• 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

Priming powder location in the pan

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Some of the enjoyment I get out of life is being honest having common sense...I don't get all wrapped up in grand theories and speculation about trivial things...I just live life and tell it like it is.

If I said I compress my powder charges very hard and still enjoy super fast ignition you can take it to the bank that I do.

If I said I blew out a load and the powder charge came out as a 'pellet' one time you can take it to the bank that I did.

You throw around words like "testing" as if something official was done and published, but then you use anecdotal phrases like "breaking the wrist of a longrifle" :rotf:

How do I do it? Simple, like most people do it.
I stand my muzzleloader against the bench at the range, pour down a powder charge, seat a patched ball on top of it, then lean every ounce of strength I can squeeze out of my 6'4" 220 pounds onto the large wooden ball of my 3/8" solid brass range rod until it won't go down any further.


How do you do it?

What was the point of your post?
 
roundball said:
If I said I blew out a load and the powder charge came out as a 'pellet' one time you can take it to the bank that I did.
I've have seen black powder form like this as well.I don't think it takes all that much to form one.
Looking at the photos it's a little easyer to see why a finch might happen when you fire a flint lock. :rotf:
Lehigh...
 
lehigh said:
Looking at the photos it's a little easyer to see why a finch might happen when you fire a flint lock. :rotf:
Lehigh...

:grin: I understand your thinking...I had similar apprehensions at first...but in reality once you shoot a few times and realize that you don't even see anything because all that blows off to the right side out of your field of vision, you settle down and just concentrate on the sights, shoot it like any other rifle.
:thumbsup:
 
The first thing i noticed when i shot my first flinter was as soon as the pan is lite you cant see any sights.Its only like a milasceond as you feel the push of the rifle but it takes some getting used to.Quite different than a cap gun.
I shot my gun off after a hunt once at a stump,i hadnt really thought about the 25 mph wind that was blowing in my face untill after i pulled the trigger.Took me a couple of times shooten to get over that one.It darn right stung. :haha:
 
In previous reports I posted photos that attempt to show the effects of different placement of pan priming. While the photos show differences, I had not timed the powder placement. Recently I timed two pan powder locations:
A. banked away from the vent
B. As close to the vent as possible without filling it.

Conventional wisdom has told us that banking the priming powder away from the vent will produce the fastest ignition. Practically avery blackpowder shooter has heard this. This theory is based on human senses or what looks and sounds fast. The current test is designed to see if conventional wisdom is correct.

Early attempts showed a trend developing but had results that did not fit the rest of the range. A careful plan was developed to remove as many variables as possible especially those that were caused by fouling. Between firings the following were done:

The barrel was wiped. An additional step was added here and explained in the video.
A pan brush was used.
A pipe cleaner was used in the vent.
Compressed air was blown into the vent.

The priming powder used was Swiss Null B weighed on a balance scales. Since earlier testing showed its consistencty, .75 gr was used. Because the placement of priming powder was the variable, care was used in its placement. The charge was poured into the pan and moved into the test positions using pencil with a rounded eraser. Powder could be pushed to the outer edge of the pan as well as very close to the vent. In both of these positions I felt that I was using more care in the powder placement than the normal firing of the lock in the gun. I realized that I chose the extremes in powder placement, and that a shooter would fall somewhere in between.

The tests were run in a 24 hour period with temperature controlled by thermostat. The day was picked with humidity in mind. The humidity varied within a range from 60 - 66 %. This is noted on the spreadsheets. Each battery of tests consisted of ten trials each - prime banked away from the vent, and prime placed as close to the vent as possible without covering it. To insure that no priming method had a unfair advantage, the trials were alternated so that a complete testbattery includud 10 trials each, alternated for a total of 20 trials.

At the end of the test session the ten trials for each priming method were recorded and all parts cleaned. Battery 1 was done in the afternoon at 60% humidity. Battery 2 was done in the evening at 66% hunidity. The final battery was done the following morning at 60% humidity.

I made a short video that showed the processes involved: Link

The results are shown in the shreadsheet below:

powder_Location.jpg


The obvious conclusion is that banking the prime away from the vent doesn’t produce the most rapid ignition as we once thought. Banking the powder way from the vent actually reduced the ignition speed by 16%. This conclusion runs counter to conventional wisdom heard for years in muzzle loading circles. However, it is consistent with earlier tests where we saw photos with brighter fire from a close positioning of the prime.

While these results change the way I will prime my flintlock, there are other considerations that must be dealt with. In my tests the pan was ignited by a copper wire heated red hot. In the real flint world the sparks need a bed of powder on which to land, and this must be part of or priming procedure. This means that when I prime my locks, my emphasis will be close to the vent rather than away from it, but the bottom of the pan must have sufficient prime for sparks to land in. Thus, how well a lock places its sparks in the pan becomes an equally important consideration.

One other result of this experiment is that I have become increasingly skeptical of human senses in how I perceive flintlock ignition. And, there are more questions. What about low vent locations? This has always been rejected as a cause of slow ignition. Maybe we’re wrong about that as well. We’ll look at that in Part 6.

Regards,
Pletch
 
Pletch,some real eye opening results you have found..Your slo mo ignitions on video are fantastic to watch also ,can't wait till the results come in about the low vent placements..thanks Ray
 
Pletch, although a newbie here, I found your experiments totally facinating. Thanks for taking the time to do this. And your pics were especially informative.
Steve
 
Pletch,
I suspect that if you pile up the powder near the vent and then spread a little across the floor of the pan and light that, you may get erratic times. I would be ery interested if you run a trial that way.
volatpluvia
 
volatpluvia said:
Pletch,
I suspect that if you pile up the powder near the vent and then spread a little across the floor of the pan and light that, you may get erratic times. I would be very interested if you run a trial that way.
volatpluvia

This will likely be a part of the low vent experiment that comes next. With the vent in the low position I expect to try the following:
a. level not covering the vent
b. level with vent covered
c. banked away from vent

Since the testing in the post above showed that "banked away" was slower, I didn't know if it was necessary to repeat it in this phase.

The final experiment will be with a "high vent" location. I haven't finalized this part yet. The other decision is whether to see if MuzzleBlasts would want to publish it or to just leave it on my web site. It's too involved to be a single article - would need to be a series.

Regards,
Pletch
 
Pletch said:
The final experiment will be with a "high vent" location.

I think the the high vent will be interesting...I think it'll be fast

Have you already done any tests with the vent hole fore & aft of center?
 
roundball said:
Pletch said:
The final experiment will be with a "high vent" location.

I think the the high vent will be interesting...I think it'll be fast

Have you already done any tests with the vent hole fore & aft of center?
Hi Roundball,
No I haven't. In my case the lock plate is fastened to the barrel with two screws. Unless I change the screw holes, the right/left pan location will be the same. I don't know if you can tell in the video, but the rear screw is in a slot. That is the adjustment for raising and lowering the pan to make the high and low vent positions.

Regards,
Pletch
 
roundball said:

Some of the enjoyment I get out of life is being honest having common sense...I don't get all wrapped up in grand theories and speculation about trivial things...I just live life and tell it like it is.

If I said I compress my powder charges very hard and still enjoy super fast ignition you can take it to the bank that I do.

If I said I blew out a load and the powder charge came out as a 'pellet' one time you can take it to the bank that I did.

You throw around words like "testing" as if something official was done and published, but then you use anecdotal phrases like "breaking the wrist of a longrifle" :rotf:

How do I do it? Simple, like most people do it.
I stand my muzzleloader against the bench at the range, pour down a powder charge, seat a patched ball on top of it, then lean every ounce of strength I can squeeze out of my 6'4" 220 pounds onto the large wooden ball of my 3/8" solid brass range rod until it won't go down any further.


How do you do it?

What was the point of your post?

I will be repeating myself here since you didn't get it the first time.
I don't excessively compress powder charges other than in testing, in MLs not at all.

The point was to figure out how you compressed the powder by hand to the extent you claim. Testing has shown that the pressure needed to form *DRY uncontaminated powder* into a cake that will survive being expelled from the bore is more than a person can generate without mechanical advantage. PERIOD. All your chest pounding aside you simply are not heavy enough.

Actually I DID do some testing in 2005-2006 and it WAS published. But not in connection with MLs. As a result I have a pretty fair idea how much pressure it takes to form out of the can BP into a "cake" (as in press cake) in a cylinder. At .2" compression or less there is little compaction of the base of the charge, no real "cake" except *perhaps* at the base of the bullet. Compression levels of .3-.5" will tend to form a "cake" as seen below. But I think you will find you need 300 pounds or more at the rod face (and much higher PSI) to achieve this in a 40 caliber rifle. The larger the ball the more pressure is needed on the rod. Thus a 58-60 caliber might need another 200-300 pounds.
Drop tubes. The point of the drop tube is to pack the powder more densely in the bore. Some ML shooters use them too. A 30" piece of tubing when the powder is poured slowly through, as it must be for uniform loading height, will pack the powder better than a rifled barrel will with the powder simply dumped in. In the powder is looser it will be possible for compress it farther. HOWEVER, the *pressure* needed to form a "cake" will not change. Thus loose powder might be compressed .4" and not cake completely while a carefully drop tubed charge may cake completely at this compression level since the pressure will be much higher at that point.
It takes more pressure than a person can apply if the powder is DRY. If the powder is damp or other wise contaminated it will form a cake much easier.

I used an arbor press. The photos show powder pressed to about .5" compression an aluminum cylinder. Eventually I used a piece of gun barrel with a 40-70 SS chamber with a cartridge case with the base reamed out to allow the powder to be removed after is compressed since the aluminum cylinder while much like a ML barrel, was not the same as a cartridge case. It must be PRESSED out if compressed very hard at all, it puts a lot of pressure on the walls of the vessel containing it. Enough to bulge cartridge cases. Enough to make it very difficult to remove manually.
I have shot MLs since the mid-60s. I have shot a lot of BPCR over the years. I have worked professionally in the field of BP firearms for decades. In BPCRs compression of the powder charge is normal. Though compression over .010-.030" is seldom if ever needed some, for what ever reason, compress far more than this using a press with high mechanical advantage. If properly dropped through a 30" tube it is impossible to compress powder more than about .030" usually less. Past this takes more and more pressure. Compression past this requires a press. If the bullet is used to compress the powder past about .03" it will usually deform the bullet to the point it will not chamber.
The compression you describe will not change ignition speed. *Technically* highly compressed powder will not give as fast as initial ignition as powder that is well packed but only lightly compressed, but in a ML this is meaningless since compression to this level is impossible without mechanical advantage. It *might* *slightly* increase the velocity and it may or may not improve the ballistic uniformity. In many cases the crushed grains resulting from heavy compression .2"+ result in poor uniformity from shot to shoot when long heavy bullets are used. PRBs will not likely improve this due to lower inertia but without testing its hard to make absolute claims.
I have never compressed charges in a ML to this extent (see above and below).

You will eventually break or crack the stock in the wrist/lock area if you have a traditional rifle. Unless its a real club. They like to split through the rear lock bolt hole initially in most cases. With proper grain flow it is frighteningly easy to break or crack a wrist. Since my teenage years I have broken 2 MLs one just cracked at the lock screw the other broke off at an angle through the wrist. The crack was loading related. The break was from being whacked on the toe when I jumped out of a barn (I was a lot younger then).
Your apparent hillarity at this idea simply illustrates your ignorance.

If you want specifics go to http://blackpowderspg.com/ and see if the first 2 parts of the series I did on compression powder are available. The third is mostly ballistics.

I don't like the inference that I am being untruthful very much.
I suggest that rather than make yourself out as being more honest and knowledgeable than others that you get yourself a piece of barrel and try forming powder into a plug as shown in the photos with your bare hands. I wish you luck.

Dan

DSC02140.jpg


DSC02141.jpg


DSC02142.jpg


Pellet.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Phariss said:
roundball said:
Some of the enjoyment I get out of life is being honest having common sense...I don't get all wrapped up in grand theories and speculation about trivial things...I just live life and tell it like it is.

If I said I compress my powder charges very hard and still enjoy super fast ignition you can take it to the bank that I do.

If I said I blew out a load and the powder charge came out as a 'pellet' one time you can take it to the bank that I did.

You throw around words like "testing" as if something official was done and published, but then you use anecdotal phrases like "breaking the wrist of a longrifle" :rotf:

How do I do it? Simple, like most people do it.
I stand my muzzleloader against the bench at the range, pour down a powder charge, seat a patched ball on top of it, then lean every ounce of strength I can squeeze out of my 6'4" 220 pounds onto the large wooden ball of my 3/8" solid brass range rod until it won't go down any further.
What was the point of your post?

Dan Phariss said:
"...get yourself a piece of barrel and try forming powder into a plug..."

I've already done it...that was the whole point of my post...go back and re-read it.

And I doubt people like this thread being hijacked because you feel the need to challenge something I said in another discussion...go start yourself a new thread about plugs or something.
 
roundball said:
Dan Phariss said:

I've already done it...that was the whole point of my post...go back and re-read it.

And I doubt people like this thread being hijacked because you feel the need to challenge something I said in another discussion...go start yourself a new thread about plugs or something.

I just asked a question. You simply came back with macho BS.
You did tests? Then tell me just how much pressure DOES it take?

Oh wait. I just remembered an old saying.

Bye.

Dan
 
roundball,
On my second gonne, I got the flash hole too high. So High that the pan cover did not cover it. I had to bore a hole in the charge and insert prime though the hole to get reliable fire. A little high might be okay, but not as much as I had mine.
volatpluvia
 
volatpluvia said:
"...So High that the pan cover did not cover it..."
Yes, that's probably a little high...I was thinking along the lines instead of the top of the pan edges being aligned through the center of the vent hole, have the entire vent hole sitting on top of that imaginary line.

A couple of caplock stocks I converted to Flint ended up with the barrel / lock assemblies in that relationship...I can actually unscrew / back out the vent liners right into the pans on those two rifles without removing the locks, and they both seem very fast
 
roundball said:
volatpluvia said:
"...So High that the pan cover did not cover it..."
Yes, that's probably a little high...I was thinking along the lines instead of the top of the pan edges being aligned through the center of the vent hole, have the entire vent hole sitting on top of that imaginary line.

A couple of caplock stocks I converted to Flint ended up with the barrel / lock assemblies in that relationship...I can actually unscrew / back out the vent liners right into the pans on those two rifles without removing the locks, and they both seem very fast

Since you mentioned the height of the vent I posted two photos that show the extreme adjustments of the vent in the experiments. The first photo shows the vent in the lowest position. The bottom pic shows the vent in the highest position. I expect that these positions will be extreme enough to encompass any possibility that shooters will encounter.

low_vent.jpg


high_vent.jpg


I might add that the vent hole is .070 inch. It looks huge here because of the exterior cone.

Regards,
Pletch
 
Back
Top