Advantages/Disadvantages Of A Double Coned Flash-Hole Liner

[Ron_T.]

I'm in the beginning stages of building (from scratch) a close copy of John Armstrong's outstanding flintlock rifles from the Emmitsburg (Md.) School.

My mentor, the President of our local Black Powder Club who has built three Emmitsburg flintlock rifles, is over-seeing and giving advice as the work progresses. However, I'm doing the actual "work" myself. He has agreed to do the carvings and the scroll work.

I'm putting the best of everything in this .50 caliber flintlock rifle and intend to use it mostly as a "target" rifle at our monthly Club shoots with varying targets at 25 yards and 50 yards. Of course, once a year, I'll use it for my annual deer hunting trip as well... thus the reason for my decision to make it in a .50 caliber rifle.

I've been lurking here, reading all the posts and asking questions now and then, for the past 1½ years and have learned enough to realize I don't know very much... but I also realize there are a good many "true experts" here who know more than I'll ever know, so I'd like to pose a question about coned flash-hole liners that came up the other night when I was discussing them with my mentor.

He urged me to put in an coned flash-hole liner (coned on the inside of the liner) and, somewhere, I read about the liners being coned on the outside OR the inside for specific good reasons, but nothing was said about coning the liners on BOTH sides. As a result, I'm wondering why it apparently isn't an acceptable practice?!?

My question is... "How come flash-hole liners are not coned on BOTH sides?"... i.e., the "advantages" and the "disadvantages".

With the kind of expertise available from you gentlemen in this Forum, I feel confident my question will be frankly & accurately answered together with the reason(s) why it is a good idea or it isn't a good idea to cone the flash-hole liner on BOTH sides... and if not coned on both sides, then on which side is it best to be coned when desiring the quickest ignition of the main powder charge in a flintlock?

Thank you in advance for your help and your answers... :bow:


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

 

[saber]

I use Jim Chabers whitelighting liners but I do cone a very little on the out side just to guid and make a spark cone just very little have been doing it for 20 yrs and it works for me may not need to do this but I have just always done it

 

[paulvallandigham]

Coning a TH liner- on either the inside, or outside, or BOTH!-- is done with the hope that you can move powder in the barrel CLOSER to the heat generated when the flash powder burns in the pan.

The Chamber's TH liner goes one further step, and that is, it uses a Parabolic curve on the INSIDE CONE. That parabolic cone reflects both HEAT, and GASES Back towards the main charge for an instant, raising chamber pressure, and temperature during the burning of the main charge. This causes a more complete burning of the powder in the bore. If you cone a TH from both the inside and out, its wise to leave a bit of the straight hole surface- at least 1/64th" -- wide to keep the TH from burning out. The Diameter of any TH will depend on what powder you use, the design of the lock, and The location of the TH in relation to the pan.

If you have a gun with a POWDER chamber, the hole at the bottom/rear of the chamber should be large enough to allow the powder granule size to pass through it into the flash channel, and drift over to the TH. Most shooters with these guns learn to give the side of the barrel a good smack after the powder is loaded into the barrel, so some of the powder will move through the Flash channel to get closer to the TH.

A Lot of the problems with some of these guns seems to be that the flash channel, and the hole between the channel and the powder chamber are so small that ONLY 3Fg powder can be used and be expected to fit through those tiny holes. If you use the large granule 2Fg powder, you often have ignition problems, UNLESS you enlarge the flash channel with a larger drill bit, and ALSO ENLARGE the hole between the powder chamber and the flash channel.

The other problem these small holes create is that they get fouled and clogged much more readily than if the holes are bigger in diameter. If you don't clean your gun after each shot, clogging can prevent your powder from working down thru the holes and over to your TH.

I believe- but cannot prove-- that these types of guns began life as Percussion barrels, and bolsters/ or breechplugs. With a Percussion cap, a very hot flame is INJECTED through the channels to the powder chamber, and on into the main charge. I have yet to find a percussion rifle with a long enough barrel that firing a cap off on the empty barrel does NOT Show flame coming out of the muzzle. The standard caps are hot enough for Black Powder.

If you insist on using Substitutes, you should use the Magnum caps, for their Hotter ignition temperatures. If you use those unmentionable zip guns, with 777 powder, you should be useing the much hotter shotgun primers to ignite that powder.

Hang fires are reported when 777 is used in a traditional sidelock gun. I suspect that the powder granules are too light in weight(fluffy) to uniformly flow thru the hole in the back of the powder chamber, and then through the flash channel to get near the base of the nipple.

None of the substitutes should be used in Flintlocks. Flintlocks simply begin a fire at one or a few granules, which then ignite granules next to them, as if you lit a bunch of fuses, held together, at the same time.

There is little purpose served by coning the inside of a TH liner for a gun with a Powder chamber, and a flash channel, UNLESS the flash channel is enlarge enough to match the widest area of the coning. :hmm:

 

[Ron_T.]

Hello again, Paul... :wink:

I'm currently using FFFg Swiss in my two Hawkens (both percussion cap 26" and 28" barrels) and in my Traditions Shenandoah (33½ inch flintlock barrel) Long Rifle and intend to use the same powder in the Emmitsburg although I'll eventually work up loads using FFg as well to insure I can't improve on the accuracy of the FFFg Swiss.

However, since I already have a like-new .50 caliber barrel which is not being used, I cut the breechcap and patent breech off of that barrel and re-threaded a new breechcap onto the end of the barrel. I intend to use this shorter barrel (now 32-inches overall length) on the Emmitsburg LR.

I also intend to drill a straight-through flash channel (no patent breech) for the Emmitsburg flintlock rifle to save weight and because I felt that FFFg Swiss should work just fine for target loads since I can hopefully get the muzzle velocity I want with a smaller charge of Black Powder using Swiss as opposed to Goex.

Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

 

[roundball]

"How come flash-hole liners are not coned on BOTH sides?"

Actually they are...just depends on the manufacturer...and those brands who don't happen to have an outside cone usually get one added from the owner after he/she buys it.

"advantages" and the "disadvantages".

ADVANTAGES = Faster ignition

DISADVANTAGES = None

 

[Ron_T.]

"How come flash-hole liners are not coned on BOTH sides?"

Actually they are...just depends on the manufacturer...and those brands who don't happen to have an outside cone usually get one added from the owner after he/she buys it.

"advantages" and the "disadvantages".

ADVANTAGES = Faster ignition

DISADVANTAGES = None

BINGO !~!~!


:hmm: Hmmmmmmmmm... Jim Chamber's White Lighting liners, as first mentioned by Saber, sound like the liner to buy! Whatta you guys think?!?


Ron T.

 

[Dphar]

I'm in the beginning stages of building (from scratch) a close copy of John Armstrong's outstanding flintlock rifles from the Emmitsburg (Md.) School.

My mentor, the President of our local Black Powder Club who has built three Emmitsburg flintlock rifles, is over-seeing and giving advice as the work progresses. However, I'm doing the actual "work" myself. He has agreed to do the carvings and the scroll work.

I'm putting the best of everything in this .50 caliber flintlock rifle and intend to use it mostly as a "target" rifle at our monthly Club shoots with varying targets at 25 yards and 50 yards. Of course, once a year, I'll use it for my annual deer hunting trip as well... thus the reason for my decision to make it in a .50 caliber rifle.

I've been lurking here, reading all the posts and asking questions now and then, for the past 1½ years and have learned enough to realize I don't know very much... but I also realize there are a good many "true experts" here who know more than I'll ever know, so I'd like to pose a question about coned flash-hole liners that came up the other night when I was discussing them with my mentor.

He urged me to put in an coned flash-hole liner (coned on the inside of the liner) and, somewhere, I read about the liners being coned on the outside OR the inside for specific good reasons, but nothing was said about coning the liners on BOTH sides. As a result, I'm wondering why it apparently isn't an acceptable practice?!?

My question is... "How come flash-hole liners are not coned on BOTH sides?"... i.e., the "advantages" and the "disadvantages".

With the kind of expertise available from you gentlemen in this Forum, I feel confident my question will be frankly & accurately answered together with the reason(s) why it is a good idea or it isn't a good idea to cone the flash-hole liner on BOTH sides... and if not coned on both sides, then on which side is it best to be coned when desiring the quickest ignition of the main powder charge in a flintlock?

Thank you in advance for your help and your answers... :bow:


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

I have a swivel breech rifle with a coned internal and external in one barrel and a flat with interior cone in the other.
There is no difference in speed that I can detect.
HOWEVER, based on previous experience the external cone is more likely to cause hang and misfires once it becomes fouled.
The British were very much into fast and consistent flintlocks and this is what is found on most high end British guns.

The pan covers were often made with a "vent wiper" that cleaned fouling from the exterior of the vent when the frizzen was closed.

Dan

 

[Ron_T.]

[/quote]

I have a swivel breech rifle with a coned internal and external in one barrel and a flat with interior cone in the other.
There is no difference in speed that I can detect.
HOWEVER, based on previous experience the external cone is more likely to cause hang and misfires once it becomes fouled.
The British were very much into fast and consistent flintlocks and this is what is found on most high end British guns.

The pan covers were often made with a "vent wiper" that cleaned fouling from the exterior of the vent when the frizzen was closed.

Dan
[/quote]

**********************************************

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... so you found no real advantage to having both the inside and outside surfaces coned, eh? Very interesting... thanx for that information.


Ron T.

 

[fitter]

I would only use a liner coned on the inside ( Chambers). A cone on the outside just becomes a fowling trap. 32" is way too short for an Armstrong, whose guns are long barreled and slim. Would look terrible, IMO.

 

[ebiggs1]

Ron T,
I cone every gun I have. Plus I drill every one with a #50 drill.

This is an easy to do job. This was done using a simple counter sink bit in a drill press.

The inside is more difficult and requires the correct size drill bit.

ADVANTAGES = Faster ignition

DISADVANTAGES = None

I have never had one foul and I am not a pan or barrel wiper.

 

[Jason Lewis]

if there is a faster ignition time you will need slowmotion cameras and electronic timeing equipment to detect it. it may only be a millisecond faster.

 

[roundball]

Regarding the couple claims that double coned liners cause fouling and problems is amazing to me.
In 11 years, over 12,000+ shots, 40-50 shot range sessions without wiping between shots, a couple dozen Flintlocks in several calibers and gauges of T/C, GM, and Rice barrels, 3F, 2F, target charges, max charges...and they all work perfectly as designed.

I sometimes wonder if there might be too many across the board claims being made about things.....when in fact there are so many variables involved to necessarily say its a liner.....ie: the type powder, the amount of powder, the granulation, or is fine priming powder being used vs. 3F or 2F causing the fouling.....or the temperature, or the humidity, or the lube, or how much oil film there might be on the liner face, is the pan wiped after each shot, and on and on and on.

But I'm here to help...anyone who claims double coned liners are no good, just pick out the ones that are 1/4" x 28 and send them on to me so they're not laying around bothering you...I'll use them successfully with my variables til they wear out.
:grin:

 

[Vaino]

I install "White Lightning" liners on all my LRs and if done properly, the TH land is .03-.04 which brings the charge very close to the prime. The parabolic cone allows the powder charge to reach the TH easily. The factory TH dia. is increased to .067" {#51 drill} and the hole is then very slighty ctsk {.01} to break the the sharp corners. The ignition speed and consistency are excellent and the first time I tried the "WL", I thought some of the fun of shooting a flintlock w/ some delay was lost, but realized that this is how it should be. I too think a 32" bbl wouldn't do justice to an Armstrong LR, but to each his own. Good luck....Fred

 

[CoyoteJoe]

You really can't add an exterior cone to a White Lightning liner because the interior cone comes very close the the surface. About the most you can do with those is just to break the edge and even that can be risky. I'm not sure an exterior cone does anything for speed but it does seem to increase reliability in my limited experience.

 

[Larry Pletcher]

There have been a number of good comments here. Roundball's comment about variables is golden. The most complex type of liner is slower than a straight cylinder if it isn't clean.

The differences in time here is measured in the ten-thousandths of a second. Dan is right when he mentions no detectable differences.

In one test with a measurable difference, I timed a 1/16" straight cylinder vent and then added a VERY mild exterior cone, spinning a countersink by hand. when timed this gave a slightly faster and slightly more consistent average.

But regardless what you use "Clean is everything". I like .067" vents because I can use a pipe cleaner.

Regards,
Pletch

PS - food for thought - could a .067" regular vent cleaned between shots with a pipe cleaner will be faster than a WL liner not cleaned between shots.

 

[Ron_T.]

I would only use a liner coned on the inside ( Chambers). A cone on the outside just becomes a fowling trap. 32" is way too short for an Armstrong, whose guns are long barreled and slim. Would look terrible, IMO.

**********************************************

I agree that a 32-inches is really "short" for an Armstrong/Emmitsburg... however, I want the shorter barrel for the weight savings (I'm almost 75 and not as strong as I once was) plus that's a barrel I "rescued" from another, damaged rifle... and I can't afford to put any more money out for a new, longer barrel even if I wanted a longer barrel which I don't.

In addition, it is likely I'll hunt deer with it... and in the woods, I'd prefer a shorter, lighter flintlock rifle... again due to my age and physical condition. If I were a strapping, youthful lad like you, I'd have a 40-42 inch barrel and very likely a much heavier rifle, but I'm not a young buck like you and many others here... I'm the resident "OLD GUY"... so show me some "respect", you young WHIPPERSNAPPER!!!(Said in a Walter Brennan "lisp") Hahahahahahahaha... :rotf:

As far as how it will "look"... I don't agree with you.

I believe it will look very nice the way I intend to make it with the slender, well-figured curly maple++ stock (which I already have) and the small Siler lock (which I already have). Yes, it will be shorter than the normal Armstrong, but proportionally-scaled and still very "nice"... in MHO.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

 

[Ron_T.]

There have been a number of good comments here. Roundball's comment about variables is golden. The most complex type of liner is slower than a straight cylinder if it isn't clean.

The differences in time here is measured in the ten-thousandths of a second. Dan is right when he mentions no detectable differences.

In one test with a measurable difference, I timed a 1/16" straight cylinder vent and then added a VERY mild exterior cone, spinning a countersink by hand. when timed this gave a slightly faster and slightly more consistent average.

But regardless what you use "Clean is everything". I like .067" vents because I can use a pipe cleaner.

Regards,
Pletch

PS - food for thought - could a .067" regular vent cleaned between shots with a pipe cleaner will be faster than a WL liner not cleaned between shots.

Pletch...

Yes, I agree. I've gotten ALL good, valid comments on this subject... and I "THANK YOU" gentlemen very much.

Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

 

[ebiggs1]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Don’t apologize for what you want. Go for it and enjoy it.
BTW, I don’t like longer than 32 inch barrels myself.

 

[Dphar]

Regarding the couple claims that double coned liners cause fouling and problems is amazing to me.
In 11 years, over 12,000+ shots, 40-50 shot range sessions without wiping between shots, a couple dozen Flintlocks in several calibers and gauges of T/C, GM, and Rice barrels, 3F, 2F, target charges, max charges...and they all work perfectly as designed.

I sometimes wonder if there might be too many across the board claims being made about things.....when in fact there are so many variables involved to necessarily say its a liner.....ie: the type powder, the amount of powder, the granulation, or is fine priming powder being used vs. 3F or 2F causing the fouling.....or the temperature, or the humidity, or the lube, or how much oil film there might be on the liner face, is the pan wiped after each shot, and on and on and on.

But I'm here to help...anyone who claims double coned liners are no good, just pick out the ones that are 1/4" x 28 and send them on to me so they're not laying around bothering you...I'll use them successfully with my variables til they wear out.
:grin:

There are a great number variables. How the exterior cone is made for example and how deep it is which I think is a factor.
I know that I have never had an exterior fouling related flash in the pan with this style vent. They only flash if there is fouling IN the vent.

So I no longer bother with the external counterbore.
There had to be a reason why the British went with a flat faced vent and a vent wiper on the pan on the high end guns.
The final British flint guns were hands down the best. They sold flint fowlers to people like the king of England and having the King's or the Prince of Wales' shotgun misfire was not acceptable. Too much prestige was at stake for both the shooter and the gunmaker.
The exterior cone on the swivel breech was actually made in 1993 when I made the action. I changed one barrel to a flat faced vent when I finalized the rifle a couple of years ago there was some lag time in the build :grin:
The ones I had problems with had a deeper cone, 2 different rifles by the same maker I have owned over the years. Nor was it a chronic problem but it was something noticeable enough that I thought it was worth a "fix".
So I came to conclusions and changed the exterior of the vent some years back.

Speed cannot be accurately determined "by ear" unless there is a gross difference.

Dan

 

[Birddog6]

Usually the ones I cone on the Outside would be when I am using a Ampco removable vent liner. (Or a Lyman vent liner) Coning the outside gets the flash just a tad closer to the main charge & it also eliminates part of the screwdriver slot, thus some of the flash is not channeled down that slot. I like to have about a .025" straight wall depth in the vent liner hole & have not had any burn out by doing this.
As mentioned previously, if you cone the outside of a Chambers WL vent liner, you could end up with a very thin or no straight wall in the vent hole & thus burn it larger after much shooting. I don't know this from experience, so not stating it as fact, just seems logical that a thin sharp edge would burn easier and quicker than a straight wall of .025 in depth or so.

So I would say coning on the Outside would depend on the vent liner installed. I do cone ALL of mine on the inside....... unless it is a Chambers WL liner & it is already coned.

Keith Lisle