Author Topic: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?  (Read 8952 times)

Offline bgf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« on: May 30, 2012, 09:30:30 PM »
I've got my mule-ear project (or the idea and a pile of scrap dedicated thereto) off the back burner and was wondering what people who use them somewhat regularly think about lack of a half cock position.  This mule ear will interchange with the flintlock, but it will be used only occasionally and for line type matches only.  The only real drawback I can think of is that the lock should be cocked (to vent) but uncapped during loading.  For that, I am thinking some simple type of rotating or sliding safety stopping either the hammer or the sear until the rifle is on the line, pointed downrange and capped would be an acceptable compromise and no more dangerous (possibly safer) than a half cock position. 

Anyway, yes, I am being wimpy -- I like set triggers, but a fly (or other contrivance) to make them work with a half cock notch is a tiny piece of nuisance and excess complication I'd like to live without; I might feel differently if I had a fully equipped machine shop, but I don't :).  I noticed the only (current?) mule-ear sold commercially does not have a half-cock, so people much be dealing with/accepting it somehow.  Please let me know what your thoughts are on the subject, especially if you have a mule ear lock that you use in a similar situation.


chapmans

  • Guest
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2012, 01:59:10 AM »
Most of my percussion guns are mule ear, none of them have a 1/2 cock notch, I see no need for one on a target rifle, after the shot I bring the hammer to full cock so air can circulate through the nipple during cleaning and loading, after loading I step up to the line and cap the gun, set the trigger and fire. If I were going to hunt with one I think I would add a sliding safety with a pin that goes directly into the tumbler.

Offline KNeilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2012, 06:51:58 AM »
The one Ive made has no half cock notch, and my thoughts parralell Steve C`s for Hunting. I also have read of a gravity device that is no more than a small  block on a thong held in place (tween lockplate and hammer) by the mainsprings press on the hammer. The gun is capped, and then the hammer lowered onto the block. Cock the gun and the block drops from position. This would seem to be much easier to fabricate...Mine also "interchanges" with a large siler lock. I matched the sear position and plate shape to fit. Fires a cap thru the vent, with a small vertical hole for venting the press from main charge. Works like a hot @!*%, and if your carefull with the lock geometry, the trigger can be made to work fine...      Kerry

Offline Don Getz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6853
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2012, 02:52:29 PM »
I have built several guns with mule ear  locks, none of them had a halfcock.   I added a hammer block to all of them.  It
pivoted on a screw and I merely moved it into place to keep the hammer from hitting the primer.   When ready to shoot
I would merely swing it away...........Don

Offline Kermit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3099
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2012, 05:39:55 PM »
Scroll down here and you can see a mule ear made by John Taylor. This man does incredible work, BTW.

http://www.johntaylormachine.com/53.0.html
"Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Mae West

Offline bgf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2012, 07:07:09 PM »
Thanks everybody -- very useful responses!  Also encouraging, as I was fearing gasps of horror at not using a half cock notch, although my thinking was that it would be fine :).  I think I will just do without the halfcock notch and most likely add a safety "just in case"--although field use is far-fetched, I've been wrong before. Also, I've already got several ideas for safeties that aren't too difficult to implement -- it is the miniature scale of the fly and half-cock setup that daunts me. 

KN -- it sounds like your arrangement doesn't use a nipple in the breech and leaves the (flint) vent liner in place.  I've thought about a similar set up for putting an occasional-use pseudo drum (drum would be attached to the percussion lock) conversion on a rifle used primarily as a flintlock.  I was pretty certain a vent on the drum would do the trick, but it might be years before I get around to trying it.  Thanks for that information.

Offline Bob Roller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9687
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2012, 07:47:05 PM »
Unless the gun is a military something or other or a double barrel shotgun,American guns with a half cock position in the tumbler are not common.

Bob Roller

Offline KNeilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2012, 02:57:52 AM »
Quote
When ready to shoot
I would merely swing it away...........Don
  That sure makes much more sense than something dangling.
bgf, your right about the vent. I made sure the lockplate mated well to the barrel flat, then transferred the vent location. The current vent is a 5/64 hole drilled at a slight rearward angle thru the lockplate/nipple threads. Most Ive done is about 40 shots in a row, and no evidence of leakeage yet in the lock mortice. The idea behind all of it sounds similar to your occasional-use pseudo drum thought.....    Kerry

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2012, 09:18:42 PM »
For a hunting gun, I do like the sounds of that fall-away 1/2 cock device, however it would fall away if the hammer was momentarily caught then released which would result in an accidental discharge- which is what a 1/2cock notch is supposed to prevent.

Why do side slappers not have a 1/2 cock notch? Fear of losing the cap? Many underhammers have 1/2 cock notches, don't they?

Offline Habu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2012, 12:22:23 AM »
Many underhammers have 1/2 cock notches, don't they?

Many do, but not all.  I used to own a well-worn "boot pistol" that didn't--can't imagine stuffing one in my boot or belt with the hammer on full-cock, or resting on a capped nipple. 

Offline KNeilson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2012, 05:47:45 AM »
Quote
Many do, but not all
  I believe this to be correct. For underhammers, I think youll find most of the modern H@A and Billinghurst styles of action have a half cock or can be made to function that way. In my experience, some of them are way to deep and can get hung up and break on the sear. A Ruggles style action (boot pistol type), are thought of being the first to appear in the mid 1820`s. There were lots of them made over a fairly short time period by lots of different smiths. Of all the pictures Ive seen of them, none had a half cock notch. Both long guns and pistols. Also seems like trigger guards were rare too. I just finished Chandlers book on the subject, and have Herchel Logans also.  http://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/270/1/BOOK-EAUF    or    http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=herschel+logan&tn=Underhammer+Guns&x=0&y=0    Both are great books if this subject interests you. Daryl, youve brought up a good point, but I think even with a normal side lock, if the hammer was to move enuf to get over the fly, you would be in the same position (potential discharge)would you not? I was led to believe that the HC notch was to "lock" the trigger into the tumbler preventing discharge from accidental trigger pull.Never thought as you have suggested. One thing for sure, I dont think firearm safety was a big an issue back when most of these were made. I`ll have to check, but I think eventually both Ruggles bros died from accidental discharge from guns of there own design.  ;)   One thing that just came to mind. Ive read that in certain places or shoots, you are only allowed to use underhammer actions that use the triggerguard as the mainspring. Two that immediately come to mind are the H@A and Billinghurst types, maybe the half cock notch is behind this reasoning...   Kerry

Offline Kermit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3099
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2012, 06:47:52 PM »
Since bottom slappers have migrated into the thread, John Taylor's "H&A" style actions have a half cock notch. I don't think I'd care for one without, but that's just how I was brought up.

And we seem to continue to talk about "Hopkins & Allen" underhammers. I don't know how to get away from that, but it was a 20th century marketing name created to sound antiquey and olde. Here's from Brenner's blog:

During the muzzleloading revival of the 1950s, 60s and 70’s George Numrich of Numrich Arms/Gun Parts Corporation fame, determined that there would be a sizable market for an inexpensive and simple muzzleloading rifle. So they made one. It was a simple, rugged, and accurate underhammer design that looked promising. However, they felt that they needed a recognizable name to go with this new rifle and having the rights to the old Hopkins and Allen Arms Company trademark they applied the moniker to their new wonder. The result was that they have managed to confuse muzzleloaders ever since – even some otherwise knowledgeable shooters. I even heard of one person who was selling a Numrich H&A underhammer rifle who advertized that his rifle could be traced all the way back to Ethan Allen himself! Talk about creating provenance!
"Anything worth doing is worth doing slowly." Mae West

arcticap

  • Guest
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2012, 11:30:42 AM »
Quote from: Daryl
Why do side slappers not have a 1/2 cock notch?

I have commercially made mule lock rifles that were made by Pedersoli for Navy Arms which have a sturdy 1/2 cock notch.
After becoming accustomed to using them with the 1/2 cock notch, I can't imagine using a mule ear lock without the convenience of having one.
I've seen an available conversion mule ear lock kit and have always thought that it just wasn't as appealing without having a 1/2 cock notch.
The 1/2 cock position on mine provides plenty of room for capping and operates as simply as any standard percussion sidelock having a 1/2 cock.
I guess that means that I've been spoiled.  ::)
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 11:37:35 AM by arcticap »

dagner

  • Guest
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2012, 08:52:01 AM »
most of the chunk shooters use a  spring closepin  to hold action open  saw a mule ear a man makes over in ohio  he uses a siler guts and has a real half cock .. no ball dents siler  sear  it was highly polised and squared in side and out reminded me of a old bob  roller or the guy who used to make underhammers and moved to montana and went cart black pwder  cartrige .   done to perfection he will make any plate style you want  . had all the guys drooling on his work very reasonable priced
dag

Offline bgf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: mule ear users feedback -- half cock or no?
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2012, 06:48:12 PM »
I know it is possible to put a 1/2 cock on the lock, but doing so requires me to work at a smaller scale than I'm really comfortable or, more importantly, confident of doing safely -- I'm no Bob Roller :)!  As an alternative, I believe I can make an automatic hammer-blocking safety, i.e. one that comes on when the lock is cocked and must be manually disengaged to fire the lock.  To me, that seems at least as safe as a half-cock notch and possibly better, as it cannot become disengaged as easily if the hammer is caught/dislodged from half-cock.

I'm also tempted to copy Kerry's idea by mounting the nipple in the lockplate bolster (with a vent to open air) rather than in the barrel/breech.  That will free me up in terms of vent liner options, if it works, as I won't be tied to 1/4-28 for compatibility with the nipple. With a vent, the pressures and forces on the lock should be close to identical to a flintlock but the cap should still be plenty hot and fast.

If it works as intended, I'll put up some pictures -- but it will be a while before I finish.  Thanks again to everyone for their feedback.