Two samples of Goex 4fg were included. The ’89 Goex sample came from the plant before the plant explosion and will be referred to as “Early Goex”. The second Goex sample, “Late Goex”, was produced after the plant was relocated.

Two Swiss samples were included as well. These were purchased at Friendship at the fall 2004 shoot. One sample is the normal Swiss 4fg priming powder. The other sample is called Null B. This powder is reputed to be the tailings (sweepings) left from production runs of the other grades of Swiss. Finishing the test group were Goex samples of 2fg and 3fg. Because 3fg and 2fg powder are at times used as priming powder, it seemed logical to include these grades of powder as well.

In experimentation of any kind, controlling variables is a very important responsibility. In tests involving a flintlock, this is especially difficult. In this experiment, the variable we wish to test is the powder, and it is important to control all remaining variables.

Humidity is one of the variables which I wished to control. Since I had no means to manipulate the humidity up or down, I took a number of steps to minimize its fluctuation. These tests were completed in an insulated garage used to store antique cars. An exhaust fan was used to remove the smoke. The day for the testing was chosen with humidity in mind. I noted humidity at the beginning and end of each powder test group. The humidity was 63% when I began testing, and dropped to 48% by the time testing was complete. I felt this range was acceptable and was probably the best I could do. Without the fan, the humidity might have been more uniform, but firing a flintlock 140 times in an enclosed garage would have obvious disadvantages. The physical equipment remained the same as the apparatus used in the earlier testing. It has remained unchanged for years, but more important, it was unchanged throughout all six powder tests. The software and lock also remained unchanged throughout all testing. The lock is a large Siler that has been a workhorse in my years of testing. The Siler has been a benchmark for my work and is the lock I have tested the most.

The variable that is the most difficult to control is the flint edge. In an ideal world the flint edge would be identical throughout all trials. In reality the edge is different on every trial. Every strike against the frizzen leaves a different edge because of the flint fragments that break off with each try. Flint shooters also recognize this problem and strive to manage it. During the testing, I took a number of steps to minimize this variable. Every powder test group was begun with a new flint. Every powder test group was begun with the lock removed and cleaned. The flint edge and frizzen were cleaned between each individual trial. The flint was knapped whenever the elapsed time or my experience made me feel it was necessary. The way powder is placed in the pan can also be a variable. However, in these tests the only concern is to provide a uniform powder area for sparks’ landing. The procedure used was to fill the pan level full. In this way, sparks from every trial have the identical bed of powder on which to land.

The fixture that holds the lock is largely unchanged for the last 10 years. The lock is mounted in the fixture locating the sear bar directly over a 12 volt solenoid. A photo cell is mounted so that it “looks” into the pan. Both the solenoid and the photo cell are attached to the computer, using a high school physics interface. The computer program controls the firing of the solenoid, sensing the photo cell, and measuring the time in between the two. After the lock is prepared for firing, pressing the space bar on the computer fires the lock and starts the machine language timing routine. When the pan flashes, the photo cell stops the timer which reads to the nearest ten thousandths of a second.

The times for 20 trials are recorded on a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet subtracts the time it takes for the solenoid to reach the sear. The remaining time begins as the sear is tripped and ends with pan ignition. The spreadsheet then finds the fast time, slow time, variation, average, and standard deviation. Beginning and ending humidity are noted. These stats are the basis for the article. The powders’ spreadsheets are included at the end of the article. Summary sheets and graphs were made for comparison.

A summary of all the tests can be seen in the following Chart. In this chart you can see all trials for each powder in the order they were fired. Each powder’s average is shown at the bottom.

The next chart shows the averages for each group as a bar graph. One can see a gradual decrease in the times of the four priming powders. Then the times increase as the fffg and ffg powders are displayed. It is worth noting that the fastest powder (Null B) also had the finest granule, and the slowest powder (ffg) had the largest granule.

The aqua and yellow on the scattergram indicate the two Swiss powders. It should be obvious that these powders were the fastest and the most consistent of all the powders tested. The variations between fast and slow times were every small. From the experimenter’s standpoint, these powders look very good. They were so consistent that it was difficult to tell if or when the flints needed knapping. The Null B powder was marginally faster. However, any trial from one of these powders would fit nicely in the other. The slowest time in each was within .0001 of each other. Each powder has an advantage when one looks at the results closely. The Null B has the fastest average, and the Swiss 4fg has the smallest variation and standard deviation. In fact, the variation for the 4fg is astonishingly small at .0081 of a second. This very small variation gives it the edge in standard deviation also. (Standard deviation can be thought of as a measure of consistency. The more consistent the trials, the lower the standard deviation will be. Sixty-six percent of the trials should fall within one standard deviation of the average. Ninety-six percent fall within two standard deviations.)

The red and blue represent Goex ffffg priming powder before and after their factory accident. These powders compare well together. A quick summary would be to say that the early Goex was slightly more consistent, and the late Goex was slightly faster. Both of these powders are slightly slower than the Swiss powders. About three quarters of the Goex times fall outside of the high to low interval on the Swiss chart.

The colors violet and brown represent the Goex 3fg and 2fg powder. While these powders are not considered priming powder, both are used as prime especially in military applications where paper cartridges are used. While it is apparent that these powders are slower than the various priming powders, one also notices that they are much less consistent than the rest. The variation between fast and slow times was considerably larger.

In comparing the 2fg and 3fg powders to each other, one can see that while the fffg Goex powder averaged faster than the 2fg Goex, it also had a big advantage in consistency. The 2fg powder had a particularly large variation due mainly to a very slow ignition in one trial. This trial seems uncharacteristic based upon the rest of the times, but is reported in the interest of accuracy. Knapping the flint produced a faster subsequent trial. The question, “Why didn’t I knap the flint one shot sooner?” is a problem for the experimenter as well as the flintlock shooter.

When making comparisons between these powders and the priming powders, one can see that the true priming powders hold a substantial advantage. For instance, the fastest 3fg time is slower than the slowest of the Swiss times. Variations from high to low are greater as well. Drawing conclusions after the experimentation requires great care. One conclusion deals with the comparison of priming and non-priming powder. While there was a significant difference, I could not discern this difference with human senses. Friends, who report that their ignition with regular horn powder is just as fast, support this. Their ignition is slower, I believe, but we cannot detect the difference without scientific means.

The results from timing the four priming powder samples were even closer. While this experiment can measure differences in the ignition speeds of these samples, the human eye and ear cannot tell the difference. The variations between the priming powders tested here are simply too small for human senses to detect. That said, one piece of anecdotal information was gathered this fall at Friendship. A good friend who is a rifle and horn builder from Duck River, TN, told me that he thought the new Null B powder was extremely consistent shot to shot. He is not wrong.

At the end of my first article in 1990, I wrote, “This article just scratches the surface.” I feel the same way today. There are many things about the way black powder ignites which need more study. As an example, the humidity range that shooters encounter is far wider than the relatively narrow humidity range in this experiment. If this experiment would be repeated at either humidity extreme, the results may give us more insight about these powder samples. I am interested in any study methods that help add to our knowledge. Readers with ideas may reach me at 4595 E. Woodland Acres, Syracuse, IN 46567.

January 26, 2009
Flintlock Timing Part 2, MuzzleBlasts September 1992
[box type=”note” align=”aligncenter” ]Reprinted from MuzzleBlasts September 1992 by Larry Pletcher —- This article is the second in a series of three reprinted articles that measure a flintlock’s ability to ignite black powder. R. E. Davis Company, black powder vendor in Pleasantville, Ohio provided the flintlocks used in this article.[/box]

Most of the testing and timing of flintlocks completed at this time has been done with modern reproduction locks. Because of their value, original locks should not be subjected to an extensive number of tests. Lock makers of today can’t help wondering how their work compares with the work done during the flint era. The Journal of Historic Armsmaking Technology Vol. IV has attempted to shed some light on this subject. The originals tested in Vol. IV can now be used as a benchmark by which reproduction locks may be compared.

The three flintlocks tested in this article were made by R.E. Davis Company in Pleasantville, Ohio. The first, the Davis Yeager lock, which has an unbridled frizzen and a fly in the tumbler, can be found on many Yeager styled reproductions. The familiar banana shaped lockplate measures 6” by 1”. The lock would look at home on early German styled arms. Its Davis catalog number is #017.

The second lock is described by Davis as an Early Large Flintlock. It, too, is a large lock measuring 5 9/16” by 1 1/8”, and has an unbridled frizzen and a fly in the tumbler. The lock has Germanic styling and would by appropriate on transitional pieces. Its catalog number is #040.

The third lock tested in the Twigg lock (catalog #201). This English styled lock is 5 5/8 inches long with a bridled frizzen on which a roller has been installed. A stirrup is used on the tumbler. A pronounced camming effect can be felt as the cock is drawn back with little pressure required to move from half to full cock.

Testing was done with a measured amount of Goex 4Fg blackpowder. (The powder was stored at room temperature in a dry environment). Both flint and frizzen were cleaned between trials and flints were knapped when any noticeable change in their operation developed.

Photo 1

The Yeager illuminated by its own sparks. Notice the spark bursts at the left and upper parts of the photo. Also notice how well the sparks are directed into the pan.

Since previous experience indicates that locks may show a preference for a particular way on installing flints, I again tested each lock with the flint bevels installed up and down. A series of 20 tests was conducted in each configuration. The complete test for each lock is in the appendix at the end of the article. The test results are summarized in the following chart:

Fig.1

Summary of the tests conducted

The test summary showed that the first two locks had a preference for the flint to be installed with the bevel down. This was especially true for the Yeager. Its average, variation and standard deviation were all improved substantially with the bevel down.

Photo 2

The lock is shown .010 seconds after the sear was tripped.

While the difference in performance was too small to be detected by human limitations, I would shoot this lock with the bevel down. My reason would be more for the improved variation than for the improvement in speed. I was very impressed with the Yeager’s variation and standard deviation.

Photo 3

The Yeager lock .002 seconds later.

The Early Large Flintlock was slower than the Yeager. Its average, variation and standard deviation were equal to the Yeager with the bevel up. This lock preferred the bevel down, but not to the same degree as the Yeager. I would probably shoot this lock bevel down, but I’m sure the difference would not be detected when firing. Its performance was quite satisfactory.

In analyzing the Twigg lock, one can see that the average times were almost identical. However, positioning the bevel up brought about the best standard deviation. The lock was almost twice as consistent this way. I would shoot this lock with the bevel up to take advantage of the improved standard deviation. Because the Twigg likes a long flint, I had to make sure the flint installation did not allow the top jaw screw to hit the frizzen. I liked this lock almost as much as the Yeager.

When shooters discuss the speeds of various locks on the market, one often hears the theory that large locks are slower than small locks because there is more mass to accelerate. While this theory may hold some truth, the Yeager looks like the exception. In spite of its size, the Yeager (with the bevel down) performed as well as a number of smaller locks I have tested. With the flint installed bevel up, its performance was slower and more nearly what I would have expected of a larger lock.

* * *

The accompanying photos allow another statistic to be measured. I attempted to calculate the speed of the flint as it travels down the frizzen by measuring the distance the flint traveled in photos. A proportion was set up using the following format:

Fig .2 – Proportion used to calculate flint speeds

Photo Frizzen Length Photo Flint Travel

————————- as ———————–

Actual Frizzen Length Actual Flint Travel
Fig.3 – Speeds of flint desending the frizzens of the Yeager and Twigg

Lock: Upper Flint: Lower Flint:

Yeager 15.6 ft/sec 12.1 ft/sec

Twigg 13.2 ft/sec 20.7ft/sec

The Yeager flint is apparently slowing down as it travels down the frizzen, while the Twigg’s camming effect allows it to overcome friction and actually accelerate. This did not prevent the Yeager from out-performing the Twigg both in speed and consistency, however. Apparently, raw flint speed is not the answer to lock performance. So far, I have tried to measure flint speeds on only three locks. I hope tests such as these can be substantiated by additional testing.

I hope these lock-timing experiments will cause us to think about the factors that cause locks to perform well. Obviously, there are considerations which we have not measured and perhaps can never isolate. Maybe by experimenting with different modifications, we can identify some characteristics of successful locks. In a future article I will report on modifications done to one of the popular locks on the market.
January 25, 2009
Flintlock Timing Part 3, MuzzleBlasts December 1992
[box type=”note” align=”aligncenter” ]Reprinted from MuzzleBlasts December 1992 by Larry Pletcher —- This article is the third in a series of three reprinted articles that measure a flintlock’s ability to ignite black powder. This article deals experimental Siler flintlock components from Jim Chambers, riflemaker and vendor of black powder parts.[/box]

Most of us, at one time or another, have wondered what factors cause locks to produce good results. Obviously, there are considerations which we have not been able to measure and maybe can never isolate. In this article, I would like to look at some factors

Photo 1: The flint is just about to begin contact with the frizzen. Two thirds of the mechanical time is complete.

which have not yet been measured. By experimenting with different modifications, perhaps we can identify some characteristics of successful locks.

This month’s experiment was done with the help of Jim Chambers. He supplied me with a large Siler lock with replaceable tumblers and cocks. This gave me a chance to alter one variable at a time to see what change it would make. I was provided with the following:
```
		a Siler lock assembled by Mr. Chambers
		a stock Siler tumbler 
		a modified Siler tumbler
		a Chambers tumbler
		a stock Siler cock
		a Chambers cock
```
(The mainspring needed to be repositioned depending on which tumbler was installed. Mr. Chambers modified the lockplate allowing this change to be made easily).

With these parts to use, six possible combinations could be tested. I began by testing to see which way the flint bevel should be placed to work the best. The flint installed with the bevel up provided the best performance. Each test thereafter was done this way.

Photo 2: This photo was taken .002 seconds later than Photo 1.

Photo 3: This photo was taken .002 seconds after the previous one. The flint fragment located just below the flint in the photo demonstrates a variable always present – a constantly changing flint edge.

As in earlier articles, testing was done with a measured amount of Goex 4Fg powder. (The powder had been stored at room temperature in a dry environment). The flint and frizzen were cleaned between trials. Flints were knapped when any noticeable change in operation developed.

A series of 20 trials were conducted with each possible combination. The following chart provide a summary of trials:

An examination of the charts leads to a number of conclusions. First of all, the modified Siler tumber (test 2,4) had a pronounced camming effect as the lock was brought to full cock. In fact, one had to practice finding the half cock notch. The Chambers tumbler had a camming effect to a lesser degree; the stock Siler tumbler had none. Since the difference in results 1,2,3 were so small, the camming effect may not add a great deal to the functioning of the lock.

The Chambers cock seems to make a difference in the speed and standard deviation in these tests. Wile the tumbler does make a small difference, the first three combinations (in both speed and standard deviation) used the Chamber cock. This

cock had a lightly longer throw than the Siler cock. The extra length seems to be achieved by lengthening the neck; the angle of the jaws of the cock does not appear to have been changed. Whatever the difference, the Chambers cock appears to be an improvement. If I were buying a lock from Jim Chambers, I would specify the modified tumbler and Chambers cock.

The standard deviation in each combination seems to increase as the time increases. (Tests 1 and 2 were the only ones which did not follow that pattern). The standard deviation on tests 2 and 3 were very good. They would compare favorably with most locks today.

In June of 1990, I attended the NMLRA’s Gunsmithing Workshop & Seminar held at Northern Kentucky University. One topic discussed dealt with position of sparks when a flintlock is fired. One instructor proved to us, using ultra high speed video, that sparks from a well-made lock literally coat the pan! Photo Number 4 demonstrates this phenomenon quite well. This photo is illuminated only by sparks produced by the lock. Note that the pan is white with sparks.

Photo 4: Taken without any flash, this photo is lit only by sparks. It is safe to say that this lock puts the sparks in the right place.

Another spark phenomenon discussed was a secondary burst. The spark appears to fly away only to burst into three or four new sparks. This can be seen in two of the photos.

Measurements from the photos can be used to determine the speed of the flint as it travels down the frizzen. Using photos 2 and 3, I measured the distance traveled during the .002 seconds that elapsed. I set up a proportion to convert distance to the scale of the lock. This gave a flint speed of 24.2 feet per second. By measuring other locks in the same way, perhaps we can determine how much effect flint speed has on spark production.

As I have stated before in other articles, I think we are just scratching the surface in learning what makes locks work well. There is much to learn. As before, suggestions are welcome and may be sent to 4595 E. Woodland Acres, Syracuse, IN 46567.
January 24, 2009