.40 cal flint lock loads?

[will52100]

My first was a Chambers kit with a Siler lock.  After that I'm spoiled, same with the Rice barrels.  The Siler lock is a thing of beauty and works wonderfully.

I remember seeing a series of slow motion videos that tested flintlock ignition speeds vs cap lock.  They showed that a well tuned flint is faster than a cap lock.  Not by much, but it is faster.  Of course with a cap lock you can seal around the cap with wax and you've got a water proof rifle, at least for the first shot.

To me, part of it is the challenge, kinda like reloading match grade rifle ammo over turning out pistol plinking ammo.  I do both, but sometimes enjoy taking the time to do it.  Or for that mater some times I want to take the M14 out, other times the Henry with BP loads.

[Thumb Buster]

My biggest gripe is no one was around to show me how to set the flint, not that it would have mattered with that T/C 'klatchlock'., or how much to prime the pan with and not to compress the load so much.   

[will52100]

I hear you.  I had the same issue with cap and ball revolvers.  No good source of quality nipples or spare parts, hard to find the rite sized caps, hard to find black powder.  Nobody in this neck of the woods shot black powder period, much less cilvil war guns.  This was before the internet.  It was so much trouble I gave up on cap and ball revolvers for a number of years.  When the internet came of age and I learned of CAS and the wealth of information available I got interested in them again.

If you want a decent flintlock, I can heartily recommend TVM.  They get some flack because there not 100% period correct, or an exact copy of a "school".  They are however representative of the period and are well made and it's not hard to imagine a gunsmith in the era making one just like it.  They tend to lack moulding and carving, but I'm sure it could be added for the rite price.  Of course there a bit more expensive then a T/C, but it's money well spent in my opinion.

[Thumb Buster]

TVM is very intriguing.  I've been looking at them for a while.  Something akin to the Southern or Virginia is on my bucket list.  As I shoot mostly round ball I like the notion of a 1 in 66" instead of 1 in 48".  The T/C Hawken was a gift so at least it will hang on the wall.

[will52100]

If you do decide on one, there's a lot of good barrel makers out there, but I don't think any are better than Rice barrels.  No break in needed, the lands are polished and a uniform size from one end to the other.  They pull a hardened steel ball through after rifling and it sizes the barrel and polishes the lands.

[DTS]

Here's my .45 longrifle being loaded. At the start of the video, I've already put the patch and ball on the muzzle. Note I do NOT throw the rod onto the loaded ball as you see the other fellow doing. This is poor practice and apparently will get you kicked out of some events in the States. It is felt with hot weather, compressing the powder by throwing the rod onto the ball can and has elicited ignition -with disastrous results to the "hand" above the muzzle.
The load I was using for the trail walk, was 75gr. 3F GOEX with a 10ounce denim (.0225" compressed) and a .445" ball in the .45 bore of this GM barrel.  This video was taken at the end of the day's shooting - perhaps 55 to 65shots downrange altogether with NO wiping the bore at any time.  Your patched ball cleans the last shot as it is seated onto the powder. Note the ease of loading - and the method. I've been doing this for 40 years now.

[will52100]

Nice vid, thanks for sharing.  Why would you get in trouble for throwing the ram rod down the barrel?  I don't do that myself, seems like an inconsistant way to load, but what do I know?

Anyway, I don't have experiance with other barrels, only Rice barrels.  I know from them I can go over a 100 shots with my .54 without cleaning and it's still easy to load.  Of course the lock is another story!  From what I've read, GM and Colerain barrels are good, but may need a break in or lapping when new.  A buddy of mine has a Pedersoli flintlock and it's accurate, but has a rough spot about half way down the barrel.  It's getting better, but only has maybe 150 rounds through it, if that.  Not sure what barrel Pedersoli uses, or if they make there own.

  Here's one you may or may not have seen, it's an old video of colonial rifle making with Wallace Gusler building one from scratch, lock, stock and barrel.

[will52100]

Here's me shooting my 54 I built a several years ago.  It's short, but shows how fast a flintlock can be.

[Gabriel Law]

I have two .40 cal rifles, and a .40 cal pistol - the one Sir Charles eluded to.  The rifles like a .395" pure lead ball from a Lyman mold, a .020" - .022" cotton denim patch, and 65 gr. of 3Fg GOEX.  I do not have to change loads for shooting out to 100 yards - just hold a little front sight over the notch for the longer ranges.  I use spit for lube for trail walks or target shooting and neatsfoot oil for hunting, or winter shooting.  All three firearms came from my own bench.

[will52100]

I haven't had time to get out and shoot mine again, so far am liking the 40 grain charge, but want to try a few more.

I've tried several different things over the years for patch lube, so far I've been using TOW mink oil, seems to do good.  I've tried spit patching and it works, but I don't like the idea of moister sitting for any length of time at one spot in my barrel.  Probably nothing to worry about when at the range, but just don't like the idea.  I need to get some .395 balls and see if they shoot better, I've been casting and shooting .390 balls and the one dry ball I had to pull showed a slight indentation of rifling and sure marks from the pillow ticking, so not sure how much if any a .395 will do.  Of course I up the charge might make a difference.

[DTS]

Nice vid, thanks for sharing.  Why would you get in trouble for throwing the ram rod down the barrel?  I don't do that myself, seems like an inconsistant way to load, but what do I know?

"Throwing the rod onto the ball" is one of the steps taught in loading a military musket"- This was common throughout the world's armies including the US army of the 17 and 1800's.

"Firearms of the American West 1803 - 1865", a decent historical account, mentions this method of loading, when the "States" were experimenting with the Tige and Delvnige barrel systems.  The Tige barrel had a rod projection sticking forward into the powder charge ahead of the breech block. The "charge' from the issue paper ctg. was dumped into the bore, then a ball dropped in, the rod then being thrown onto the ball the requisite 3 throws ensured expanding the ball.  In the Devinge system, the hollowed breech held the charge in a smaller chamber than the rest of the barrel. Thus the ball's outer sides rested on a sort of inner shelf. Throwing the rod on to the ball, made it expand around the periphery to fit into the rifling.
The Tige and Delvinge systems originated in France, but were used throughout Europe - as well as being purchased by the "US" Government to build it's rifle supplies. The Austrian rifles purchased by the (US) Government had both systems as well as being tube and pill locks, thus converted to using the Maynard system when possible.
Where or how this method of loading became common amongst "some" shooters today, I do not know. 

Perhaps one or more of the 'modern' but woefully inexperienced experts of the day who started writing about BP shooting in the 70's, noted this was the proper way of loading.  I do not know. It is also possible a "loading by the numbers" chart survived in someone's library to be brought to life today and is being taught - somewhere.  There is/was an old fellow at Rendezvous BC who "taught" this method.  He would attach himself to new shooters and teach this. He will not listen to reason.

WWGreener noted in "The Gun and it's Development 9th Edition" that the practice of throwing the rod on to the powder was a bad system as it mealed and caked the powder to various extents, causing inconsistency in burning and reducing accuracy.

[will52100]

Kinda my thoughts on inconsistency, makes sense.  I'd thought about upsetting the ball, but since I'm not shooting gov issued undersized ball in a smooth bore I think I'll avoid doing it.

Since it doesn't appear to be unsafe, why would you get kicked out of some matches for doing it?

Thanks

[Sir Charles deMouton-Black]

My Pedersoli .54 "Mortimer" has a fast & sure lock.  I sold on a Lyman Great Plains flinter, because it wasn't.

[Roosterman]

I was shooting a .40 for a while that had a  46" Getz oct/rnd barrel. It shot well with all loads but really tightened up at 65gr 3fff. Best shooting gun I ever made....that I shot anyway.

[will52100]

Good looking rifle.  I actually got a little time to play with it yesterday, and after a dozen rounds of embarrassment I finally settled down to where I could hit a clay bird consistently at 50 yards.  I did put it on paper, and if I would hold still enough I would cut the same hole.  Though most 3 shot groups would be one 6" to the left, one 6" to the right, and one dead center.  A few were one ragged hole, but those were rare.  Not the rifle's fault.

I went up and down on the powder charges, the only difference I noticed was the higher the charge, the higher the ball impacted.  Which is kinda weird, I always though heavier loads would shoot lower. 

Anyway, I've got a lot more practice to do, the rifle will shoot way better than I can at this point.  Think your a good shot?  Try a flintlock, it'll show any bad habits or twitches you have.  I'm getting better, but it's a lesson in humility.  And it doesn't help that my eyes aren't 19 anymore.

[Roosterman]

Shoot off a rest to work up a load. Put in a "wood flint" and practice off hand indoors at a spot on the wall, it will really help. You're going to want a .390 or .395 ball and .018 to .020 patch.

[will52100]

Yep, it's just humbling, I thought I was a good shot!  And I am with those new fangled brass self contained cartridges.

I'm using .016 pillow ticking, and a .390 ball.  I'd like to try some .395 balls, but haven't gotten any yet.  So far the .390 will make one ragged hole at 50 yards if I do my part.  Which isn't all that often, but I am good enough to know when I've pulled or moved the rifle before the ball leaves the barrel.

The suggestion on using a wood "flint" is a good one and one I need to do if I want to improve my consistency.

[Bunk Stagnerg]

Just for curiosity is there a reason for  swamped barrel other that looks?
i have not shot a rag nose gun for years but i might dig a cap lock Lyman Trade rifle out of the back of the safe.
With non corrosive caps now available iit might be less of a problem to clean.

[Professor Marvel]

Just for curiosity is there a reason for  swamped barrel other that looks?

My Dear Bunk -
It is for lighter overall weight. swamping allows for a nice thcikness on the breech, and more weight
toward the muzzle, but reduces the overall weight of these long-barreled devices.
holding up a 40+ inch longrifle for any length of time is getting harder and harder.
i better take my vitamins

yhs
prof (weakling) marvel

[will52100]

Pretty much what the Prof said, with the added caveat that the barrel flares thicker at the muzzle also helps put the sights on the same plane while having a slender mid section.  It's also pleasing to the eye and showed the craftsmanship of the barrel maker.  As far as the balance goes, after handling a straight barreled and a swamped barreled rifle, I'll chose the swamped barrel nearly every time.