touch hole liners

[tg]

"I don't have a liner in mine,just drilled out the touch hole with a #50 bit, used to be 1/16. Lots faster now, with little or no fouling.I think it's just as fast as one with a liner"

Kudos to ya it is nice when one finds out that the old ways are simpler and work quite well. I often wonder why if some want the flinlocks to be faster and faster they just don't shoot a cartridge gun with a flitlock on the side that goes whoosh for the traditional effect, but is not part of the ignition system.

 

[smoothy]

I go linerless, too. Aw, the freedom of it all and less worries of the how's, why's and what's. And it still works just like it used to in a lot of the original guns. May take a bit more with experimentation to get things reliable, but that's some of the fun and challenge that shooting/hunting with flintlocks bring. Of course if my topknot depended on it I'd use a liner, or get out my Krag.

 

[Dphar]

If you do not remove the liner, are you not going to get a build up at the breech and behind a vent?

With water.
It washes away.
Plug the vent with a toothpick and pour 3-4" of water in the bore. Put a thumb on the muzzle then up end the gun 2-3 times to "slosh" the water.
Dump. Run down a fairly loose wet patch or two. If you have a patch worm twist one in the breech. Now repeat the "slosh" a couple of times and wipe dry. As the bore dries pull the tooth pick.
I have not owned a FL with a removable liner in over 30 years.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

I go linerless, too. Aw, the freedom of it all and less worries of the how's, why's and what's. And it still works just like it used to in a lot of the original guns. May take a bit more with experimentation to get things reliable, but that's some of the fun and challenge that shooting/hunting with flintlocks bring. Of course if my topknot depended on it I'd use a liner, or get out my Krag.

Yes but then there are the flashes in the pan. The reduced accuracy. If its not one worry its another I guess. The erosion that means you need a liner eventually anyway.
I hunt with a FL in Gbear country... Its gotta work.
Dan

 

[Rifleman1776]

tg, I'm pretty sure ye were just stokin' the fire with that comment. :wink:
The "old guns" often did have touch hole liners. Just not all and it depends on what kind of guns you might be talking about. Liners were often made of platinum to prevent burn-out. Of course, such things would be found on fine cased sets and not on a common man's barn rifle.
If you want to start a real flame, ask Danny Caywood what he thinks of liners. :shocked2:
Personally, I favor them. Faster ignition and less burn out.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I've owned and fired flinters since 1978. I have removed a liner once in that time. Replaced it and never moved it again (a T/C). The Bess I owned for 15 years had no liner, just a vent, and my current flint rifle has the liner filed flush so it is blends in with the barrel and would be destroyed in removing it.

Cleaning with a bit of soap in water gets the crud out.

 

[smoothy]

I've chimed in on this subject before and shouldn't push things like I have......But, I've been "corrected" when not following period or historical correct on the 2 guns I've built. Near as I can tell the common guns for the average guy didn't have liners in the day. And the mainstream liners put on flinters today are a bit of an improvement over what was used. To me it is not a "gotta have" and is easily omitted.
Now I do try and put myself in others shoes (mocs). And if I did hunt in grizz country using a flinter I'm not sure I'd put my life on the line using just that for defense, although that would be the period correct way of doing it. If I was in that situation I think I'd also be packing a pistol in 44 caliber, followed by the "M" word.

 

[tg]

"The "old guns" often did have touch hole liners"

You will find that on colonial/American made guns that liners were rather rare probably nearly non-existant on trade guns/military guns particularly on all new guns of either type, many would like to think they were a common item, it helps justify the choices of using one.If someone has any period info to the contrary I would be glad to add it to my notes.

 

[Dphar]

"The "old guns" often did have touch hole liners"

You will find that on colonial/American made guns that liners were rather rare probably nearly non-existant on trade guns/military guns particularly on all new guns of either type, many would like to think they were a common item, it helps justify the choices of using one.If someone has any period info to the contrary I would be glad to add it to my notes.

When the vent got too large they there "bushed" But its really tough to know at this date considering most surviving flint rifles were converted the percussion and then back to flint.
There are surviving bushed guns none the less (some photos were either posted on a ML site or were seen on some auction site don't recall) and documentation exists as well.
See page 77 "British Military Flintlock Rifles" second quote on the page "...Issac Nutimus for bushing his Rifle 1/-...) This was a quote from the ledger of a gov't gunsmith repairing Indian rifles and guns in 1759
Leonard Reedy charged 12 1/2 cents for "a touch hole bushed". See Kindig's "Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age."

Trade guns were so cheap that they were basically throw aways. I have read the life of a "Carolina Gun" was about 2 years. Who needs a bushing?
Muskets were so expensive to shoot, ball weighs almost 3 times what a typical rifle ball weighed and over double the smaller bored trade guns. So most people did not shoot them enough to require bushing. They were loaded with the pan closed by the military so no powder was lost. Who would care if the vent was a little big? Accuracy was certainly not a concern.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

tg, I'm pretty sure ye were just stokin' the fire with that comment. :wink:
The "old guns" often did have touch hole liners. Just not all and it depends on what kind of guns you might be talking about. Liners were often made of platinum to prevent burn-out. Of course, such things would be found on fine cased sets and not on a common man's barn rifle.
If you want to start a real flame, ask Danny Caywood what he thinks of liners. :shocked2:
Personally, I favor them. Faster ignition and less burn out.

Platinum was not made maleable until about 1800 until then it was basically a curiosity. Prior to this the high end guns had gold liners.
These were not solid gold or platinum but iron lined with the metal that was erosion resistant.
Nipples were lined in a similar fashion in the percussion era.

Dan

 

[rich pierce]

Bushing a rifle with a worn touchhole in the flintlock period here would normally be done using wrought iron and there's not much evidence that the bushing would be internally coned much/most of the time. If folks want to justify their using "liners" because originals were sometimes "bushed", there may be a bit of apples and oranges here.

 

[George]

(some photos were either posted on a ML site or were seen on some auction site don't recall)

You may be thinking of these:

Spence

 

[rich pierce]

Great pictures, not much resemblance to today's liners, in my view.

 

[George]

Great pictures, not much resemblance to today's liners, in my view.

I posted them as an example of a repair for a burned out vent, and I think the end result was a straight hole drilled through the new iron plug. Totally different from the modern touch-hole liner, I think.

Spence

 

[hanshi]

The stainless touch hole liners made today are a vast improvement, IMHO, over a straight hole drilled through the barrel. If the hole burns out or enlarges too much all you have to do is replace the liner with a new one rather than drill out and "bush" the hole. They may not be authentic but then neither are steel barrels. I don't think liners detract from precious HC/PC any more than the lack of Chestnut trees detract from a movie portraying the 18th century.

 

[tg]

"Great pictures, not much resemblance to today's liners, in my view."

Well Hells Bells, they outta be close enough to pass for White lightings, gotta find some way to make it all right in our minds :hmm:

 

[rich pierce]

The stainless touch hole liners made today ........ may not be authentic but then neither are steel barrels. I don't think liners detract from precious HC/PC any more than the lack of Chestnut trees detract from a movie portraying the 18th century.

Not trying to argue but that position (steel barrels are not authentic, therefore our rifles are not authentic, and so anything we do to them is moot) could also be used to declare that a TC flintlock is a reasonable approximation of colonial arms.

When materials are not available (wrought iron for forged barrels is not available in sufficient quantity) the best we can do is use a great material that has all the appearance of the original materials used. Modern barrel steel is indistinguishable from wrought iron. Liners used today are a glaring exception to authenticity because of their appearance. I doubt folks would think that aluminum buttplates and guards, or neon red dot sights would be considered acceptable on longrifles built to represent originals, and that is perfectly parallel to the use of non-steel liners.

Having folks try to find justification for non-ferrous liners of today's dimensions always seems odd to me. If folks would say, "I like them and don't care that they are not authentic", then who's going to argue with that?

 

[leslie]

Exactly!!!!!

 

[tg]

You are right Rich The use of steel barrels is pretty much a requirement to allow people to have ML's, the other things like liners and a host of modern niceties not really required to let someone into the sport, and the steel barrel really offers no advantage which is the big reason so much modern stuff is desired by the wannabe bunch for lunch, the steel barrel BS is always the fisrt place most idjots go to try and justify anything they like or prefer into history,then comes "do ya ride a horse to the 'vous"? some just really like to embarass themselves I guess, why they can't just use the stuff without trying to re-write history is beyound me.

 

[hanshi]

It appears that I DID get my point across. If you scratch a line in the sand and something you need isn't on your side do you say, "well, we don't have that anymore". No, don't think so. Sometimes you just got to accept that there IS a gray area and most folks can deal with that or even like it. As I mentioned, I like the convenience of vent liners. As for looking out of place, well, they can be blackened or smeared with fouling. It won't look modern and no one will notice but at the end of the day you still have an ss vent liner.

My persona is of a 21st century recreational black powder shooter. So please don't try and paraphrase or add other meanings to my statements. I have no concern, whatsoever, for HC/PC. Using 18th century technology is as far as I go. I use a lot of modern things as I want to pamper - I know you understand - my firelocks. The rondies I've been to had many in period dress but quite a few others were not. Guns ranged from custom firelocks to CVA & T/C. I like the equality and acceptance. We don't have wrought iron barrels (I know, I know but I didn't bring it up) and they didn't have ss vent liners. Sounds to me like it's pretty even; don't you think so? :thumbsup: