Flintlock Touch Hole
- Thread starter Loyer
- Start date
Yes, it is recommended and, in my opinion, it does improve ignition speed. The better touch hole liners, such as Jim Chambers White Lightning liners, are coned on the inside. The touch hole can be coned on either the inside or outside, but is usually coned on the inside and there is a tool available for doing that if you are not using a liner. Go to the American Longrifles website and, in the gun making forum, do a search on "coning touch hole" or "touch hole coning". The name of the gentleman who makes the tools for internal coning will likely pop up. I have a set of his tools and find they work really well.
It's not a "tiny bit" the cone goes most of the thickness of the barrel wall - you end up with maybe 0.030" wall thickness at the touch hole.
With an internal cone, it effectively reduces the distance hot gasses need to travel to ignite the main charge - when you load, you wind up with a bit of powder in the cone.
An external cone doesn't reduce the distance but does reduce resistance - or more accurately channels gasses to the touch hole more efficiently.
Which is better? Well, it's rare to see an externally coned hole even though it is easier to implement....
With an internal cone, it effectively reduces the distance hot gasses need to travel to ignite the main charge - when you load, you wind up with a bit of powder in the cone.
An external cone doesn't reduce the distance but does reduce resistance - or more accurately channels gasses to the touch hole more efficiently.
Which is better? Well, it's rare to see an externally coned hole even though it is easier to implement....
I beg to differ.
I think an external cone also effectively reduces the distance by reducing the length of the actual touch hole. I agree that it also has the advantage of more effectively funneling the gasses into the touch hole. I believe external cones are not seen more frequently because they are simply butt ugly.
I think an external cone also effectively reduces the distance by reducing the length of the actual touch hole. I agree that it also has the advantage of more effectively funneling the gasses into the touch hole. I believe external cones are not seen more frequently because they are simply butt ugly.
well, with an external cone, the distance to the main charge is still the thickness of the barrel wall. Like I mentioned, some powder will get into an internal cone,, so your distance to the charge is like only 0.030"
Fouling in an internal cone can build up in the cone from wiping (though I have never had an issue)
Fouling in an external cone should (for the most part) get blown out when fired.
REGARDLESS....
I begin to wonder if it isn't the distance to the main charge that matters ... I wonder if it is actually the extra surface area of the main charge an internal cone exposes?
gasses don't seem to have a problem getting into that tiny hole, coned either side or not....
The priming charge erupts right beside the barrel - not exactly sparks getting into the touch hole. There is a real flash. The closer the eruption to the main charge, the faster the ignition is going to be. Thick barrel, small touch hole can produce almost a fuse effect.
First class guns from the flint era had an erosion resistant rare metal touch hole bushing along with the patent breech. The ignition of a British Best shotgun almost rivalled a cap gun. Sophisticated lock design, best materials, strong springs, sharp flints. On the other and, with something like a military musket, there could be a distinct pause. If I gat a chance, I'll post photos of my Wilkinson 16 bore gun's lock and breech.
First class guns from the flint era had an erosion resistant rare metal touch hole bushing along with the patent breech. The ignition of a British Best shotgun almost rivalled a cap gun. Sophisticated lock design, best materials, strong springs, sharp flints. On the other and, with something like a military musket, there could be a distinct pause. If I gat a chance, I'll post photos of my Wilkinson 16 bore gun's lock and breech.
Like tiriaq said we need a flash. For my part to obtain this effect I never load a flintlock pan more than this on the photo I took and I never fill the pan more than 2/3 full and away from the touch hole. It is the best way to obtain a flash, not a slow fuse effect.
It's the heated gasses - you only need a little less than 500C to ignite black powder - apparently with a well sparking lock the parks can heat the air around the pan hot enough to set off a charge without a priming powder! (or so they say
) Saw your other post - don't mix powders.
I really wish I could find this article again, but it discussed a bit of this. (and I hope I remember the terminology correctly) basically what I got from the article are that there are a couple of things at play
Deflagration of a single grain (individual grain - not weight) of powder - i.e. the time it takes for a single grain to be completely consumed. Larger grains take longer than smaller ones (duh!)
Conflagration (and I am not sure that was the correct term used) or the rate at which a single grain ignites the grains surrounding it. This had something to do with the surface area of the grain itself - larger grains had more surface area but fewer grains with lower rates of deflagration surrounding them - finer grains having a greater rate of conflagration (?)
So what I took away from that being smaller grains burn completely faster (deflagrate) and have a higher rate of conflagration they create a greater volume of gasses in a shorter period of time as compared to larger grained powders. (again... duh!) and again, when confined ~ a faster pressure curve.
i.e. the same weight of powder in different granulation should create the same amount of gas - one just does it faster than the other.
Which brings me back to "time to ignition/ignition speed/etc" or the time it takes for the gasses to get from the pan to the main charge and ignite that first grain. measured in microseconds ... I'm not convinced this is noticeable by a human.
As I stated previously, I think the coning has a lot to do with the exposed area of the main charge.... a small touch hole with no cone exposes say 5 individual grains to the initial ignition source. The rate of conflagration determines how quickly the grains surrounding it start to ignite.
If you have a cone there and expose 50 grains your rate of conflagration is the same but you are starting 50 domino chains rather than 5 - the main charge will (should?) be fully consumed in a shorter period of time. i.e. "faster"
Like tiriaq said we need a flash. For my part to obtain this effect I never load a flintlock pan more than this on the photo I took and I never fill the pan more than 2/3 full and away from the touch hole. It is the best way to obtain a flash, not a slow fuse effect.
That is considerably more priming powder than required and the touch hole appears to be quite a bit lower than it should be. Two to three grains of priming powder is plenty in a good working lock and there are conflicting schools of thought WRT the ideal position for the powder. As I recall, a test using high speed cameras showed there to be no measurable difference in main charge ignition time.
It is pretty much universally accepted that the best location for the touch hole is centered vertically on the top of the pan and horizontally on the center of the pan.
I think that what you do state is badly incorrect. I load this one and all of my other flinters the same in the pan and their touchholes are perfectly half of a sunset aligned. This fusil is mounted with a Jim chambers lock and the barrel is a Colerain BTW. I use such pan loads in reenactment and also for hunting from bird to deer into all my flinters since more than 60 years.
Last edited:
Well, the apparent low position of the touch hole in the first photo was an optical illusion. The position does appear to be bang on in the second photo. HOWEVER, I still maintain there is no need to load the pan up with priming powder. Two to three grains will consistently do the job quite nicely. Try it, you might be pleasantly surprised. By the way, when it comes to building and shooting flinters, you have a little over ten years on me.
Last edited:
When my flint is getting dull and sparking poorly, I tend to use more priming and spread it out more to reduce the chance of sparks failing to touch the powder. The biggest problem with hangfires I have is in damp weather and the fouling absorbing moisture from the air
cheers mooncoon
It's the heated gasses - you only need a little less than 500C to ignite black powder - apparently with a well sparking lock the parks can heat the air around the pan hot enough to set off a charge without a priming powder! (or so they say
Saw your other post - don't mix powders.
I really wish I could find this article again, but it discussed a bit of this. (and I hope I remember the terminology correctly) basically what I got from the article are that there are a couple of things at play
Deflagration of a single grain (individual grain - not weight) of powder - i.e. the time it takes for a single grain to be completely consumed. Larger grains take longer than smaller ones (duh!)
Conflagration (and I am not sure that was the correct term used) or the rate at which a single grain ignites the grains surrounding it. This had something to do with the surface area of the grain itself - larger grains had more surface area but fewer grains with lower rates of deflagration surrounding them - finer grains having a greater rate of conflagration (?)
So what I took away from that being smaller grains burn completely faster (deflagrate) and have a higher rate of conflagration they create a greater volume of gasses in a shorter period of time as compared to larger grained powders. (again... duh!) and again, when confined ~ a faster pressure curve.
i.e. the same weight of powder in different granulation should create the same amount of gas - one just does it faster than the other.
Which brings me back to "time to ignition/ignition speed/etc" or the time it takes for the gasses to get from the pan to the main charge and ignite that first grain. measured in microseconds ... I'm not convinced this is noticeable by a human.
As I stated previously, I think the coning has a lot to do with the exposed area of the main charge.... a small touch hole with no cone exposes say 5 individual grains to the initial ignition source. The rate of conflagration determines how quickly the grains surrounding it start to ignite.
If you have a cone there and expose 50 grains your rate of conflagration is the same but you are starting 50 domino chains rather than 5 - the main charge will (should?) be fully consumed in a shorter period of time. i.e. "faster"
I think a physicist would definitively answer our question? With your explanation, does the same logic hold true if the cone is inverted to the pan rather than the charge?
My $0.02 (and I'm no physicist) is that it is a flame front that ignites the charge, a superheated gas not an individual "spark". If by some black magic an actual burning scraping from the frizzen made it into the touch hole, that material (ignited steel) could set the charge off without the benefit of a powder flame front, but the odds of that happening are next to zilch. I believe the reason our ancestors used an ignition powder in order to set off the charge, whether Matchlocks, Wheelocks, or flint; or even cannon for that matter, is the ability to get a reliable and complete ignition of that charge. I believe
introducing a cone at the touch hole has a venturi effect for the flame front to be more readily "drawn into" the charge. If one were to reverse the cone, instead of a venturi effect, it would have the effect of focusing the flame front onto a more specified aspect of the charge. Both would be beneficial to ignition, but for different reasons? [video]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect[/video]
You can also leave your vent pick in when you drop the main charge and seat the ball. this makes sure the ignition flame has a clear path deep into the main charge. Works well for me. Or you can do what my friend, Harold, does - add a bit of powdered magnesium to your 4F pan powder. Works every time but is very hard on liners.
Does he still have evenly matched eyebrows?
Have watched some really great high speed video of a flinter firing, and can see no good reason to accept the (apparently normally accepted) click, whoosh, wait, bang!, that seems to be what folks accept from an 'Old Timey' gun.
If all is working well, the flash in the pan should be pretty much instantaneous with the firing!
