On the origins of the percussion cap

Pinfire

CGN Regular
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Location
Maberly, Ontario
With the current supply of percussion caps woefully low, we have to find other ways to occupy our time. Ever stop to wonder how the percussion cap came to be?

The change from the flint-lock to the percussion-lock, or, more precisely, the switch from friction-based ignition to chemical-based ignition, was a momentous milestone in the history of firearms. The violently explosive properties of metal fulminates had been known for some time. Samuel Pepys’s diary entry for 11 November 1663 refers to the explosive qualities of ‘Aurum fulminans,’ or fulminating gold. The discovery of this highly explosive substance (gold hydrazide) is attributed to Johann Thölde, writing under the pseudonym ‘Basilius Valentinus,’ published in 1599. In 1786 the French chemist Claude Louis Berthollet was the first to produce potassium chlorate, or Berthollet’s Salt, while researching dyes and bleaches. In 1788 he was also the first to produce fulminating silver, or silver nitride. Then the British chemist Edward Charles Howard published his discoveries concerning mercury fulminate, in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, on 1 January 1800. For this, the Royal Society awarded him their Copley medal. Howard found that when mercury was treated with nitric acid and alcohol, it produced a whitish crystallized powder with properties similar to gunpowder. This powder could also be detonated with a sharp blow or an electric current.

In his paper, Howard described testing the fulminate in a hand-held device used to test the strength of gunpowder. Satisfied his ‘mercurial powder’ had promise, Howard continued his testing. He loaded a gun with 17 grains of the fulminate, and a lead bullet, and fired at a block of wood some twenty feet distant. There wasn’t much of a bang or recoil, and from the dent in the wood the effect was deemed similar to about half a normal charge of gunpowder of about 68 grains. Howard reloaded the gun with 34 grains of fulminate, but was met with a different result: the patent breech was torn open, the gold touch-hole driven out, and the barrel had a three-inch crack.

Howard surmised: “...it was pretty plain that no gun could confine a quantity of the mercurial powder sufficient to project a bullet, with a greater force than an ordinary charge of gunpowder.” In a final relevant test, Howard was permitted by the Right Honourable Lord Howe, Lieutenant General of the Ordnance, to test the ‘mercurial powder’ at the Royal Laboratory of the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich. This testing destroyed several cannon (!), with Howard concluding: “...any piece of ordnance might be destroyed, by employing a quantity of the mercurial powder equal in weight to one half of the service charge of gunpowder.”

While using fulminates as a charge propellant was clearly out of the question, using fulminates to ignite a charge of gunpowder was considered another option. However, the Royal Laboratory observed that the fast-burning fulminate would not light gunpowder. Howard repeated the experiment, writing: “...we spread a mixture of coarse and fine grained gunpowder upon a parcel of mercurial powder; and, after the inflammation of the latter, we collected most, if not all, of the grains of gunpowder.” Howard wondered if the combustion of the fulminate was too rapid or that it did not generate enough heat to ignite the gunpowder. In any case, Howard did not continue the research into fulminates of mercury and firearms – but, thankfully, another curious inventor did.

Based on Howard’s discoveries and convinced he could harness the desirable properties of mercury fulminate, the Reverend Alexander John Forsyth of Belhelvie, Aberdeenshire, Scotland, pursued his research and eventually developed a detonating gun lock in 1805. It had a priming system that dispensed a mixture of mercury fulminate, potassium chlorate, sulphur and charcoal into a pan. The hammer struck the mixture, and the resultant flame connected to the main charge via a touch-hole. The characteristic shape of the fulminate-mixture dispenser earned the lock its name, ‘Forsyth’s Scent-bottle,’ and it was patented in 1807.

Eventually a range of gun locks were developed that made use of fulminates in a variety of forms: as crystals or as balls, pellets, or pastilles, and covered in wax, varnish, lead, or copper to prevent the absorption of moisture and reduce the corrosive effects of potassium chlorate on metal parts. The London maker Joseph Manton’s pill- or pellet-lock was patented in 1816. Manton also patented a tube-lock in 1818, which confined the fulminate to a copper tube that was crushed by a hammer. The tube-lock became popular with waterfowlers, for its strong ignition. Forsyth’s patent expired in 1821, and by then the percussion cap, a soft copper (or iron) ‘top hat’ containing a small amount of fulminate and which was placed on a nipple, had started to appear.

The precise origins of the percussion cap are obscure (perhaps the still-active Forsyth patent may have deterred inventors experimenting with fulminate mixtures), and there are several claimants to this important invention. Joshua Shaw, an English-born American painter-inventor living in Philadelphia, patented the percussion cap in America in 1822. However, the Parisian inventor and gunmaker François Prélat filed a French patent for a percussion cap in 1818, which may have been based on an invention by the London gunmaker Joseph Egg from around 1817. Other claimants to the invention include Joseph Manton, the Parisian Jean-Louis Deboubert, and the renowned sportsman Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Hawker. The invention went though various design and manufacturing improvements over time, and John Deane (author of Deane’s Manual of of the History and Science of Fire-Arms, 1858) credits Deboubert and Blanchard of Paris for having perfected the copper cap. Who was first with the idea may well remain a mystery, but by 1830 the external copper percussion cap had become the dominant ignition system in use.

XCYWqeD.jpg
 
Thanks for the info, Pinfire. I've got a hammer gun that I've never figured out the provenance on. It's in excellent shape and as far as I can tell from the Birmingham proof marks it was made in the 1880s. It is marked Alexander Forsyth and I couldn't find any record of that name as a maker in that time period.
 
Thanks for the info, Pinfire. I've got a hammer gun that I've never figured out the provenance on. It's in excellent shape and as far as I can tell from the Birmingham proof marks it was made in the 1880s. It is marked Alexander Forsyth and I couldn't find any record of that name as a maker in that time period.

Any chance of some photos to help? The Forsyth Patent Gun Company was set up in 1808, re-named Forsyth & Co. in 1809, remaining in business until 1852 (his former manager, Charles Uther, bought the firm in 1819, kelp the name, and ran it until 1852). Alexander Forsyth died in 1848. If your gun dates from the 1880s, it is spuriously marked, a common practice of using a recognizable name on a low-cost gun, to entice buyers. This was very much illegal, but widespread. The practice led the principal gunmakers of the day to provide to the shooting press the details of what appeared on their guns, to warn prospective buyers. Mostly the practice involved Belgian-made guns sporting 'almost' names like 'Purdy' (instead of Purdey), 'W. Richards' instead of Westley Richards (though there was an excellent gunmaker in Liverpool by the name of William Richards, who signed his guns W. Richards), or 'Jeffrey' instead of Jeffery, for example. To put a false name on a Birmingham gun was bold, but it did happen. It was also not unknown for Belgian 'fakes' to carry fake Birmingham proof marks! This differs from the legal practice of putting a store or store owner's name on a gun sold by that store. Stores that sold guns in the UK in the 19th century included general merchants, jewellers, and, commonly, hardware stores or ironmongers as they were known, hence the term 'ironmonger's gun' for a gun that is not signed by a gunmaker/retailer. We know this here in gun brand names like 'J. C. Higgins' (sold by Sears, Roebuck & Co.), or in guns branded with the Hudson's Bay Company or Eaton's names.

A related but more benign practice was to put 'London' on the locks or barrel (without a street address), despite the gun being made in Birmingham, to make it seem more desirable. A marketing white lie, intended to deceive an eager buyer.

The Forsyth name would carry instant recognition, but most sportsmen of the day would likely know the business no longer existed. But, if it was sold far from the main centres, an unsuspecting buyer might be tempted by a good-sounding name.

As a further aside, spuriously-marked guns can still be reasonably made guns - they were just dishonestly marketed. Here is a spurious Jeffery pin-fire game gun:

QmW4JyA.jpg
 
It was Birmingham proof marks and decent, but not a great quality bar action. The damascus crolles in barrels were unusual. The crolle pattern is normal on most of the barrels from the muzzles to about the end of the chambers where they stretched out to almost an inch wide. Dr. Drew had pictures of it on his damascus anomalies site, but I don't know if they are still there. I was aware of Forsyth and Company's history and checked to see if he had any descendants that might have restarted the company, but it was a dead end. I assumed it was borrowing from the famous name. I don't have any pictures of it right now. If I get time I'll dig it out and take some.
 
Back
Top Bottom