-
This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.
Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades -
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Re patent breeches
- Thread starter Boer
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
The higher strength of the parabolic chamber makes sense. It's basically the difference between an arch and a post and lintel; the strength of the arch is much greater.
I never really thought about it before, but the parablic chamber would also act somewhat like a shape charge, I guess, directing the force of the explosion toward the center of the breech opening.
I never really thought about it before, but the parablic chamber would also act somewhat like a shape charge, I guess, directing the force of the explosion toward the center of the breech opening.
I have some rifles with and some without. I've chronographed them and don't see any difference. What I do see is a place that's hard to clean and a place that's more likely to become rusty. When I build a gun I don't use them. If you having a problem with your guns blowing up,
it's probably not because you don't have a patent breach.
it's probably not because you don't have a patent breach.
eace:...and I just remembered another benefit of a patent breech:
I can't accidently dry ball a ball down past the vent...the worst it can do is stop on top of the patent breech, making it easy to get powder in there under the ball and 'bloop' the ball out (not that I've EVER dry balled a ball of course!)
:redthumb:
ResearchPress
45 Cal.
It would have been appreciated if permission had been sought first, prior to reprinting this information.
David
LRML - List Owner - www.lrml.org
David
LRML - List Owner - www.lrml.org
ResearchPress
45 Cal.
Bill Curtis is a highly respected historian in the UK and one of the original members of the Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain and a member of the Committee of the Museum of the National Rifle Association.
Perhaps "Donny" with all his wisdom could explain what parts of the post he disagrees with and why? I don't see any contribution on his part that suggests he knows anymore about which he speaks.
David
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 19
Mechanically the parabola is good because at the front of the cup there's no metal to back up the screw threads, but not far back there's plenty of metal to back up the threads. Nock didn't like one of Manton's patents, which screwed on to the outside of the barrel, I assume partly for this reason but mostly because it got around his patent. He said it was weak.
Whether the parabol affects pressure :: not sure about that, but that's not to disagree with Bill, that's to disagree with John George Leutmann whom he quotes. I don't think you can't make a useful shaped charge out of BP, it doesn't burn fast enough.
Nock's breech does make for shorter bigger barrels, but I did all that last time we were here :thumbsup:
Whether the parabol affects pressure :: not sure about that, but that's not to disagree with Bill, that's to disagree with John George Leutmann whom he quotes. I don't think you can't make a useful shaped charge out of BP, it doesn't burn fast enough.
Nock's breech does make for shorter bigger barrels, but I did all that last time we were here :thumbsup:
Old Salt:
From all I've read and been told, placing the priming to the outside of the pan, instead of right up to the vent, allows the flame to leap across the gap rather than burn its way though to the vent, thus resulting in faster effective locktime (all other factors being equal). In my VERY limited first hand experience with flintlocks, I had far fewer misfires with the prime-to-the-outside approach.
How's your GPR coming along?
From all I've read and been told, placing the priming to the outside of the pan, instead of right up to the vent, allows the flame to leap across the gap rather than burn its way though to the vent, thus resulting in faster effective locktime (all other factors being equal). In my VERY limited first hand experience with flintlocks, I had far fewer misfires with the prime-to-the-outside approach.
How's your GPR coming along?
As the old saying goes, "I don't have a dog in this fight", but for clarification, one of the aspects of the WWW is that anything/everything put out there is in the "public domain" and unless otherwise identified/protected via copyright designation, etc, it's all information that can be referenced like this was.
And in fairness to the individual who posted/referenced it, he did so in a very appropriate, professional manner, showing the original author, etc.
:imo: :m2c:
It seems as though I might have stepped upon a few toes so I better explain myself!
First of all I did not in any way intend to offend anyone. John George Leutmann obviously was a gifted man, well ahead of his time. I have none reason whatsoever to have anything but respect for Mr Curtis. I have read a lot more that he has written than the above and it is obvious why he is a respected person worth quoting. I have quoted him like I would quote someone like Ackley regarding wildcat cartridges, as someone worth listening to on the subject.
Mr Minshall I did not deem it necessary to obtain permission to quote from your list as I did not expect you to take exeption. As it is your list and a very worthwhile one, I have no problem abiding to your rules regarding your list. If you do not want someone to quote from your list before getting your permission that is fine with me and should I ever want to do it again I will do as you request. I guess I could have asked the same question on your board.
The reason I am lurking there and not contributing is mostly because I do not have a lot to contribute as I know nothing about long range shooting with muzzle loaders apart from what I have read.
The reason why I dared asked the question in the first place is because I want to know. Even though John George Leutmann was a gifted man ahead of his time he did write the above piece in 1727. We have learned a lot about the movement of gasses (mixed with solids?) in chambers since then.
To explain it differently, although I have respect for the Wright brothers I would not believe their theories on aerodynamics would be the last word on the subject and it would be interesting to see to what extend their ideas has withstood the test of time, even though they did get into the air.
I have noticed that some experienced muzzleloaders doubt the claims for significantly improved ballistics claimed for the patent breech. If the
First of all I did not in any way intend to offend anyone. John George Leutmann obviously was a gifted man, well ahead of his time. I have none reason whatsoever to have anything but respect for Mr Curtis. I have read a lot more that he has written than the above and it is obvious why he is a respected person worth quoting. I have quoted him like I would quote someone like Ackley regarding wildcat cartridges, as someone worth listening to on the subject.
Mr Minshall I did not deem it necessary to obtain permission to quote from your list as I did not expect you to take exeption. As it is your list and a very worthwhile one, I have no problem abiding to your rules regarding your list. If you do not want someone to quote from your list before getting your permission that is fine with me and should I ever want to do it again I will do as you request. I guess I could have asked the same question on your board.
The reason I am lurking there and not contributing is mostly because I do not have a lot to contribute as I know nothing about long range shooting with muzzle loaders apart from what I have read.
The reason why I dared asked the question in the first place is because I want to know. Even though John George Leutmann was a gifted man ahead of his time he did write the above piece in 1727. We have learned a lot about the movement of gasses (mixed with solids?) in chambers since then.
To explain it differently, although I have respect for the Wright brothers I would not believe their theories on aerodynamics would be the last word on the subject and it would be interesting to see to what extend their ideas has withstood the test of time, even though they did get into the air.
I have noticed that some experienced muzzleloaders doubt the claims for significantly improved ballistics claimed for the patent breech. If the
ResearchPress
45 Cal.
The Long Range Muzzle Loader list is an email list on which only members may post or read the messages; similarly the archives are only accessible to members. Maybe I'm old fashioned (or wrong?) but it would seem to me a common courtesy to seek permission before lifting information from the list and posting it elsewhere.
"Boer" posted the message listing the source and crediting the author, which is all I would have asked.
I stand to be corrected on this but I think "roundball" may well find that posting a message does not put it in the public domain. The author has to explicitly state that he grants the item to the public domain. See 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
Enough said.
David
www.lrml.org
"Boer" posted the message listing the source and crediting the author, which is all I would have asked.
I stand to be corrected on this but I think "roundball" may well find that posting a message does not put it in the public domain. The author has to explicitly state that he grants the item to the public domain. See 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
Enough said.
David
www.lrml.org
Well.. This was hashed out a while back, but, I still am interested in the real reason for the developement of the pat. breech.
1. better powder burn=shorter barrel fowlers?... ::
2. so narrower breechs could be used on double fowlers?... ::
3. withstand greater breech pressures of smallbore rifles?... :hmm:
1. better powder burn=shorter barrel fowlers?... ::
2. so narrower breechs could be used on double fowlers?... ::
3. withstand greater breech pressures of smallbore rifles?... :hmm:
ResearchPress
45 Cal.
Just in case there is any misunderstanding (and bear in mind the context of the original posting being on a long range discussion list), the reference here is not to small calibre rifles shooting patched round ball.
For clarification, where Bill refers to small-bore rifles this was the contemporary term used to describe the long range match rifles of the 1860's - 1870's (Whitworth, Metford, Rigby, etc) which were generally of .451-.461 cal. The term distinguished them from the large bore military rifles of .577 cal.
Typically these rifles would be fired with 530-560 grain bullets and 90 grains of powder.
David
Similar threads
