Drum vs. Patent Breech

[JOHN L. HINNANT]

Good Morning Joe,

Nice to hear from you.

You do make some excellent points, particularly about the difference between a #8 and #10 machine screw. Little things do make a big difference.

I too, have seen novice shooters have hang fire problems with both T-C and other patten breech rifles mostly due to not flushing through through the breech. One this was done and only real black powder was used, the hang fire problem went away. Judging from what I read, I must be the only muzzle loader who has ignition problems with black powder substitues. Oh well, just my luck.

The T-C people have designed some nice firearms for the most part, but like you I am confounded by the slot in the bottom of the bolster.

I do respectfully disagree with Roundball about the reason for the developement of the patten breech.

I recall reading many years back a magazine article about fine English made rifles and how the English gun makers developed and refined the patten breech as a stronger and better breech system. This was as opposed to the drum and nipple system used in many American made percussion guns.

Best regards and good shooting,

John L. Hinnant

If you are not an NRA or NMLRA Member, why not? I am carrying your load.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Agreed John, Pyrodex, the only sub I've spent much time with is a test of the ignition system, but a good system will pass the test. If one gets hangfires with Pyro but black works fine it is not entirely the fault of the Pyrodex but is an indication that ignition is not as strong as it could be. After-all, it takes only one weak spark to ignite black powder and that is exactly the reason Pyrodex was developed, to be harder to ignite, but a good system WILL ignite it. A drum with large ID is one such system.
The patten breech on my Crockett .32 is the worst designed breech I've ever seen and I can't imagine what they were thinking, it offers no advantage at all to offset the numerous defects.

 

[renovato]

Joe, what problems are you having with the Crockett? I've been considering buying one for squirrel season to get me by till I can build a nicer one.

 

[Pittsburghunter]

Yeh, I am curious about that too :hmm: I can pull the clean out screw on my Crockett and almost drive a truck right to the bottom of the nipple. I have never had a miss or hangfire from the rifle except once when I failed to dry the chamber before firing it and contaminated the powder.

I just bought my Crockett last September so they may have fixed the problem you speak of. Plus I only use 3F BP in the thing.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

My complaint with the Crockett was not ignition.
First, the threaded portion of the patten breech is about twice as long as needed. This makes for a very long powder chamber and if one loads less than 20 grains powder you can not seat the ball tight on the powder without an air space.
Secondly, we all know that a properly fitted breechplug will have the front of the threaded plug butted tightly against the shoulder formed by the front of the barrel threads. WE know that but Traditions does not! Rather than a square shoulder at the front of the barrel threads they cut a cone, tapering from thread diameter to bore diameter. Thus, no way the flat face of the plug can seat against the tapered shoulder of the barrel. That leaves a gap which collects fouling that can in no way be removed. The gap will also catch the cleaning patch when one pushes it down to the plug and tries to pull it back out.
Third, they recognized the problem of catching the patch and tried to correct it by cutting a cone into the bore rather like the forcing cone at the rear of a revolver barrel. That does not correct the patch grabbing problem but only adds another issue.
There is no logical reason for any of these deviations from normal breech design. The extra long thread does not make the breech stronger as the weak link is still the thread wall thickness. It doesn't make ignition better, the double length of powder chamber is just a place to collect fouling which can not be cleaned in the field unless one carries a .22 bore brush with threads to fit the ramrod. It does not reduce production cost but actually adds extra machine operations.
The only thing it does is leave a gap to collect fouling and moisture and to make one scratch their head and wonder "why in hell did they do that?" :cursing:

 

[Pittsburghunter]

That is true and I must add the T/C does the same thing but it ends up being a .30cal brush needed for the cleaning. I have no explaination why they do it but it seems to work at least for me.

I ain't no gun smith so I have no clue why it is made that way but I have not had the troubles you have had with the design.

You just said yourself you have had no problems with the Crockett going off.

Do they know something we don't?

 

[CoyoteJoe]

Well, I know there is a ring of fouling filling the gap between the front of the breech plug and the rear of the bore that can't be removed. I do not know what the long term result of that may be but I don't think it can be good. I know I can't use the 10-15 grain plinking loads I'd like to use in this little .32 due to the extra long powder chamber. I know I don't like such foolishness from the manufacturer.
I've never pulled a T/C breechplug and can't say if they do something like that but in view of the other foolishness I've seen I would not be surprised. :grin:

 

[davy]

Somebody had requested this earlier ... hope this helps :thumbsup:

Davy

 

[Pittsburghunter]

Your complaint makes much more sence to me now. I have not had the problem with the small loads in the Crockett because the manual starts at 20g of powder and I have followed that.

The T/C rifles min load well exceded this space so that is not a problem for me.

I just have had more trouble with the drum type in the past that I made the switch to the snail type but now that I use real BP almost all the time problems with both styles has gone away. :thumbsup: