patent breech

Is there a general rule of thumb as to what rifles have a patent breech??

Flint locks--no?? Percussion --yes ??

I've always wondered about this. Thanks for the help.

Vern

I don't know what might have been the case back in the day, but in modern times there's no distinction, cap vs. flint.

For example, TC has used their patent breech design for 40+ years in both cap and flint barrels...and GM has done the same with its line of drop-in barrels for the TC Hawken and Renegade.

The Flint barrels I've had set up for a Dickert and some Virginias all have patent breeches.

The original Patent Breech was created by Henry Nock in 1787 for Flintlock shotguns.
It looks like this


The Patent dealt with the small chambers you see leading from the vent hole to the powder chamber.
Also note the rather large hole connecting the powder chamber with the little chamber.
These small chambers are intended to fill with powder when the gun is loaded.
When the pans flash ignites the powder in the small chambers it creates a flash thru the larger hole into the main powder charge and, according to the Patent ignites it in a more positive manner creating more pressure and more efficient burning of the main charge.

There is no reason a real Patent Breech could not be used with a Percussion ignition system although because the percussion cap creates a jet of fire very similar to the jet produced by the small Patented chamber it could be called redundant.

Shortly after the Patent Breech was designed other London gunmakers created (or improved upon) the larger powder chamber and developed what I call a "Chambered Breech" which is connected to the flintlocks vent (or to the percussion nipple) in order to also have a similar jet of fire igniting the main powder charge without infringing on Nocks Patent.

It is the Chambered Breech that most of the modern factory made muzzleloaders use and many people insist on calling it a patent breech.
These are used on both flintlocks and percussion guns.

"...many people insist on calling it a patent breech..."

Click to expand...

Just for some clarification for the original poster, both T/C and GM refer to theirs as Patent Breeches, not chambered breeches...and have put hundreds of thousands (millions?) of them out there in the hands of hunters shooters world wide which I'm sure has helped establish that terminology.

In addition, when discussing new barrel breeching options with Track of the Wolf, they referred to such breeches as Patent Breeches, not chambered breeches...and may still have some listed on their website as patent breeches.
And when TOW referred me to the McCandless Custom Breeching machine shop to make the breechplugs for my barrels they called them patent breeches, as did Mr. McCandless.

Kind of like the word "rifle"...everybody knows what's meant by the terminology.

I think the reason TC went with their version of the “patent breech” was, they could just make barrels and later select which type gun to use it on. Percussion of flintlock. Like Mr. roundball, I have several TC's with the patent breech and it seems to work very well. I also have some rifles with plain breech and I can't really tell any difference. With the one exception, the TC Firestorm which I do believe is faster than either but I have not actually measured it.

Well I guess you gentlemen will have to pardon me. :redface:

Roundball is quite correct.
Thompson Center has called their breeching system a Patent Breech for years and made hundreds of thousands of them so it must be one. :hmm:

They also have produced the "Hawken Rifle" for years and made hundreds of thousands of them too so it must be a Hawken too. :hmm:

I just figured that if people knew the difference between a true Patent Breech and a chambered breech they might sound a bit more knowledgeable when they speak of these things. :hmm:

I must add that when I see the word "Patent" I expect their to be one and the chambered breech has none.

Now, there is a true "Patent Breech" that is owned by Ardesa. In it the drum or a similar part with a touch hole in it, screws thru the side of the breech plug threads firmly locking the breech plug in place.
Many owners of CVA and Traditions guns have found that their guns truly have this "Patent breech".

Anyway, as you folks know, I am a picker of nits. A nitpicker, if you will.
We each have our own faults. Hopefully you can forgive mine.

PS: Roundballs comments about the common mis-usage of the term Patent Breech makes me wonder what kind of patent breech he ended up paying is money for? Could it be just a simple smallish hole connecting the vent to the powder chamber or do his guns actually have Nock's Patented powder chamber between the vent and the main powder chamber?

Ancient One said:

Is there a general rule of thumb as to what rifles have a patent breech??

Flint locks--no?? Percussion --yes ??

I've always wondered about this. Thanks for the help.

Vern

Click to expand...

I am not sure who made the first patent breech, but Henry Nock made a darn good one for flintlocks. So the answer to flint/percussion era, it belongs to both.

Zonie said:

Anyway, as you folks know, I am a picker of nits. A nitpicker, if you will.
We each have our own faults. Hopefully you can forgive mine.

Click to expand...

I haven't been able to shoot so far this spring. I am busier than a daycare nitpicker :rotf:
Ron

I don't know what you call it, but I still think TC did their version for economic reasons and not performance reasons. You don't have to make and inventory two types of barrels. You just need two types of breech plugs.

Zonie: Thanks for the picture of the original Nock's Patent Breech. It explains a lot about why the current so-called patent breeches create problems in some guns, because there is NO ENLARGED chamber next to the TH, leading to a BELLED powder chamber in the back of the barrel. Notice also how much larger the hole leading from the belled powder chamber, into the enlarged flash channel chamber is, compared to modern " designs".

If we had these chambers made to day as originally designed, we would have no blockages keeping powder from moving from the powder chamber in to the expansion chamber in the flash channel. The expansion chamber would be easier to clean, and KEEP CLEAN during shooting, and the large amount of powder carried in that expansion chamber in the flash channel, would produce a "jet" of fire igniting the main charge, similar to what happens today in any percussion ignition system.

Thanks for being a Nit-picker. I am sure it comes as a shock to many shooters to learn that modern manufacturers CUT CORNERS for reasons of ease ( and lower cost) of production, and without concern for( Or understanding of) the true genius of the original design. [I have never heard ANYONE claim that Thompson, or Warren Center, was a flintlock shooter, before he got into the gun making business.] In that process, the genius is lost, and we have something that Looks a little Like a Patent Breech, but without all its benefits. :hatsoff: :hatsoff: :hatsoff:

I have no idea how well the “original” patent breech shot since I have never even seen one. Let alone shot one. But I can tell, you obviously have no practical experience shooting today's TC version of the “patent” breech.
I have plain breech guns and I have TC's guns right in here and shoot them both. What exactly is the

“genius is lost, and we have something that Looks a little Like a Patent Breech, but without all its benefits.”

Click to expand...

I actually can tell no difference shooting either but I'm no “genius”. :idunno:
Or was this just a, "it's a factory gun, it can't be any good", statement?

You are correct in that I have no experience with TC rifles. The only rifles I own are one Blue Ridge in .32cal and two from TVM. One in .36cal and one in .50cal which are both Lancaster's, the .32 being Late Lancaster and the .50 being Early Lancaster.

Vern

ebiggs said:

"...you obviously have no practical experience..."

Click to expand...

Yes, its obvious that's the case...

Reality is the modern version of so called patent breeches is outstanding...12,000+ shots of my own actual hands on experience with GM, TC, and Rice barrels attests to that...no theories.

And they're not only fast, they're self cleaning which is actually a big attraction to me as well...the modern design does not include the full width horizontal ante-chamber from the old original design as it was discovered it wasn't needed.
Worse, the old design ante-chamber can allow fouling and debris to build up in the off side which can eventually grow/creep towards the bottom of the vertical powder chamber and end up closing it off, the same way fouling build up at the bottom of a straight breech can grow up covering the vent hole, causing ignition problems.

The current design used by virtually every mass produced ML manufacturer runs in from the vent and stops with an intersection at the bottom of the vertical powder chamber...resulting in the entire "L" shaped ignition channel getting blown clear from the back blast every shot...I don't even own a vent pick.
If I didn't know all this to be true from 18 years of personal hands on experience with them, I definitely wouldn't have spent the money to have custom patent breech breechplugs made for 4 brand new Rice barrels... .45/.54/.58/.62...and had a straight breech .50cal GM barrel converted to a custom patent breech as well.

:thumbsup:

"Patent breech" vs flat faced breechplug...in a flintlock really don't know why one would want to complicate a very foolproof, simple , age old system, but in percussion there might be an advantage to a "patent breech"....a more direct path for the "fire" to reach the main charge. Whether a "patent breech" is in a flintlock or percussion, more complicated passageways pose a cleaning problem and are best dealt w/ by soaking the breech end in a bucket of hot water which preferably requires a hooked breech and keys. My {2} percussions have hooked "patent breeches" w/ keys and my flintlocks have flat faced breechplugs and both give reliable ignition but the percussions require a longer and more thorough cleaning. In the end, shoot whatever makes you more comfortable.....Fred

I had a TC flinter I bought from Roundball,that I guess,had a TC version of the whatever breach.No problems with it fast reliable ignition no problems,the gun did not fit well so I traded it for a semi custom with a flat faced breach that shoots as well or better.However I have a cap rifle that had the nock breach[thats what the gunsmith that drilled it out for me called it]that gave me fits with hangfire,misfires and was a real PITA.After the drill out it works great.Thats why I like Underhammers so much,straight in ignition.

I know this ole boy doesn't have the years of experience of either you or roundball. All I know is what I, myself, have learned and seen in my own guns. I never soak my TC rifles (or any gun for that matter) but I do need a breech scrapper for my plain breech “custom” rifle. Not complaining, just mentioning it isn't necessary for the TC's. I use a bore light after every cleaning to make sure all my guns are clean. I have passed the 2000 shot count in my favorite TC Hawken and it has preformed flawlessly. So, when I see a statement like Mr. Vallandigham made, I am curious as to why. What is it they are seeing or doing wrong as it certainly hasn't been my experience?

The reliability and ease of cleaning a "patent breech" is dependent on the design....some are excellent but some aren't and need "soaking" and improvements. Don't see where a flintlock needs a "patent breech" of any kind because all the flintlocks I've made have a "White Lightning" TH liner which puts the main charge w/in .04 of the fire in the pan and the ignition reliabilty and speed are unexcelled. Of course, whatever system one prefers, that's what should be used. After function firing and rough sight-in of a new build, the bbl is pulled and soaks for awhile....this ensures that the customer gets a thoroughly clean rifle.....Fred

Just to be clear, I agree everyone should use what they prefer...its a mantra I've always lived by...people who look down their noses at others are pretty much narrow minded elitists majoring in ego, arrogance, and narcissism.
:wink:

As I mentioned, in addition to the ignition speed...while also using large coned vent liners with the main charge perched right there in the hole...the bigger attraction to me is the self cleaning aspect of today's 'patent breech' design...fouling doesn't get down into / build up in the ignition channels to affect ignition reliability for me, never a need or worry about picking a vent, etc.

So folks can / should use whatever kind of breeches they want...nothing about my post was to get anyone to change...it was simply to correct the misinformation being spread around about today's patent breeches.

:thumbsup:

Have to once again agree with Round ball. I have a bunch of TC rifles and do not have any problems with hang fires or misfires. I can even shoot those subs some of you hate so much without problems. So I have to say TC's breech system must be a good one.