Nock breech shooters?

[Jerry V Lape]

I would like to hear the experiences of anyone routinely using a Nock breech  on their shotgun or rifles.  Specifically, how do they perform and what problems they may pose with regard to cleaning and maintenance. 

[Daryl]

Dan Phar mentioned his some time ago, in that with GOEX, it fouled badly after only a few shots, but with Swiss, it delivered excellent performance all day. So - a tendency to foul with poor grade of powder is one detriment, however in it's day, the owner would not have use any but Curtis & Harvey's #6, I presume.

As to any shooting qualities or advantages, I don't know.  It is supposd to give higher velocities.

[Jerry V Lape]

Roundball, I would like feedback on any or all similar breech designs.  The one I am contemplating is the one marked Chambered Breech in your diagram except I would like to see if I can't build it with the side drilled chamber about the same interior dimension as the inside of a White lighting liner then put in a shoulder Liner so I would have a short ignition path to the main charge.  Or, I might try to do a recessed breech with a liner but that requires I assemble a TRS Manton recessed late english flintlock to use with it which will lengthen my build another several months the way I pursue things. 

[Daryl]

Other breeches somewhat similar?

If the first pictured, hollowed out breech plug was bored slightly larger in diameter, the same as the outside of the cupped shape, it would indeed be quite similar to the Delvinge chambered breech, wherein the powder charge occupied the hollowed breech, and the ball - round or conical was then rammed against the sharp shoulders of the top of the breech to expand it into the rifling - was more accurate than a musket, but lacked patched round ball accuracy due to the deformation of the ball or bullet.  A similar idea, the Tige, used an internal rod with flat top, screwed into the plug itself. this extended some distance into the bore. The charge occupied the space around the rod, below it's top. The naked ball or slug was rammed - 3 strokes with the steel rod as in the Delvinge chamber, to expand the ball,conical or spherical into the rifling. When fouling occupied too much of the 'chamber', the ball could not contact either surface and thus, could not be bumped up to fit tightly in the bore, thus could roll or fall from the barrel is the muzzle was depressed, as in cavalry carry.  Neither system lasted long, however the US government bought thousands of these prior to the General Minnie's development.

As to the knock system (or the other) - I'd like to see someone get that clean, using wet patches.

[westerner]

I've been shooting a rifle made by Franz Dischler in Munich, 1860s. It has the Nock system.  Very fast ignition and has never hang fired.   No problems using Swiss 1.5.
Cleaning is easy.  Remove the screw and use a cotton swab.  No one noticed that screw in the left side?? 

               Joe.

[Don Getz]

Question?........do the benefits of such breeching outweigh the complications of cleaning?.    In what way are they better
than a standard flat plug with a white lightning liner?    How good a shooter would you have to be to notice the difference?............Don

[Daryl]

Constantly removing and re-placing screws in breeches lends itself to wearing threads, doesn't it? Our favourite rifles get pump cleaned every Sunday during the year and every day at rondy - some do.  to remove the screw would require removing the barrel anyway, unless the stock had a notch for the Nock screw. Might just as well pump the thing and get it clean.

[westerner]

I dont think theres any advantage to the Nock system.   This old German rifle is still in very good condition.  It has very fast ignition and is very accurate.  Actually, I must say it's the most accurate muzzle loader I own at 100 yards.   
 
I dont shoot it every Sunday.  Have to many other nice rifles that would get jealous if they dont get used.  Dont think I could wear the screw out.  Maybe I'll pump it clean Like you all do.   

Oh, the stock is notched to allow access to the clean out screw. And theres a cleanout screw on the hammer side also. That way it can be cleaned till it's squeaky clean.  Squeaky.   


                       Joe. 

[northmn]

I used a similar system in my 12 bore that I made out of a modern barrel so that I would not have to cut so much barrel off.  I made the breechplug long and bored a smaller hole in the face that created a powder chamber.  Mine is similar to the chambered breech.  I do not really have much problem with fouling out as much as cleaning. I also had to make a different vent liner to speed up ignition.  Some shotguns using the Nock systen also had large enough touch holes to be "self priming".  To get it really clean you have to pump and then also use a step down cleaning wipe like Roundball mentions.  I use a slotted 410 wiper.  While it is not much of a concern in a 12 bore, you do need a minimum charge of powder to fill the smaller system.  Mine requires about 50 grains. I really doubt if they give more velocity as Larry Pletcher timed two different breeches, one a standard flat faced breech and one a concave and found the flat faced breech faster.  A bottleneck case is considered faster as it incorporates a venturi effect.  This system is in effect the opposite.  I used it to gain another inch of barrel for aesthetics on a shorter barreled weapon.  Personally I would prefer a simpler flat faced breech system.  One thing the Nock breech permitted was the indentation of the locks on the English doubles that permitted a slimmer weapon and less reach for the thumbs to pull back the hammers.  Cleaning gun for an English gentleman that could afford the system was not an issue as he likely would not be the one cleaning it

[westerner]

Forgot to mention the lack of blowback.  Hammer always stays on the spent cap.   


                  Joe.

[westerner]

Wait a minute!  Maybe there is an advantage with the Nock system!!   



                 Joe. 

[Jerry V Lape]

Westerner, I got your PM, thanks. 

[Daryl]

No cap-lock should rise to 1/2 cock on firing, nor should the cap fragments fly about.  The ruptured cap should remain on the nipple until rising the hammer to 1/2 cock to clear it for loading or to re-cap. Such are all 3 of my cap locks, even the one that shoots 165gr. 2F.

[westerner]

All of my caplock rifles will blow the hammer to half cock if I use a nipple with a large bore hole.  I'm using a nipple with a large hole with the Nock system. The hammer stays down and the cap stays on the nipple.
To explain even further. I'm almost positive that if I used the nipple that I'm using in the Nock, in one of my other rifles, it would  blow the hammer to half cock.  I had to make my own nipple for the Nock breech and didnt have a tiny little drill bit.  I was surprised it didnt at least blow the cap off the nipple.  

Daryl, you seem to be fighting me every inch of the way on this subject. Thats okay, I'm a sportin kind of guy and I dont mind sparring with you.  

Take your best shot!


                    Joe.  

 

[westerner]

was pokin around and found this.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=14500.0

      Joe.

[Daryl]

Not sparring, Joe - not fighting with anyone. I have absolutely no idea where you get suggestion from.  As was noted in the earlier thread on these breeches, that design was originally used in flint ignitions, before caplocks. My mention that no cap-lock should blow the hammer back is correct - none should.  If they do, something is wrong - the nipple or the main spring needs attention.

As most TC's & the look-alike Italian guns blow the hammer to 1/2 cock with a hunting-type charge with a new, tiny hole nipple (mine did, Taylor's did and every one I see at Hefley does).  The reaosn they do, is the poor lock design which uses coil springs.

It is obvious they do not have a similar system, to the Nock breech - if looking at the pictures isn't obvious enough, the fact that Joe's German Nock design doesn't blow the hamer back, even with a large internal nipple hole.   Saying they are one and the same just doesn't make it so as was done early in this thread.  There are some similarities, but that's as far as that goes.

[northmn]

As Daryl states the Nock system was designed as a flintlock system and is generally referred to in that context.  While patent breech plugs may have incorporated some of the Nock features, the Nock system was developed as a means of using hooked breech plugs for take down guns and as a means of improving ignition.  Whether it did or not is debatable. As stated it also permitted the ability to create a smaller powder chamber which allowed for the bolster of the locks to be inletted into the breech for a slimmer gun and a flat surface for the lock to ride against.  English flint doubles are much slimmer than other European firearms that did not do this.  I would show a picture but I do not have one.  Track of the Wolf sells this style breech plug for making doubles.  My reason for using one was to permit the use of a 1 1/2 breech plug so as not to shorten the barrel too much when using a chambered modern barrel.
Percussion patent breech design is another issue, but percussion locks, especially back action, did not need to be recessed in that manner.  I will point out that a large number of target shooters either like underhammers or mule ears where the nipple is screwed directly into the barrel.  A few patent breeches were made where users found that they needed to take out the right angle powder chambers to improve performance.  They were built more like the chambered breeches illustrated.


DP

[Daryl]

Most patent breeches today, as delivered, have a small diameter hole, with an angled drilled hole straight lined from the bottom of the nipple hole, to the rear of the chamber.  A picture of the front of a normal modern patent breech probably has been posted here over the last number of years, however, I don't have it on file.

Some rifle makers enlarge 'cup-out' this small diameter initial hole to closer to bore size, leaving a sufficient 'boss' for bottoming the breech against the inner shoulder.

[Dphariss]

As an aside just for a bit of info, the reason that some TC's set the hammer back with heavy hunting loads wasn't because of the coil spring design....the coil spring design is fine.

The reason was that in the early years of production, the coils springs were too weak.
TC fixed that problem by cutting into production a slightly larger diameter and stronger coil spring which solved that solved the problem.  I'm sure there are thousands of the early style weaker springs still out there though.

The coil spring is a way to make a lock using unskilled labor.  It has no other desirable feature.

One must understand what Forsythe in "The Sporting Rifle and its Projectiles" called "the heavy first lifting" of the hammer on a percussion gun to grasp the idea of hammers blowing off the nipple and how this was prevented or at least greatly reduced by the makers of percussion rifles designed to shoot 100-120 grains of powder and 45 caliber bullets around 550 grains in weight. The technology was developed in the 18th century and was widely used on the best quality flintlocks by the 1780s if not before.

A properly designed lock takes less pressure,  a lot less in fact, to pull the hammer from 1/2 cock to full cock than to raise it off the nipple. Instead of feeling the mainspring "stack" it actually seems to do the opposite and seems to "unstack"  as the lock is cocked. Its necessary to experience this to understand it. While many locks have this feature to some minor extent. Few are as dramatic as a really good design that is assembled properly.
This started in the flintlocks with the stirrup tumblers and even to some extent with the "plain" tumbler.
It allows far less pressure at the sear nose when at full cock making it easier to get a nice trigger pull. In flint guns the increasing pressure as the cock moves forward helps to maintain the cock speed as the flint scrapes the frizzen. By the time percussion systems were in use the internal lock work was already perfected. The heavy pressure with the cock "down" was a real plus for the percussion guns.
In percussion guns the significantly higher pressure at rest will maintain the seat on the nipple and prevent the hammer from being blown off the nipple and is extreme cases even damaging the lock or worse the shooter.
This requires the tumbler, stirrup and mainspring to be properly designed and the mainspring carefully placed to make this work.  If the tumbler is not properly made or the mainspring is off in its placement the lock will still work. But not as it should. Many if not all available "stirrup" tumbler locks generally available today have to mainspring misplaced and thus the performance is generally a little or a lot "off".
Comparing a lock from a Rigby LR rifle of 1875 (or a Joe Manton Flintlock of 1810) to a modern coil spring lock is like trying to compare a Rolls Royce  to a Yugo.
 
Dan

[jim meili]

Dan has hit the nail on the head. I have an original second model Bess, I would say about 1780 was it's manufacture. The hammer has a real stout pull for the first 1/3 to 1/2 of its travel. then virtually falls into the half cock position. The move to full cock is relatively light. When it comes forward it's at full blast when it hits that frizzen on down to when it comes to rest.
Jim

[northmn]

There is a difference between how a leaf spring delivers its energy and a coil spring.  But both can work as it is the speed at which the flint hits the frizzen that counts.  In the case of a percussion it would not matter as long as it hits hard enough to set off the cap.  I had a CVA Deluxe lock I put in a spare parts rifle that would not set off a cap consistantly no matter how I tuned it.   I finally replaced the mainspring and it went bang just like any other rifle.  It would sometimes fall back to half cock with a stiffer load.  Many just jump a little.  It is still not desrable as some have chipped out tumblers or sears doing that. 
Many production breech plugs were drilled out in front and then cross drilled from the nipple channel to the chamber to give a right angle flame travel. Many would smooth out that section of right angle with a small grinder to get a more rounded intesection of the chamber flash channel.  Some of those breeches may have also had a bit of machine flashing from the drilling.  The so called clean out screws were the result of this drilling.  It also caused a lot of problems with fouling as once a patent or bolster breech starts to foul out after a lot of shooting you need to flush them out.  I have seen that happen with more than one percussion.  Also I still believe that a flintlock needs a certain pressure to clear out the vent when firing.  One individual seemed to have trouble with his 45 when he insisted on 25 grain loads.  I will point out that a few Nock breeches were self priming.

DP

[Dphariss]

From your quote of my simple post about facts regarding T/C's coil mainsprings, and then posting such a lengthy reply comparing them to other spings found in Flintlocks over the past couple centuries, the conclusion is that you completely missed the point of my brief, factual post.

I'll restate the facts with different words in hopes its easier to understand:

FACT:
T/C locks initially had a coil mainspring & guide rod, of a certain diameter and a certain amount of power;

FACT:
T/C later upgraded its coil mainspring & guide rod to a larger diameter and more power;

For ALR members who might have an interest in facts, I'll take a photo of both types side by side, and post them.
UPDATE:  Got home and it occurred to me that all my locks are the new style upgrades, haven't had any old style locks for years.




PS:  A PERFORMANCE FACT:
While I really like my recent Virginia / Dickert long rifle acquisitions, its really all about the looks and just trying something different.....because not a one of them has put down a good buck or a longbeard with any more authority than T/C's coil spring locks have done with 100% reliability for about the past 20 years.

This last paragraph is the classic defense of the factory mades.
They have their place but the manufacturing techniques speak for themselves.

Background:
I broke the mainspring on my picket rifle about 2 weeks ago (at a match of course). Cheap stamped spring in a late "Mowrey" I bought as a test bed. I over pressured it by shimming trying to keep the hammer on the nipple.
So in light of the discussion here I thought it would make an excellent visual explanation.
So I "fixed it" in about 3 minutes.



Folks will have to imagine the "bang" and the deer dying.


Dan

[Daryl]

Not fair, Dan - that one has 2 more 'rubbers' than a TC lock.

[Dave Faletti]

Dan.  When are you going into production with your new lock design?

I liked my TC.  It always worked fine but I haven't used it since making better rifles with nicer locks.  They could have made a better lock with a coil spring.  I'll stick with the technology and lock designs of the era I'm emulating regardless of whats best.  Worked well enough then and now. 

[westerner]

I imagined a big fat Prairie Dog, sitting proud on his dirt mound. A boom rings out. Suddenly clutching his chest, spinning around two times, then falling over backwards flat on his back, a puff of dust rising from under him. Two maybe three kicks.  What a shot! 

Three miles north of Wellington Colorado, East side of the interstate.  It was a vivid.

              Joe.