Straight touch holes only

[Joe S]

The different experiences with a straight hole are interesting.  Bamma gets 100% reliability, Acer bails after two misfires, Dan gets variable results.  No one has mentioned priming powder and its relationship to flashing, but I think it’s an important variable. So, what are you folks using to prime?

I have had very limited experience with straight holes.  I have one rifle that I have shot many, many times with a Chambers liner.  It is a .54 caliber, loaded with 2F and primed with 4F.  Like Dan, my guns are hunting weapons, and I care only about the reliability of the first shot.  Reliability with this gun has been 100%.  The few times I primed with 2F, there were no ignition problems.

My last build was a 10 bore, with a straight 1/16” flash hole.  I primed it four or five times with 1F, and it flashed every time.  When primed with 4F, I had 100% good ignition for 20 rounds or so.  To simulate actual hunting conditions, the bore was wiped between shots. Unfortunately, I had to send the gun off without conducting further experiments, but I think the flash hole would be better if it were drilled out to 0.070 or so.

Considering early muskets, if they were priming with 1F or similar coarse powder, it may well take an 1/8” hole to get reliable ignition.  Does anybody have any experience with straight flash holes and priming with 1F?  I appreciate that using a separate grade of powder for priming is probably a modern practice.

[kutter]

"...So, what are you folks using to prime?"

4F for prime.
I stick a tooth pick in the vent before I load. Then pull it out afterwards, and prime.


A half full pan of prime powder seems to work best.
I tried the 2F and 3F charge powder as a prime. Though it works,,the 4F works better (better chance of the thing going off instead of just a flash)

I don't purposly tilt the rifle left and then right to distribute to primer in the pan once the frizzen is closed. Just minimal handling will do,,or un-do, that for me I figure.

Yes an occasional flash in the pan,,probably slower than a liner,,but I don't mind. I just like the traditional look  better,,,,even though I'm usually wearing a baseball hat and blue jeans when I shoot.
It's all about the rifle.

Every one gets to choose what they like,,that's why there's stainless steel Straight Lines using 209's.
..and they can shoot with me anytime they like.

[Dphariss]

4f or Swiss null b



Too little prime is a prime cause of misfires.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Carry the pistol for a couple of miles hunting and it will look like this when you get home

Powder is loose but the pan is well filled.

This is the same pistol this year primed about the same amount.
Has been laying lock side up.


Its been primed for a week or more and several trips to the field. Carried in a modern shoulder holster under my coat.
Having the pan nearly full means that the first spark is likely to land on powder. More prime, more heat, surer ignition.
 
Dan

[tallbear]

Mr. Everett
I believe you are applying 21 century thinking to 18th century tools.I have drilled holes with small diameter spade bits such as you have pictured and while I agree that they can sometimes wobble and make the holes sightly oversized(maybe a few thousands) I don't believe an 18th century gunsmith would think twice about it.Worrying about making a touch hole to an exact micrometer measured size is 21st century thought.

Mitch

[whetrock]

... I agree that they can sometimes wobble and make the holes sightly oversized(maybe a few thousands) I don't believe an 18th century gunsmith would think twice about it.Worrying about making a touch hole to an exact micrometer measured size is 21st century thought.
Mitch

Perhaps so, but would a reamed (and thus polished) touch hole be a bit less prone to fouling? Would it be more likely to last longer before burning out? Any thoughts on this question from James Wilson Everett or others?

On another tack... If an old smith had taken the time to carefully polish the bore, then wouldn't the time it took to ream a touch hole seem but a drop in the bucket? A look at old tooling itself shows tremendous variation in the amount of detail some old smiths were willing to produce.  Some tools are themselves works of art, polished and engraved, etc. Others (from other builders) are rough but functional, with little attention to detail. It seems likely that we might expect similar variation in the degree of attention given to fine detail on the work produced, even on "hidden" work, like the inside of a touch hole. In discussing old style tooling that might be used in contemporary production, many cases, we are are discussing what options were "available" in the 18th c. If we want to talk in detail about what did and didn't happen, we invariably end up talking about particular guns, or at best particular schools and makers. Thoughts anyone?

[tallbear]

I am not disputing that a reamed or coned touch hole might work better that a straight drilled hole.A statement was made that touch holes were reamed/coned from the outside as  a standard practice in 18th century gunmaking.It is that blanket statement that I have a little trouble with.

Mitch

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

Here is a drawing of a tool from the Journal of Historical Armsmaking Technology.  It was used to cut a conical shape on the bore end of the flash hole.  Apparently the German gunsmiths were concerned way back then on getting a faster and more reliable ignition.  I have never seen an actual tool like this, nor have I seen an original barrel with such an interior coned flash hole.  Probably they do exist, has anyone out there seen such a flash hole treatment on an original barrel, especially an American barrel?  This tool seems to me to be an overly complex way to cut such a coned flash hole.  That neat little cutter I have seen for sale on this site seems to be a really simple tool that does the same, and probably a better job.

Jim

[Bernard]

I built a couple of rifles and drilled straight touch noels in them 'cause I wanted to be traditional. I was a pretty good offhand shot with my cap locks (I could win all the matches we had locally) but wanted to shoot flint. My first flint rifle was from a Lyman Plains Rifle Kit. Couldn't hit the side of a barn form the inside with it. Very disappointed. Next I took part in a gun building class provided to me and several friends by Peter Alexander. (He went well out of his way to help us learn the basics of gun building and I want to thank him) I built a fine Christian Hawken rifle with a Chambers lock and a straight touch hole. Much the same result as the Lyman. I built a 3rd rifle,George Kreps, and installed a Chambers touchhole liner in it. Now that was a shooter. So reluctantly I went back and did the same for the other two rifles. I now hunt with my first rifle, built in the Alexander class. The Lyman shoots well but is heavy, short and doesn't have a quality lock so is less reliable than my many others.
My conclusion is that Practise makes perfect. With all flint locks, ignition time varies from shot to shot. Do what you can to reduce variation. Touch holes wear out especially if you use a pick. A smaller touchhole is better than a larger one (which is required if it is a straight drilled hole) and liners are easier to change than straight holes. 

[Acer Saccharum]

James, Dave Rase built one of these. It's terrific machine.

[whetrock]

I was in Colonial Williamsburg a few years ago and had the pleasure of bugging Richard Sullivan with about 10,000 question. One of those was about this touch hole coning tool. I don't know if he had ever used one, but he was familiar with it. The point of my question was about how to hold it, and if I remember correctly, he said that the tang of the tool was clamped in the vise, then the breach of barrel slipped up over the tool. The smith then pressed the barrel against the cutter as the handle was cranked.
I haven’t seen Dave Rase’s version. One version I have seen had a handle on it. That would require the smith to clamp the barrel and hold the tool. I've yet to have opportunity to use one of these, but I imagine it might work better to follow Mr. Sullivan's advice and clamp the tang of the tool and hold the barrel. The mass and length of the barrel would (I imagine) be comparatively easy to hold on to. In contrast, the small tool might be difficult to hold on to while cranking the handle. But this is just conjecture. I have no experience with the tool.

[Dennis Glazener]

With me being a cheapskate and having a rifle that I did not want to put a stainless steel liner in I made a cutter from a finishing nail. Found one that just entered the flash hole then flattened one end to make it the shape i wanted the "cone". Filed some relief on the back side of the cutting edge, hardened it with Kaseknit and inserted in into the flash hole from the bore side. I used my electric drill to cut the cone into the flash hole. It worked fine but you need to have a fairly large bore to be able to get enough shank for the electric dill to properly hold the cutter. I think someone here on ALR showed how they made these cutters.

I think the next one I need to make I will use 1/16th drill rod and harden it with oil.
Dennis

[Long John]

To Mr. Everett,

I been traveling this past week and this is the first I have been able to catch-up.

I certainly hope that the criticism of a couple of participants in this forum will not convince you to stop contributing.  I value your contributions enormously.  Indeed, yours are the ones I often save.

Thank you for taking the time to share your discoveries with the likes of me!

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[whetrock]

Here's a sketch of the touch-hole coning tool from the Journal. Jim posted an scan of it a couple of days ago. This sketch may be a bit easier to understand.

(Much thanks to Dennis G for helping me post this!)