Prime with 3F or 4F?

[tg]

"I have seen nothing from the 1700s or 1800s that says NO ONE used 4F or some faster prime in ANY flintlock at ANY time."

You probably won't because the terms were not around then, you will not likely see any reference to a '57 Chevy either, this has become silly.I think I will let the more experienced folks play with it.

 

[fyrfyter43]

Funny thing about the "keeping tradition alive", it seems to be a pick and choose situation.

Not so much "pick and choose" as living within my means, as well as within what is practical. And then there's also the legal aspect to deal with (think hunter orange).

No, my gear is not all historically correct. Far from it, actually. But I am working on it a little at a time, as my budget allows. With a new baby on the way (within the next 2 weeks or so), the budget doesn't allow for much right now. I've been shooting flintlocks for many years, but have recently taken more of an interest in the historical aspect of this hobby. Little things, such as using the same powder to prime as in the bore, make the experience a little more authentic for me.

As for practicality...yes, I drive my pickup to my hunting location. Unlike our ancestors, my hunting grounds are not right out my back door. If it were an option, I would gladly live somewhere that I could walk out my door and be hunting.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Just a reminder:

This topic is about 3F vs. 4F, not historically accurate reenacting or living history portrayals.

 

[roundball]

Good lord people...of the ML sites I visit, none, repeat none, have such constant BS derailing of topics as is done on the MLF by the same few people.

The OP asked about 3F / 4F priming powder...not a pitched battle on who is more traditional than somebody else, or stupid bumper stickers, or I'm taking my marbles and going home if you don't do it my way attitude.

You can work down through this thread and see a string of good, civil, informative, focused replies up to a point...then you can see exactly where somebody jumped in and started making provocative statements intended to inflame...like they usually do...and then you can see all the other little limb sitters start howling along with the one who howled at the moon.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so childish, disruptive, and predictable.

SUMMARY FOR THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
3F and 4F will both work.
4F is faster by design.
Its your decision.

 

[NJ Longbeard]

Thanks Roundball!!! You have answered my question with simplicity...... :hatsoff: .Ed

 

[lonehunter]

Good lord people...of the ML sites I visit, none, repeat none, have such constant BS derailing of topics as is done on the MLF by the same few people.

The OP asked about 3F / 4F priming powder...not a pitched battle on who is more traditional than somebody else, or stupid bumper stickers, or I'm taking my marbles and going home if you don't do it my way attitude.

You can work down through this thread and see a string of good, civil, informative, focused replies up to a point...then you can see exactly where somebody jumped in and started making provocative statements intended to inflame...like they usually do...and then you can see all the other little limb sitters start howling along with the one who howled at the moon.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so childish, disruptive, and predictable.

SUMMARY FOR THE ORIGINAL POSTER:
3F and 4F will both work.
4F is faster by design.
Its your decision.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

 

[hanshi]

I concur. I like and use 4f in a brass primer. Sometimes it gives out and I have to prime with 3f. Life is good.

 

[54ball]

Well' I guess I have a strange rifle. Working a load in my .45 caliber long rifle with a drilled vent I discovered it hated 4f as prime. It flashed but no ignition. It did slightly better with 3f as prime and the main charge. It flashed well but the main ignition was delayed and spotty. I had to over prime to get ignition causing a fuse effect with the lighter powder. Finally I tried 2f prime and 2f main and it goes boom every time. It has the classic tkpow of a flintlock but the main ignites reliably.

TheoryWith the drilled vent in this medium caliber rifle the smaller grain powders flashed away too quickly. The larger grain of the 2f stayed around a millisecond longer igniting the main charge.

I guess I could have made perform with 4f but this would have required a vent liner. Why ? It performs well enough as it is and I can't ask for a more reliable or accurate rifle as it is.

My contribution to this debate is this. Each rifle is different. What works well for John Q and his rifle may not work the best for you. While it may be true that 3f and 4f perform better in 90 plus percent of flintlock arms yours may not be one of them. A good shooter owes it to themselves to find the best combination for them and their rifle.

As a flintlock shooter I would have never dreamed that that rifle would have performed so well with all around 2f but it does. Yours may and probably will do better with a different combination. A good shooters job is to find it.

 

[Samuel]

:dead:

 

[Dphar]

If you should load without powder its much easier to work FFFF through the vent than FFF allowing the ball to be blown out. Whole process takes maybe a minute.
FFFF also lights easier, faster heat rise, etc etc.
I am currently using Swiss Null B which is finer than FFFF.
Dan