Reducing the time delay with Flint Lock?

Skinny 1950

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
Location
Vancouver
I imagine the delay is caused by powder in the touch-hole so what if you loaded the flinter with a piece of wire in the hole so no powder gets in and then prime the pan, carefully remove the wire. Wondering if the flames in the pan will make it to the charge??
The delay can't be good for accuracy. Any thoughts on this???
 
That has been done for a long time. Thought is that the priming flash gets through the touch hole faster than if the channel were filled with powder, and acted like a fuse.

There are lots of factors which affect lock/ignition time of a flintlock gun.
 
Delay can not be gotten rid of. Black powder travels slower than smokeless (which expands in a defined direction depending on shape) and it must travel through the touch hole.
 
I have tried using a vent pic in the hole while loading but only had mediocre success that way. Two things which I do think are important; one is to use a vent liner with a large cavity on the inside. In other words a 5/16 vent liner is better than a 1/4" liner because the internal hollow can be drilled larger. The opposite extreme would be a long narrow hole with only one or two powder grains wide down the flash channel --- that would work like a fuse. The second thing that is important is to have lots of sparks from the flint blow and to have them land in the hollow of the flash pan. I have seen high speed film shots of a flint pan igniting and by no means is it instant. The sparks fall down, there is a brief pause, then a series of small flashes come up from individual powder grains igniting and very soon after the whole pan goes up. main point being that the more sparks and closer to the center of the pan (front to back) the faster the whole priming charge ignites. Final note is that while 2F powder will work as a priming powder it is noticeably slower than 3F. 3F is no doubt a bit slower than 4F but in my experience the difference between 3 and 4F is not particularly noticeable and not worth the fuss and bother of carrying a spare priming horn.

cheers mooncoon
 
There are a lot of factors to be considered when thinking about lock time.

The fastest old guns were the better wheellocks, for precisely the reason MOONCOON suggests: a veritable shower of sparks from the Pyrite, into the Pan, giving almost-instant ignition. The main drawback to the Wheellock was simple EXPENSE. With modern machine-tools, we likely could produce one at a reasonable cost; the 16th Century, though, was somewhat short on machine-tools.

The Flintlock eventually took over from the Wheellock because it was so much simpler and easier and faster to make, as well as being a great deal less delicate. A small, lightweight Flintlock could be made fairly fast, but the problems really made themselves obvious with the big, heavy military locks. In these, sheer MASS became a part of the equation: that big, heavy ####, the likewise-heavy Steel, really slowed things down. The complete Lock on my Charleville weighs close to a POUND and it has NO delicate parts. Indeed, it is built for SERVICE in the hands of an illiterate conscript Army which had little idea regarding maintenance. The mere fact that it has survived almost 250 years attests to its excellence for its purpose.

But the Lock on a Musket was a far reach from one of the delicate and highly-tuned smaller Locks one would find on a top-grade Fowler or on a smaller Pistol. These Locks could be tuned for speed, and they very often were. These are the Locks such as will be found on better-grade commercial arms..... and they are the type of Lock which has been copied for modern Flint Rifles. Still, the best commercial small Locks only ignited the Charge in about half the time that one could expect from a Military Lock on a Musket. With the big Musket, Lock Time often was a fifth of a second or even longer: with a Charleville or a Bess, it is VERY noticeable to the person pulling the Trigger.

It was precisely the search for faster Lock Times which prodded the Reverend John Alexander Forsyth into continuing his chemical experiments. His solution, once the experimenting was completed, proved to be the ONLY way to speed up one of the better Flintlocks: weld on a Bolster, alter the #### into a Hammer..... and convert the beast to PERCUSSION ignition. This was highly-successful and was actually done so many times that actual Flintlocks have become rare..... and Percussion Conversions (such as this 1808/22 Prussian Musket which is taking up valuable space where I could otherwise be storing 2 more Rosses) today are, by far, in the majority.

And, once you have a Percussion Musket or Minie-style Rifle in decent nick, the easiest way to get a bit of SPEEEED from it also is very simple: saw off the back end of the barrel, make up a Block and Shoe........ and convert it into The Ultimate Perfection Of A Firelock: on the SNIDER SYSTEM.

I guess it will work okay (the Military certainly did it often enough) ....but I think I will put up with the slow ignition of the Charleville for another few decades.
 
Last edited:
So many variables, as smellie and Mc say tune the lock. My Indian Bess is as fast as Nessy's Ron Scott rifle.


From Track of the Wolf

"Tuning a flint lock gun requires much more than simply hardening the frizzen. The vent liner must be
located above the pan, and properly counterbored inside the barrel. The lock must have minimum friction,
and maximum spring tension. The frizzen must be adjusted to snap open at the proper time, yet not rebound.
Simple problems such as tight inletting, tight internal screws, or tight lock bolts can slow lock time.
"



From paulvallandigham muzzleloadingforum.com 12/15/11 01:32 AM - Post#1081857

Tuning locks involves " Reverse Engineering". That is, you begin where you want to go, and go back wards, one step at a time from there. anything that hinders the final goal( quick ignition of the main charge) needs to be "Fixed".

Percussion locks have 2 springs; flintlocks have 3. Each spring provides energy to perform separate functions from the other(s). To tune the lock, you remove all the springs, and then the parts, and begin with the lock plate. Most plates ARE soft. Their thickness, and the tension of the mainspring on the tumbler actually will determine if case hardening the lock plate should be done.

The plate must be Flat along the inside, so that all the internal parts attached to it can move freely. I test the parts manually, to check clearance, and properly angled points of contact, BEFORE I put those parts' spring back in the lock.

The order I work on parts after checking the lockplate is:

1. The frizzen, and its spring;

2. The mainspring and the tumbler( along with the tumbler bridle, and fly, if present.)

3. The sear bar, and its spring.

The logic of my madness? Everything in a lock leads up to that flint striking the frizzen properly to produce sparks, and getting them down in the flash pan as quickly as possible.

If the frizzen binds, or is slow to open, we fail. The result is inconsistent ignition, at best, short flint life, and lack of shooter confidence in his gun. All can cause a missed shot.

So, I work on the frizzen and its spring FIRST. Since these items are on the outside of the lock plate, they are also the easiest to observe in operation on the gun.

The rotation of that hammer( ####) is all important, in a flintlock, so the hammer, tumbler, and mainspring become the next most important items to work on. Most locks have a bridle to support the tumbler, and most tumblers today are designed to be used with a double set trigger. That then requires a " Fly" installed on the tumbler to allow the sear to slide over the half #### notch when the gun is fired.

The tumbler has to rotate as smooth as glass in the lock plate hole. check this manual, without the mainspring attached to the tumbler. Later when you are checking, and polishing the contact surfaces between the hook of the mainspring and the horn of the tumbler( if the tumbler is designed this old-fashioned style) You will want to examine how squared the nose of the hook is to the horn, so that the spring is not putting TORQUE on the tumbler and creating binding and wear to the tumbler and the hole in the lock plate. I have examined locks where the nose of the hook on the lower arm of the mainspring is so out-of-square that the mainspring actually will slide off the horn unless held in place by the wood in the lock mortise!

Contact points of the springs, and the parts they move must be polished to a glass smooth surface to get the least friction, and the best mechanical performance of both the springs, and the moving parts.

The small sear spring has the least tension, moves the least, and therefore usually requires the least amount of work to bring it up to best performance. Its simple job is to push down on the sear bar, so that the sear goes back to its "unfired" position, awaiting for the hammer to be re-cocked. In some actions, the sear spring also has to move the trigger back to its "rest" position. Polishing the nose of the sear spring, and the contact surface on the sear so that the parts move without any hesitation- smooth as glass- will give you the best working performance.

Once you get the lock all polished, oiled, and put back together, you can move on to design issues, such as how tall the #### is, where the flint strikes the frizzen( Angle of impact), where the flint edge is located during its cycle when the frizzen opens( or not), TH location, size of TH, How much powder to use in the flash pan, and then the proper techniques for loading your gun to maximize fast ignition.

Many of the foreign made locks are being produced by people who just copy some lock they see in a museum, without knowing if its a good lock or not. They think the frizzen spring's job is to hold the frizzen closed, so that the flint bites deeply into the face of the frizzen to Gouge out metal. They are wrong. One of the oldest "Tests" of a good lock is to leave the frizzen spring out of the lock, and test fire the gun. If its tuned properly, the gun fires quickly and surely everytime you load it, and the flash pan, #### and pull the trigger.

The ONLY JOB a frizzen spring was ever intended to do was keep the frizzen CLOSED when the gun was carried muzzle down.

Man of the modern locks have coil springs and struts, use bar and stirrup connections to join the mainspring to the tumbler. These lock require different approaches to tuning, but all the directions on taking the parts down from the lock plate apply, and polishing them, are the same. Testing them manually is also the same.

Most of the coil springs are "over-engineered", and need to have coils clipped off of them to prevent stacking, and to stop the "rattle and tickle" these heavy springs deliver to the entire gun. Because of the bar and stirrups connection the coil spring strut to the tumbler, you are limited to what can be done to improve the speed of rotation of the tumbler in these locks. Advanced tuning of these kinds of lock involves making a new tumbler and changing the location of the half-####, and full-#### notches to allow a shorter, faster rotation. For many target shooters, the half #### may become the full-#### notch, and no half #### notch will be provided.

I mention these anomalies simply to alert you to the fact that NOT ALL locks are made alike. The same REVERSE ENGINEERING principles will work in analyzing what needs to be "Fixed" on any lock to make its parts move more smoothly, and therefore faster, however. Care and maintenance thereafter determines how well a tuned lock continues to perform. "
 
I think the weak point of a wheel lock is actually the chain which rotates the wheel. The wheel on most only makes about 1/4 or 1/3 of a turn, it does not spin like a grinding wheel. Also if you fail to get ignition, it takes several times longer to recock the lock. They will work with flint although I suspect that the wheel might wear a lot faster. I have played around with iron pyrite a little bit and it is hard to find some that sparks well. The kind that sparks well is also soft and would wear away quickly. I also think there are two forms of pyrite, one kind being a lot harder and for me at least, does not spark on a grind stone. I think if I were going to play with a wheel lock today, I would use a piece of ferro ceramium in place of either flint or pyrite

cheers mooncoon
 
I imagine the delay is caused by powder in the touch-hole so what if you loaded the flinter with a piece of wire in the hole so no powder gets in and then prime the pan, carefully remove the wire. Wondering if the flames in the pan will make it to the charge??
The delay can't be good for accuracy. Any thoughts on this???

Lots of things all work together to make the flintlock work well.

Who made the one you have, and realistically, can you expect any better performance out of it than you are getting, without a total re-engineering of the lock and barrel both? In some cases a drop in replacement lock can be got, and may be about the best bet if you want it to work well.

Too much powder in the pan can slow down ignition, as can too little, sparks have to go where they are supposed to, and in qty's worth having, the frizzen must spark well and get the heck outta the way, and so on.

In reality, what you SHOULD be getting, is pretty close to an instantaneous ignition. The flintlock was tried and re-tried, tweaked, and evolved, over the longest continuous run of any of the ignition methods. The guys that made it all go sideways were them that decided to produce cheaply made sort-of flintlocks that looked somewhat like the one on the wall, but did not match the geometry or internal aspects (like the counterbored flash hole as mentioned) of what was tried and proven. Folks that didn't know any better bought them and thought that one shot per every couple tries, or the click-flash-wait-whump of a badly made up action was normal.

There are some pretty good high speed camera footages of some good locks in action, including a couple of the lock being fired upside down to demonstrate that it was ALL the parts of the show working together, rather than just one factor or another that controlled things. Worth looking for and watching.

Cheers
Trev
 
Delay can not be gotten rid of. Black powder travels slower than smokeless (which expands in a defined direction depending on shape) and it must travel through the touch hole.

Lay a line of smokeless and an equal line of black, Light them and see what is actualy fast and slow. Use a line of lighter fluid etc as the fuse and stay back .
 
Lots of good advice above. It has been well shown that it is the radiant heat from the pan burn that ignites the powder in the vent leading into the barrel so the shortest possible vent "tunnel" is best, as Mooncoon described. After that, the geometry of the flint/frizzen interaction is important to get the most sparks showering on the powder in the pan. Try your flint bevel-up and bevel-down to see which way directs the most sparks into the middle of the pan - usually one way works better than the other. Try that in dim light so it is easier to see all the sparks. Friction in the mechanism is your enemy as is a weak mainspring. The latter can add milliseconds to the hammer fall and won't enable the flint to scrape the max sparks off the frizzen - realize that the flint scrapes off microscopic white-hot slivers of steel from the frizzen - it is not an impact like a percussion hammer on a cap.
Try to find a copy of "The Gunsmith of Grenville County": the author dedicates 8 pages to tuning a flint lock. Another recent publication from the National Muzzle Loading Rifle Association authored by Eric Bye is a masterpiece on all aspects of shooting and maintaining flintlocks.
 
Over the years, I've played with a lot of locks.
I recall the first really good sparker that I encountered. It was a Manton carbine lock, from a late British Service design. Did not have a separate frizzen spring. The mainspring also ran the frizzen, through a camming arrangement inside the lockplate. The frizzen face was a separate piece, brazed to the frizzen. The lock was as new; a quantity of them surfaced over 40 years ago. First time I snapped it, I was sitting down. Thought that the overflowing fountain of hissing sparks was going to set my trousers on fire.
The lock we used on the trade guns we were manufacturing in the early 70s used a lock patterned on an original Chance trade gun lock. It was a new replacement lock that had never been installed on a gun. Borrowed it from the Museum of the Fur Trade, had the dies made to wax cast the parts. Most of these sparked well. I remember a couple being a misery. One of these wound up of a percussion conversion gun that a customer wanted, never could get the lock to function acceptably as a flint. Also recall that a customer wrote a letter telling us that he had obtained over 70 consecutive fires from one flint. That was more luck that anything else, I think.
Finest lock that I currently own is on a Wilkinson 16 bore shotgun. This is a British Best, entered into their ledger in September 1822. Inside and out, it is a beauty, with all the refinements that British gunmakers had developed.
First lock I assembled from a kit of castings was a "Twigg", back in the '60s. I half soled the frizzen. It would fire upside down. Still have it, on the pistol that I made at the time.
Current repros have all sorts of locks. Some are very usable, some are horrid. An undependable lock is very frustrating.
 
Delay can not be gotten rid of. Black powder travels slower than smokeless (which expands in a defined direction depending on shape) and it must travel through the touch hole.

not to be rude or anything, but have you actually touched off a pile of black-powder and a pile of smokeless ? smokeless takes about 3x's longer to burn than black-powder, ESPECIALLY 4f like you use in the flash pan.

best way to get rid of the lag in a flintlock is to buy a quality flintlock rifle. a lyman flintlock is not going to have in general as fast a touch off as a hand built using quality lock and touch hole. a properly tuned flinter can and will touch off just as fast as a cap lock or modern inline.
 
I found that having better flints helped, they gave me better sparks and more consistent ignition. I bought some Tom Fuller English flints from Track of the Wolf.
Here is what their web page says about them:
The finest natural flint occurs as dense grey-black nodules, within chalk deposits. Tom Fuller, a young man with a deep interest in the tradition and "lost art" of flintknapping, continues the trade. He is today’s premier gun flint maker, not so much interested in quick work, but watching, measuring, and predicting each fracture line. As he forms fine flints from gentle taps, we quickly recognize that this work, like diamond cutting, is truly a art form! Happily, he is teaching his son, and others, this lost art.
 
Larry Pletcher has been performing timing experiments on almost all aspects of flintlock ignition - vent size, vent position in the pan, priming amount, etc., and lots of high-speed photography in these matters. The results are among the many articles on his Black Powder Mag website.

Regards,
Joel
 
I have tried using a vent pic in the hole while loading but only had mediocre success that way. Two things which I do think are important; one is to use a vent liner with a large cavity on the inside. In other words a 5/16 vent liner is better than a 1/4" liner because the internal hollow can be drilled larger. The opposite extreme would be a long narrow hole with only one or two powder grains wide down the flash channel --- that would work like a fuse. The second thing that is important is to have lots of sparks from the flint blow and to have them land in the hollow of the flash pan. I have seen high speed film shots of a flint pan igniting and by no means is it instant. The sparks fall down, there is a brief pause, then a series of small flashes come up from individual powder grains igniting and very soon after the whole pan goes up. main point being that the more sparks and closer to the center of the pan (front to back) the faster the whole priming charge ignites. Final note is that while 2F powder will work as a priming powder it is noticeably slower than 3F. 3F is no doubt a bit slower than 4F but in my experience the difference between 3 and 4F is not particularly noticeable and not worth the fuss and bother of carrying a spare priming horn.

cheers mooncoon
I have a Lyman 54 I replaced the stock lock with a RPL lock and had A white lightning touch hole line installed. I use 2f in the main charge and 2f in the pan no delay that I can tell. I also have 3F and 4F. When hunting I will probably revert to 4f in the pan just to be sure. Taylor Sapergia has told me he has even used 1f in the pan with success. As others have pointed out on this board careful loading practices, a good lock and a good properly designed coned vent hole liner is critical to lock time.
 
Last edited:
The issue of bevel up or down depends on the length of the flint. When a flint is new, quite often bevel up gives the best angle for striking the frizzen as opposed to smashing the flint square onto it. After knapping once or twice, the flint gets progressively shorter and reversing it to bevel down allows it to strike higher on the frizzen as opposed to having either the top jaw or its screw hit the frizzen.

Sounds like I need to make a top jaw for my Manton carbine lock and find a gun to use it in. I managed to buy one in unused condition a number of years ago. I think 10,000 were made and only 5000 guns made with the other 5000 being spares or perhaps intended for a larger production run.

Relative to the geometry of the lock; it is a very difficult thing to get right, bordering on witchcraft (in my opinion) I have made 2 or 3 flint locks from scratch and none of them work as well as a good production lock

cheers mooncoon
 
Larry Pletcher has been performing timing experiments on almost all aspects of flintlock ignition - vent size, vent position in the pan, priming amount, etc., and lots of high-speed photography in these matters. The results are among the many articles on his Black Powder Mag website.

Regards,
Joel

Pretty sure that some of those were the ones I had seen a while back.

Mooncoon, WRT the witchcraft comment, I suspect that is not too far off the truth. Lots of guys tried lots of things over the years, and they evolved in to something that worked for them, and they had their own theories, it seems, as to why their systems worked. The high speed camera and electronic timing though have shown that some things just ain't what they seemed to be. Stuff like actually getting better lock times without a roller frizzen, and what actually happens to the frizzen during the firing cycle, as examples, turned out to be, well, not quite a match for the theory.

Lots of smart and talented mechanics have had their way with rock-locks over the centuries. Some got it more right than others, too.

Cheers
Trev
 
Back
Top Bottom