AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: Eric Smith on April 23, 2012, 03:07:46 AM
-
I hear a lot about touch hole liners, but what I want to know is are there any historical references to them, or are they a modern creation? What is PC for a 1700s to 1830s gun?
-
Depends on where the gun was made, when, and what the purpose of the gun was. I don't know of any military muskets in the 1700's which had touch hole liners when newly made. There is no data supporting things were different on newly made American made rifles in the period. However, touch hole liners were used on the finest European and some very fine American arms of the period. When touch holes burned out on a colonial or American rifle, the gunsmith had decisions to make. Was the breech still good or was the powder chamber burnt out and the threads in bad shape? If the breech was good, the touchhole was dilled out, threaded and a bushing was fitted, trimmed off and drilled for the touchhole. We don't know what proportion of these "touch hole liners" were concave on the inside as modern touch hole liners, and fancy touch hole liners on higher end guns of the period were.
If the breech was shot out when the touchhole became too large, then the barrel was cut off at the breech past the powder chamber, re-threaded, a breechplug re-fitted, and the barrel was set back in the stock and a new touch hole drilled. The fore-end of the gun was cut off, new nose cap made, underlugs might be moved, etc. The muzzleloading revival centered around target shooting and folks recognized that in the late flint period, touch hole liners gave faster ignition. They became established and for years nobody questioned that contemporary rifles patterned after originals in excruciating detail were being made with touchlole liners that did not exist on originds when new. This is market driven. Folks want the best ignition possible, and a concave inner chamber and a thin web do that.
-
How many of you forgo the liner and just drill a touchhole? Just for the record, how many shot/ignitions would it take to "burn out" a touch hole drilled into a barrel made of todays steel?
-
I use one of Tom Snyder's tools and drill an interior coned touch hole in the barrel. No liner. Works great. How long will it last?? But then as Rich suggested a liner can be used to repair it....
-
I've converted to the inside coning of the barrel using Tom Snyder's tool. I think that w/o any coning, it would take 20,000 shots or more, or a fair amount of neglect, or both, to burn out a touchhole drilled straight through the wall of a modern steel barre. If coned and the web is thin, probably half that. I never use anything harder than copper wire for a vent pick. I think more vents get buggered out than burned out. The popular steel, forged, square and twisty "vent picks" are more like reamers in my view.
-
What size drill bit do you use for a touchhole? 1/16th?
-
I hear a lot about touch hole liners, but what I want to know is are there any historical references to them, or are they a modern creation? What is PC for a 1700s to 1830s gun?
Before stainless steel they were made of Gold and then Platinum after circa 1800.
These are seen on better grade American arms. Simeon North Pistols and guns by Haslett. Guns by both with liners are shown in "Steel Canvas".
Others as well I am sure.
But the low grade guns like Kentucky rifles did not usually have them.
There is a difference in reliability between a properly made and installed liner and a "plain" vent.
Dan
-
What size drill bit do you use for a touchhole? 1/16th?
that's a good start. then open a little more if needed.
-
So, to expand on the subject just a bit, and to clarify, rifles made by J. Dickert, W. Haga, Bonewitz, and Peter Gonter, H. Rupp, would not have touchhole liners? Period correct for them would be just a drilled hole?
-
Yup. But whether those makers coned the inside of the barrel - don't know.
-
Yup. But whether those makers coned the inside of the barrel - don't know.
By coning, you mean the touch hole right, like the tool Tom Snyder makes. Not the muzzle.
-
By coning we all mean Tom Snyder's tool or the one in one of the JHAT booklets, to cone the inside of the touch hole.
As far as I have ever heard there is no evidence of an original "common" Kentucky longrifle having a touch hole liner when new. There is no doubt that some high end guns of the period in the colonies or new nation and in Europe had touch hole liners installed. As Dan mentioned these were usually of precious metal, gold or platinum.
Rebushing a burned out touch hole was common, this was discussed recently. It is not well documented whether the rebushed (in iron) touch hole "liners" were coned on the inside. So the presence of an obvious threaded iron bushing on a well used American flintlock is not normally considered first work, nor is it clear that it resembles modern touchhole liners, which are great for ignition, reliability and top performance. And modern touch hole liners are available in steel which blends nicely with many barrels. The choices one makes with using or not using touch hole liners on contemporary builds depends on what one wants!
-
By coning we all mean Tom Snyder's tool or the one in one of the JHAT booklets, to cone the inside of the touch hole.
As far as I have ever heard there is no evidence of an original "common" Kentucky longrifle having a touch hole liner when new. There is no doubt that some high end guns of the period in the colonies or new nation and in Europe had touch hole liners installed. As Dan mentioned these were usually of precious metal, gold or platinum.
Rebushing a burned out touch hole was common, this was discussed recently. It is not well documented whether the rebushed (in iron) touch hole "liners" were coned on the inside. So the presence of an obvious threaded iron bushing on a well used American flintlock is not normally considered first work, nor is it clear that it resembles modern touchhole liners, which are great for ignition, reliability and top performance. And modern touch hole liners are available in steel which blends nicely with many barrels. The choices one makes with using or not using touch hole liners on contemporary builds depends on what one wants!
Thanks for clearing that up Rich.
-
I hear a lot about touch hole liners, but what I want to know is are there any historical references to them, or are they a modern creation?
The Committee of 1631 established Rates for Gunmakers in England. One of the operations on that list was:
For a touch hole liner screw'd......... -- -- 6d
It was obviously a common operation that already existed prior to the publishing of those rates which would put it into the match and wheel lock era. It did not just miraculously appear when English gunmakers started using precious metals to make liners. Progress dictated that the superior properties of gold and platinum made them suitable for use. Prior to that, they would have been a simple bushing that was screwed into the barrel and a new hole drilled.
Since the preponderance of early settlers were English, there is no reason to believe that they would not have taken their guns to a smith when the touch hole burned out. Properly done, an iron liner would have been an invivisble repair.
-
A threaded insert for repair of a burned out touch hole is such a simple and basic procedure, no evidence at all needs to be presented to believe it to have been common practice in my view. Further, there are a few longrifles that come to mind where these can be seen. These may have never been completely invisible and with corrosion their presence could be further revealed.
-
.....and there would be no way to tell on all of those guns that had been converted or reconverted. Relining would seem simpler than setting the barrel back and obviously more economical than barrel replacement. J.D.
-
Ok, now I'm confused. Let me ask another way. How many antique rifles that exist today show evidence of a touchhole liner, Kindigs rifles and others?
-
How many antique rifles that exist today show evidence of a touchhole liner, Kindigs rifles and others?
The question is irrelevant:
1. The process has been in common use as a repair for centuries.
2. No one has examined ALL antique rifles that exist today.
-
Ok, now I'm confused. Let me ask another way. How many antique rifles that exist today show evidence of a touchhole liner, Kindigs rifles and others?
How many? Every single one that has been reconverted from percussion to flintlock, or was originally percussion and has been retro-flintlocked. In other words when a gun was converted to percussion from flint, they drilled out the touchhole and threaded the hole for a drum. When during restoration a gun is converted back to flint, that threaded hole from the drum is filled with a threaded rod and a touch hole is re-drilled. So it looks like a touch hole liner was used, but it's really a drum-hole filler. Since maybe 2/3 of antique rifles that were originally flint were percussed at some time (wild guess), then at least 2/3 would show evidence of a "touch hole liner".
The next question is how many that were always flint had to be re-bushed at some point. Only those that got shot a lot.
Not sure where the confusion lies. For clarity you might ask how many were re-bushed after the original touchhole burned out. Second question, how many had their barrels shortened and set back. Third question, how many had a touch hole liner installed when newly built. That would cover the possibilities.
-
For clarity you might ask how many were re-bushed after the original touchhole burned out. Second question, how many had their barrels shortened and set back. Third question, how many had a touch hole liner installed when newly built. That would cover the possibilities.
Rich,
Still irrelevant, because no one knows, nor could the answer ever be ascertained. The existing sample is too large to examine and looking at a smaller sample would provide a statistical answer relevant only to that sample. No clarity would be evident.
-
I agree, nobody is all-knowing about the existing antique longrifles and we are not sure the existing ones are representative of "all originals". A lot of questions are unanswerable.
Here's a riddle for you Eric: What proportion of original Bucks County guns had side-opening patchboxes? By "Bucks County gun" I mean a gun made in current Bucks county during the flintlock period.
-
So, to expand on the subject just a bit, and to clarify, rifles made by J. Dickert, W. Haga, Bonewitz, and Peter Gonter, H. Rupp, would not have touchhole liners? Period correct for them would be just a drilled hole?
Unless "bushed" due to gas cutting surely a "plain" vent. New vents WERE installed in guns. Its documeted. What they looked like?
We also have to remember that a great many surviving flintlock rifles were converted to percussion then reconverted to flint so we have really little idea what was really done when they were new or modifications before being "percussed" since it was all destroyed.
I think there is something everyone needs to understand here. The Kentucky rifle, on average, was not a high quality gun when compared to guns and rifles from Europe or even some of the guns from some places in the east like Philly or Baltimore. They were not "best quality" firearms. Nor were they made for landed gentry (for the most part), "peers" or royalty.
Dan
-
They were the best that could be made at the time and place of there manufacture, usually by men that were good all around smiths. The European pieces were generally made by piece workers and subs. It is always easier to make a trigger guard if all that you do is make stacks of trigger guards. Even Ezekiel Baker, who made complete pattern rifles for the Pattern Room probably did no other smith work on a daily basis like any small town gunsmith could do. And BTW there was some really crude work done in Europe also. There are whole arsenals of muskets still on their racks in Europe and many are very crude with Draw knife and scraper marks on the stocks, vents burned out, vice marks on the breeches, hammer marks on the tangs and trigger guards, locks held on by nails, etc.
No barrel liners anywhere but I bet that they ignite on demand.
Cheers,
Danny
-
So, to expand on the subject just a bit, and to clarify, rifles made by J. Dickert, W. Haga, Bonewitz, and Peter Gonter, H. Rupp, would not have touchhole liners? Period correct for them would be just a drilled hole?
Unless "bushed" due to gas cutting surely a "plain" vent. New vents WERE installed in guns. Its documeted. What they looked like?
We also have to remember that a great many surviving flintlock rifles were converted to percussion then reconverted to flint so we have really little idea what was really done when they were new or modifications before being "percussed" since it was all destroyed.
I think there is something everyone needs to understand here. The Kentucky rifle, on average, was not a high quality gun when compared to guns and rifles from Europe or even some of the guns from some places in the east like Philly or Baltimore. They were not "best quality" firearms. Nor were they made for landed gentry (for the most part), "peers" or royalty.
Dan
We have some nice long rifles in the Huntington Museum of Art and the one credited to Daniel Boone is a superb example of an unused one while the Simon Kenton rifle next to it shows use and wasn't a high grade gun to begin with.
Upscale American muzzle loaders apparently did not start showing up until well into the percussion era and most of them were from the Northeastern areas. Tom Rowe's book on American Percussion Schuetzen Rifles is full of them.
Our long rifle makers of today have so many advantages over those of the 18th century that to compare the products of that era with the products of today is almost a waste of effort.
We have better health,eyesight,lighting and last but not least,tools of every description plus materials of known analysis and their benefits.
Bob Roller
-
They were the best that could be made at the time and place of there manufacture, usually by men that were good all around smiths. The European pieces were generally made by piece workers and subs. It is always easier to make a trigger guard if all that you do is make stacks of trigger guards. Even Ezekiel Baker, who made complete pattern rifles for the Pattern Room probably did no other smith work on a daily basis like any small town gunsmith could do. And BTW there was some really crude work done in Europe also. There are whole arsenals of muskets still on their racks in Europe and many are very crude with Draw knife and scraper marks on the stocks, vents burned out, vice marks on the breeches, hammer marks on the tangs and trigger guards, locks held on by nails, etc.
No barrel liners anywhere but I bet that they ignite on demand.
Cheers,
Danny
I did not think we were discussing military arms.
Look at a the external finish on a S&W "Victory Model" vs an otherwise identical M&P revolver made in 1938 for the civilian market. Yet they were made on the same equipment by the same people. I doubt that the S&W employees were happy doing this level of work. But it kept the company from going bankrupt at the eve of WW-II. The INTERNALS were properly polished just like the civilian models, they were "right" where it counted. Some the the Webleys of the same era had even cruder exteriors looks like 80 grit belt sander polish. But a crudely finished revolver would shoot the enemy just as well as a well polished one and at the time this was the key point.
A few years back a friend of mine was looking at handguns in the local guns store, specifically the rounded snag free things that are popular with some. He states, to paraphrase, "I spent too much time trying to keep edges sharp to buy something with a botched job of polishing".
I guess my question would be, "why would I make a poorly finished gun if I did not have to for some reason beyond my control?"
What was the opinion of the poorly finished guns by the people MAKING them. But then the ruler was likely not paying much for them either.
I see no point in of celebrating mediocrity.
Why would Baker, for example, make a barrel when he could order one cheaper than he could make it.
A great many American rifles had locks and barrels made somewhere besides the gunstockers shop. The castings were probably purchased as well.
So you see "Virginia" rifles with "Dickert" buttplates. Or is it the other way around?
Barrels and locks from England and Germany were in shop inventories in PA by the 1750s.
The idea that the American Gunsmith made everything "in house" is a myth. They bought a lot of parts. Birmingham was making gun parts by the ship load by the time of the American Revolution and exporting them anyplace there was a market.
It was cheaper to buy than to make.
I like to make things in house when I can or as needed for some project. But locks from Chambers, for example, are so nicely done that I see little point in making something they can furnish that only needs polish.
Dan
-
I use one of Tom Snyder's tools and drill an interior coned touch hole in the barrel. No liner. Works great. How long will it last?? But then as Rich suggested a liner can be used to repair it....
A Dremel with a medium sized round burr will do the same. That's my method.
-
So, to expand on the subject just a bit, and to clarify, rifles made by J. Dickert, W. Haga, Bonewitz, and Peter Gonter, H. Rupp, would not have touchhole liners? Period correct for them would be just a drilled hole?
Unless "bushed" due to gas cutting surely a "plain" vent. New vents WERE installed in guns. Its documeted. What they looked like?
We also have to remember that a great many surviving flintlock rifles were converted to percussion then reconverted to flint so we have really little idea what was really done when they were new or modifications before being "percussed" since it was all destroyed.
I think there is something everyone needs to understand here. The Kentucky rifle, on average, was not a high quality gun when compared to guns and rifles from Europe or even some of the guns from some places in the east like Philly or Baltimore. They were not "best quality" firearms. Nor were they made for landed gentry (for the most part), "peers" or royalty.
Dan
We have some nice long rifles in the Huntington Museum of Art and the one credited to Daniel Boone is a superb example of an unused one while the Simon Kenton rifle next to it shows use and wasn't a high grade gun to begin with.
Upscale American muzzle loaders apparently did not start showing up until well into the percussion era and most of them were from the Northeastern areas. Tom Rowe's book on American Percussion Schuetzen Rifles is full of them.
Our long rifle makers of today have so many advantages over those of the 18th century that to compare the products of that era with the products of today is almost a waste of effort.
We have better health,eyesight,lighting and last but not least,tools of every description plus materials of known analysis and their benefits.
Bob Roller
Trying to compare the better English guns to American guns of 1770-1790 is almost like apples and oranges. Different clientele is a MAJOR factor, unlimited gun budgets in some cases vs a hunter or farmer.
AS you point out just having electric lights is a major improvement.
I am largely helpless any more without an Optivisor of 5-10 power.
Dan
-
All too true, the firearms that I am into were often made by the thousands at the beginning of the industrial era or at the beginning of the musket era. The work shown was the best that they could do with what they had. They knew their empirical metallurgy, maybe the chemistry was a little fuzzy but they got good results. I think that applying modern, space age tolerances to centuries old machines is missing the point. With textiles, living historians and experimental archaeologists want loom woven fabrics and hand sewn seams, but their firearms have to have the close tolerances of a
modern sniper rifle? Isn't that a Fantasy Rifle ? Maybe the market wants perfection, after all, they will accept parts that are cast and should be forged and filed.
I think that I will follow my own path and only bush my vent when I have burned it out.
BTW my shop has no power except my right arm and some candles and doors but I can forge and file quite easily in there.
Danny
-
Danny, I think your view may be true in some cases, but not in others. For example if you've ever had the chance to study Paris made firearms from as early as the 17th century, it will be clear that close tolerances, fine finshes were obtained and employed on a regular basis. The key to all this is to understand the context. It seems sometimes people have a rather romantic view of things. It also helps a great deal when you've actually handled and studied these guns first hand. Actual experience building these things is a good thing too.
Jim
-
Jim, I am aware that such close tolerances were possible, The Romans could teach us a thing or two about accurate work and fitting. I have built a couple of rifles, I have one on the bench and a matchlock lock in the forge that is coming together. There will be an English doglock after these are finished. As for handling the antiques, I have access to but a few and we can't afford to move closer to the source like Paris, or Graz so I will have to use the best info that I have. Tools aren't a problem, I am a full time wooden yacht carpenter and have too much money tied up in books, carpentry tools and my blacksmith shop. What I can't afford to buy, I can make.
I am just waiting for my !#@%$&?!!! broken heel to heal so that I can finally move my carpentry bench into the blacksmith shop and mount my new post vice. :(
Anyhow, I appreciate good work but I am enamored by the early work and work that was affordable by the common man. A buddy of mine, whose family was nearly snuffed out in the Tuscarora War of 1712 wants to Re enact the Early West, just west of the East Coast, maybe 2 miles inland. He has a matchlock and I want one too. there will be tight fits in as many places as necessary and file marks and fire scale in many more places, much like a Mark 2 STEN. and just like the English made them in 1630. The clothes are kinda weird but we will get by.
Danny
-
If you want to see outrageous file fits look at crossbows of the 15th Century and 16th century matchlocks. The guns were more sophisticated than the muskets of the 1640s or even 1700 Spanish matchlocks. Auto pan covers, Sprung safeties, peep sights, 2 piece sears, engraved springs. Some were as plain as a yard of pipe water though. Beech was the most common stock wood, probably because of the predominance of edge tools among the stock carvers but fruit woods such as Lime are sometimes seen.
What did she smell like when she got hot?
But I hugely Digress.
Bolek ought to chime in here or Over the Back Fence.
Danny