original 1822 sprinfield U.S. issue "BIG FLASH IN THE PAN"

[jdavis]

Today, to my grat delight, a friend let me shoot this 190+ year old musket. It was a great experiance. Also, this was my first chance to shoot a flintlock. Now I expected a flash when the #4 powder was ignited in the pan, but $#@*, my right eye is still ( hours later ) irritated. Yes, I had on safety glases. I hope this is not the norm. I sometime ago purchased a late katlend flint lock for a squirel rifle build. I dont think my eyes can take many more flashes like those of today. I am a greenhorn as far as flint locks. I hope those 'blast of a flash' today may have been do to too much powder in the pan. I notised that when priming the pan my friend filled it slap up to the brim. That springfield has a very large pan. My first shot darned near blinded me. Yep, did the manly thing and after filling the pan took a second shoot. I think it was that one that almost burnt my retina out! Long story short, would things have worked out better if I had just laid a fine line of powder up to and just under the flash hole?

One eyed jack signing off.

Thanks, and give me a little help.

[Dave R]

You only need the pan 1/3 full of priming powder!

[Mike Brooks]

My right eye ball was burned to a cinder from flintlocks 35 years ago. I looks like Popeye the sailor man now.

[Hungry Horse]

Usually a flintlock with even a short fence at the rear of the pan will not do this. The amount of 4F may have been the problem. So my advice from here on is to not let someone else prime your piece. I would also recommend you not shoot guns of this age.

  Hungry Horse

[jdavis]

All good advise. Mike's bad eye really concerns me. I wear glases with safty lenzes. Hopfully that will protect my eye. Maybe I should get some sort of shade for my glses. I really do want to continue shooting flint, but, I kind of like the idea of  keeping my shooting eye in good order.

Thanks

[Hungry Horse]

I have owned,and built, flintlock rifles, pistols, and trade guns, over the past forty years, and have never had the pan priming flash back in my face. Now I have not shot these guns in a stiff head wind, but I have shot them in a head wind, and nothing came dark into my eyes. I did have a caplock gun blow fire in my face, but that was do to the drum having undetected flame cutting of the nipple threads, at the rear of the drum. I've also had percussion shotguns, and percussion revolvers, with burned out nipples do this as well. I suspect there might be a breech leak in this gun. If it hasn't been debreeched,and checked, it should be done before anybody fire it again. I M O.

  Hungry Horse

[WadePatton]

Usually a flintlock with even a short fence at the rear of the pan will not do this. The amount of 4F may have been the problem. So my advice from here on is to not let someone else prime your piece. I would also recommend you not shoot guns of this age...

That last part.  I'm now of the "don't shoot genuine originals" school*.  Also bet that gun was originally primed with the same powder as the main charge (not FFFF).  4F simply isn't necessary to prime a flinter.

*Has to do with preservation of fingers and eyeballs, and the limited stock of originals extant.

[jdavis]

Very good point about a breech leak.  I asked the  owner of this gun about is cleaning teckniqe. He stated that he only used lemon juice on the wood and a wax of some kind on the exterior  barrel. When asked about cleaning the bore, he said that he only used a dry wire bore brush unless the rifle was disassembled. I found this to be alarming. I also sugested he use ballistol to clean bore and all other metal and wood if a take down was not in his plans. He said that a musiam curator at springfield armory advised him against such bore cleaning. This is a well meaning and all around good fellow. I think he just got a little bad advice. Given all the above, it is very likly that the breech to breech plug junction is extremely questionable.
    With all said and ill advised, shooting this musket was a high point in my life long shootin hobby. BUT, THAT IS THE LAST 190+ YEAR OLD GUN IM SHOOTING!

Jdavis

[Daryl]

I fill all my pans with powder - I wear glasses - no burnt eyeball(s).  Perhaps someone is exaggerating?

[Dennis Glazener]

Very good point about a breech leak.  I asked the  owner of this gun about is cleaning teckniqe. He stated that he only used lemon juice on the wood and a wax of some kind on the exterior  barrel. When asked about cleaning the bore, he said that he only used a dry wire bore brush unless the rifle was disassembled. I found this to be alarming. I also sugested he use ballistol to clean bore and all other metal and wood if a take down was not in his plans. He said that a musiam curator at springfield armory advised him against such bore cleaning. This is a well meaning and all around good fellow. I think he just got a little bad advice. Given all the above, it is very likly that the breech to breech plug junction is extremely questionable.
    With all said and ill advised, shooting this musket was a high point in my life long shootin hobby. BUT, THAT IS THE LAST 190+ YEAR OLD GUN IM SHOOTING!

Jdavis

Maybe a combination of enlarged flash hole and too much priming powder.
I have NEVER had a flash like you describe and I usually fill the pan about level full of 4F (late Ketland lock). I try to always remember to wear shooting glasses but often I have forgotten them and so far I have been lucky not to have gotten any residue in my eye.

I think I would shy away from this fellow and his original flintlock:D
Dennis
ps Photos of Mike Brooks don't make him look like Popeye so he may have just dreamed about his burnt out eye!

[jdavis]

No exzaggaration! Been messing around with black powder for some time. It scared the heck out my fellow shooters also. But, they figured best not to take a shot after my expeeiance.

Johnny

[Marcruger]

jdavis sir,  Are you by chance a lefty shooting a right handed musket? 

I can see that if the flash hole is too large, and the pan over-primed, you could get a big fireball. 

How that gets over to the opposite side enough to reach an eyeball...of that I am less sure. 

I learned a long while back to not stand on the pan side of someone shooting a flintlock.  I don't know how the regular line troops fired muskets while being spewed/sprayed/peppered by their neighbor.  Tough men in tough times. 

Best wishes,  Marc

[Natureboy]

  I have read that when firing in order of battle, with fellow soldiers shoulder to shoulder, the practice was to look way when the order to fire was given, so as not to get the neighbor's flash in the face.  For the same reason, they fired in volleys, with those loading their guns at the rear of the formation.  You don't want that paper cartridge or powder horn in the path of those large touch holes.

[Daryl]

I have yet to see an original flint musket with less than an 1/8" wide vent.
THAT is not a good thing.
  It needs to be lined - or not shot.
It is dangerous for anyone standing to your right side. Particles of powder- burning and hitting someone in the eyes might find yourself in a litigious situation.

[Marcruger]

" I have read that when firing in order of battle, with fellow soldiers shoulder to shoulder, the practice was to look way when the order to fire was given, so as not to get the neighbor's flash in the face."

So much for cheek weld eh?   :-)   Best wishes,   Marc

[Natureboy]

  Firing volleys in the F&I and Rev War, the enemy was about 75 yards away, so any technical shooting was irrelevant.  Snipers would use a good cheek weld, but for soldiers in the line, who probably couldn't see much through the smoke anyway, just putting a wall of lead downrange was all that mattered.

[WadePatton]

  Firing volleys in the F&I and Rev War, the enemy was about 75 yards away, so any technical shooting was irrelevant.  Snipers would use a good cheek weld, but for soldiers in the line, who probably couldn't see much through the smoke anyway, just putting a wall of lead downrange was all that mattered.

I noticed this in a movie lately.  I thought-WHAT the CRIPES??! and then I realized that the whole notion of marksmanship could not coexist with volleys. 

It helped preserve eyeballs for a little longer.  Doesn't much matter when a man is firing line volleys in war. 

[oldtravler61]

 Daryl wonder if the touch hole was burned out more than the 1/8? Might be why it flashed so much. Don't know wasn't there.   Mike

[JCKelly]

Have a nice melted spot on my right glasses LENS, can still remember seeing that red spark sail back at me. I suspect it was part of the leather on my flint, new rifle not old musket.

WRT old muskets, might wanna read Harpers Ferry and the new Technology, by Merritt Roe Smith, copyright 1977

[Daryl]

Daryl wonder if the touch hole was burned out more than the 1/8? Might be why it flashed so much. Don't know wasn't there.   Mike

Definitely worn - the vents were not 1/18" when the guns were new.  Vent liners is an English 'sporting' thing - not military.  I've never heard of an old musket having a vent liner.

Now the English did experiment with self priming, - 1/2 cock, frizzen closed, and load.  A larger than normal vent allowed the powder charge to blow out the vent as the ball was "rammed home".

We do NOT load that way today - it is unsafe. That was the military method of loading- mostly.