Is chain fire more likely from the front end with ball or conical bullet ?

[M. De Land]

I don't think I've ever heard this question addressed before . My guess is more people shoot balls than bullets so from that prospective I would think it happens more when balls are used but as we don't seem to talk about the need to shave lead with conicals and I'm quite sure they are often seated out of square would they not also be vulnerable to chain fire?
I also think greased wad use is a preventative factor with either method,

 

[russellshaffer]

Fasten your seat belt. Good question, though.

 

[wiscoaster]

Ya, interesting question for sure, and never seen it addressed either, so posting just to watch thread for comments.

 

[Smokerr]

Its a question without an answer. No one keeps data.

So its just speculation.

There is one poster who believes Chain Fires come from the rear based his observation at a match some years back. I am not going to say he is blowing smoke (pun)

But I have seen the tests and had caps fall off and no chain fire from the rear.

Equally I have shot 60 Canonicals and they seated just fine in 3 guns. So my experience/opinion is it is not an issue and less than balls as you have more sealing surface. So based on a sample of 60, not.

Sadly I have shot far more balls and no chain fire there either. sigh. Where does that leave our heroes? Speculating. Conicals I bought were .457 or bigger, would have to look it up.

Not sure about greased wads, I use treated when I am brushing margins with .451 balls. Evidence in using wads in front of bullets that it makes a good flame arrestor as no blast marks came through even half way.

 

[M. De Land]

Its a question without an answer. No one keeps data.

So its just speculation.

There is one poster who believes Chain Fires come from the rear based his observation at a match some years back. I am not going to say he is blowing smoke (pun)

But I have seen the tests and had caps fall off and no chain fire from the rear.

Equally I have shot 60 Canonicals and they seated just fine in 3 guns. So my experience/opinion is it is not an issue and less than balls as you have more sealing surface. So based on a sample of 60, not.

Sadly I have shot far more balls and no chain fire there either. sigh. Where does that leave our heroes? Speculating. Conicals I bought were .457 or bigger, would have to look it up.

Not sure about greased wads, I use treated when I am brushing margins with .451 balls. Evidence in using wads in front of bullets that it makes a good flame arrestor as no blast marks came through even half way.

Well there is no reason for it to happen from the rear if you have hammer spring enough to hold the fired cap in place sealing the chamber off and are using good nipples but let either of those laps and you have far more exposure to fire through an open nipple orifice than any grease or wad sealed ball or bullet from the front end.
It can happen from either end and there are specific mechanical reasons why this is possible.

 

[Smokerr]

Well I have seen the tests and I don't believe a rear ignition is likely, aka close to impossible.

First there is no where near the flame front out of a cone. It has to come out a tiny orifice that is small than powder grains. Then it has to turn 90 deg, then 90 deg again and then get down through an larger and then the small orifice again.

Front, yep, bad seal, direct passage into powder with a lot of flame front and blast in play.

But then that is me and my take. Others can disagree of course.

 

[M. De Land]

Well I have seen the tests and I don't believe a rear ignition is likely, aka close to impossible.

First there is no where near the flame front out of a cone. It has to come out a tiny orifice that is small than powder grains. Then it has to turn 90 deg, then 90 deg again and then get down through an larger and then the small orifice again.

Front, yep, bad seal, direct passage into powder with a lot of flame front and blast in play.

But then that is me and my take. Others can disagree of course.

Take a look at some slow motion photos of percussion revolver fire about dark and then tell me there is no reason for it to happen from the rear !
What you saw was a test trying to prove one point of view not a test of possibilities when some part of a revolver has a weakness as many of them do even fresh from the factory.
Ever see a flint gun fire with no pan charge just from sparks that make it through the flash hole orifice. A leaky nipple seal will produce a lot more fire out the back end bouncing off the hammer face and recoil shield from the chamber than any flint gun can produce from a frizzen strike that has to negotiation a right angle turn to light the fire.
Any loose cap that has exposed a worn nipple is certainly susceptible to this fire storm out the back end caused by a weak hammer spring or burned out nipple.
Burned out nipples present huge irregular orifices compared to fresh new ones.

 

[45D]

Well I have seen the tests and I don't believe a rear ignition is likely, aka close to impossible.

First there is no where near the flame front out of a cone. It has to come out a tiny orifice that is small than powder grains. Then it has to turn 90 deg, then 90 deg again and then get down through an larger and then the small orifice again.

Front, yep, bad seal, direct passage into powder with a lot of flame front and blast in play.

But then that is me and my take. Others can disagree of course.

I agree. I know a fellow that ran tests firing fully loaded cylinders using one cap at a time . . . never had a chain fire.
I never had one either when I shot bp. Always used Ox Yoke dry lube wads.

Mike

 

[Smokerr]

While my cap fall off is not major, I have had it happen and certainly zero issue.

Physics is interesting and jets of flame don't change directions readily.

I have problems sometimes with the powder going boom with a good cap pop on the chamber with a hammer atop it.

Someone filmed primers firing in the dark, Remington as I recall looked the best, Bench Rest guys use CCI.

Just because you see St. Elmos fire does not mean it can change directions. A cone has no powder trail in it. Go with 4F and maybe it would. Dang, I may have to try that.

 

[ZUG]

I had an 1849 Colt clone kit and with #11 caps that revolver would have multiple cylinders discharges every time The balls were tight fitting and had grease on top. NO WAY for the flame to enter from the front. I don't care what people say my money is flame entering the cap and discharging the cap then setting off the charge in the cylinder.

 

[M. De Land]

I agree. I know a fellow that ran tests firing fully loaded cylinders using one cap at a time . . . never had a chain fire.
I never had one either when I shot bp. Always used Ox Yoke dry lube wads.

Mike

That just proves the hammer spring and nipples were in good shape causing the spent cap to seal the rear of the chamber. There wouldn't be any fire leak at the back to cause an adjacent chamber to ignite.
The wads and proper fitting balls sealed it at the front end hence no multiple discharge.

 

[45man]

I don't know how many have seen what the hammer does but videos have shown that ALL guns will have the hammers blown back, we have seen them reach full cock from the pressure. Even modern bolt actions will have the firing pin forced to the rear.
My experience with C&B was a chainfire from the rear when fire got under a loose cap. A loaded chamber with no cap is unlikely to go off but fire will set off a cap.
Sorry but no hammer spring will hold a cop in place to seal the chamber.

 

[Mikekj]

“

Is chain fire more likely from the front end with ball or conical bullet ?”​

Neither.
They both shave lead.
Conicals have a rebated base to fit into the chamber, thus assuring proper alignment, thus proper lead shaving.

 

[M. De Land]

“

Is chain fire more likely from the front end with ball or conical bullet ?”​

Neither.
They both shave lead.
Conicals have a rebated base to fit into the chamber, thus assuring proper alignment, thus proper lead shaving.

I've not seen any lead shaving from the conicals I've been shooting nor heard of it from any one else using them although admittedly realitively new to the practice of bullet shooting ( only using balls for 50 years) in percussion revolvers!
My new Walker has tapered chambers and I'm wondering now if that might not be for the reason of sealing ball or bullet against chain fire.
This thought may prevent me from reaming any more than the chamber throats to groove diameter leaving the chamber taper and 45 degree reamer end taper for a ledge constriction to seal against although parallel chamber walls work fine with good fitting projectiles ,wads and grease as well.
Good discussion and counter thought !

 

[M. De Land]

I don't know how many have seen what the hammer does but videos have shown that ALL guns will have the hammers blown back, we have seen them reach full cock from the pressure. Even modern bolt actions will have the firing pin forced to the rear.
My experience with C&B was a chainfire from the rear when fire got under a loose cap. A loaded chamber with no cap is unlikely to go off but fire will set off a cap.
Sorry but no hammer spring will hold a cop in place to seal the chamber.

What I have observed is the split spent caps staying in place under the hammer after firing when good nipples and strong main spring is used and no multiple fire ever to this date.
In 50 years of percussion revolver competing must be doing something right in sealing off both ends.

 

[Smokerr]

Now I am going to have to use up the last of the connicals - I don't remember or not remember shaving lead.

I ran one round of 6 through the 47 Walker, no wads I think as the bullet took up a lot of space.

The JD bullet has the rebated end, not sure all designs did/do. I had no issues inserting or even. The Band is .457. But if you are using non BP revolver designs then that is a different zebra or a Concial that is not period correct (at least for revolvers, patched ML is a different thing entirely of course.

 

[M. De Land]

Now I am going to have to use up the last of the connicals - I don't remember or not remember shaving lead.

I ran one round of 6 through the 47 Walker, no wads I think as the bullet took up a lot of space.

The JD bullet has the rebated end, not sure all designs did/do. I had no issues inserting or even. The Band is .457. But if you are using non BP revolver designs then that is a different zebra or a Concial that is not period correct (at least for revolvers, patched ML is a different thing entirely of course.

The point being I have never heard of anyone shaving lead when using bullets of any type, only balls. So why is it so critical that balls shave lead and not bullets? It would seem that balls shaving lead would be of tighter gas seal to the chambers than are bullets and most all ball shooters are using over ball lube, wads or both?
So, are bullets less likely to cause multiple fire from the front or are balls if in fact most chain fire is actually occurring from the front of the cylinder which I question ?

 

[45D]

A ball has a very slight bearing/ sealing surface vs a bullet has considerable bearing/sealing surface.

Mike

 

[wiscoaster]

A ball has a very slight bearing/ sealing surface vs a bullet has considerable bearing/sealing surface.

Mike

Good point. Shaving lead off the bearing surface of a conical lead bullet would be shaving a considerable amount of lead. I don't think they're really supposed to have to do that, no? If it's a grooved conical, wouldn't the groove lube serve as a gas seal? At least insofar as topping off the chamber of a round ball load with chamber lube? Seems logical, but I'm just speculating from logic, not experience and knowledge.

 

[AlexB]

The lee .45 don't shave a circle for me but the eras gone kerr sure does.
Accuracy is better with the balls than the conicals for me as well.
I use .454 balls and the kerr is .457 at its widest while the lee is .45.