Why didn't they use musket caps and a long handled and light weight hammer to trigger them?
-
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
Cannon primeing question:
- Thread starter cynthialee
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
rafterob
62 Cal.
There were some percussion cap ignited designs. But why rely on hitting it with a hammer when lock mechanisms were well advanced. Percussion caps were really a short lived intermediate between flintlock and self contained cartridge weapons.
TheDoubleD
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 347
- Reaction score
- 1
cynthialee said:
They used a charged vent that was ignited with a linstock. Then they went to a charged vent that was fired by a flint lock...then some conversions to cap lock, but the friction primer came along about the same time and made things even simpler.
nice thing about NOT using a cap device, is powder can be ignited and the hole vent cleaned really fast in war times.....now in shooting for fun, a priming quill is nicer~ for indepentdant slow firing, a fuze is 'fer sure' igniter!
