| Author |
Message |
|
Mrak E.Smith
|
 Posted: Fri 13 Jun, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: About prime powder of the early muskets |
 |
|
Musketeers carries separate powder, the flask contains the prime powder and apostles the propellant powder. My question is why a matchlock musket needs separate fine(even serpentine ?) gunpowder as prime powder?
Is it as IMO that because the prime powder should be fine enough, not as large grain as the corned propellant powder to go through the touch-hole? Or other reasons? Why finally when paper cartridges were used, prime and propellant powder became the same?
|
|
  |
 |
|
James Nordstrom
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Jun, 2008 1:45 am Post subject: Re: About prime powder of the early muskets |
|
|
| Mrak E.Smith wrote: | Musketeers carries separate powder, the flask contains the prime powder and apostles the propellant powder. My question is why a matchlock musket needs separate fine(even serpentine ?) gunpowder as prime powder?
Is it as IMO that because the prime powder should be fine enough, not as large grain as the corned propellant powder to go through the touch-hole? Or other reasons? Why finally when paper cartridges were used, prime and propellant powder became the same? |
The touch hole is one item, the other is that large corn powder is very hard to ignite with match. In my experience one-in-ten ignitions will fail (hang-fire) even with fine corn. Thus the finer the corn the higher likely hood of firing.
Wide spread use of paper cartridges came about at the same time as primer caps (percussion caps). Read more about them here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percussion_cap .
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Jun, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: Re: About prime powder of the early muskets |
|
|
Paper cartridges were the standard ammunition by 1700 in all Western European armies and had been in military use since the 16th century. I.e long before the introduction of the precussion cap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mrak E.Smith
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Jun, 2008 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hello James, It's well may be the point, that propellant large-grained powder is hard to be ignited, but as Daniel has already pointed out, paper cartridges were used, i.e. prime and propellant powders were the same at the end of the matchlock time, and well into flintlock era, so if paper cartridges use same large-grain powder as old propellant powder in the apostles, why it can be used as prime powder now?I'm still puzzled~
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Jun, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mrak E.Smith wrote: | | Hello James, It's well may be the point, that propellant large-grained powder is hard to be ignited, but as Daniel has already pointed out, paper cartridges were used, i.e. prime and propellant powders were the same at the end of the matchlock time, and well into flintlock era, so if paper cartridges use same large-grain powder as old propellant powder in the apostles, why it can be used as prime powder now?I'm still puzzled~ |
Just guessing here: If the primer charge was wet, or misfired or fired but didn't ignite the main charge one could use the small flash to recharge the priming pan and try to ignite the same main charge a second time ?
One might use a pricker to clear the touch hole of any blockage first ?
If doing this, soon after a misfire " flash in the pan " but no ignition of the main charge there might be a danger of the powder in the powder flask exploding in one's hand & face.  So maybe it would seem like a good idea to use a really small capacity flask as opposed to the large powder flask used to reload a main charge or make new cartridges ?
That the powder used for priming and main charge was the same might be true for early serpentine powder and early in the use of matchlocks but I'm not sure when finer powder started to be used for more reliable ignition ? Not disputing the information, just wondering about the source(s) and more details about time and place where this is true. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Staberg
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Jun, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Looking through my collection of munitioons related documents from the 30-Years War I can find no evidence that the musketeers were issueda diffrent quality of powder to use for priming. For each pound of lead shot issued the musketeers got a pound of powder which was divided between the priming flask and the bandoliers.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Goerner
|
| Posted: Sat 14 Jun, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mrak E.Smith wrote: | | Hello James, It's well may be the point, that propellant large-grained powder is hard to be ignited, but as Daniel has already pointed out, paper cartridges were used, i.e. prime and propellant powders were the same at the end of the matchlock time, and well into flintlock era, so if paper cartridges use same large-grain powder as old propellant powder in the apostles, why it can be used as prime powder now?I'm still puzzled~ |
Although I am not at all familiar with the early use of powder, I can shed a little light on it's use during the 18th century that may be helpful.
It is true that paper cartridges using all one grade of powder were the standard for use with military muskets. However, hunting weapons, such as the Pennsylvania (aka, Kentucky) long rifle typically were loaded with coarse grain powder from the main powder horn, and primed with finer grain powder from a seperate priming horn.
Why the difference? Hunting guns were made with smaller locks. The smaller flints and frizzens didn't produce the same quantity of sparks. Military locks were much larger and threw a sufficient shower of sparks to ignite the coarse powder. This met the needs of the military who demanded high rates of fire from their troops. The paper cartridge was perfect for eliminating a separate priming horn and speeding up the loading process.
So why did hunting guns favor priming powder and smaller locks? Speed of ignition. While rate of fire isn't critical in hunting, accuracy is. The fine priming powder burns faster producing a faster ignition. A faster ignition means I am less likely to have wandered off target from the time I pulled the trigger to the time the ball leaves the end of the barrel.
Again, not sure what all that means when you wind back the clock to an earlier century, but maybe it at least answers some of the questions regarding use of priming powder and paper cartridges.
Chris
Sic Semper Tyranus
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Nordstrom
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jun, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: Re: About prime powder of the early muskets |
|
|
| Daniel Staberg wrote: |
Paper cartridges were the standard ammunition by 1700 in all Western European armies and had been in military use since the 16th century. I.e long before the introduction of the precussion cap. |
So lets see just how fine we can split this hair, eh.
Yes paper cartirdges were in use, as early as ~1550. You bit open the powder end, dumped the powder in, set the lubed end with the bullet into the barrel and rammed it home, put your priming charge into the pan and used some external source to ignite it. I have never seen a drill manual that says to bite the end of your paper cartridge and prime your pan from it (first or last). The priming charge always came from a separate flask and according to my ECW books used a fine corn powder.
However his question | Quote: | | Why finally when paper cartridges were used, prime and propellant powder became the same? |
entails to me the idea of the cartridge in the modern sense as cartridges that contain the bullet, powder and primer cap. These did not come into use until the early 1800's. Nitrated paper does not count either since it still needed an external source of ignition.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon Frye
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jun, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: Re: About prime powder of the early muskets |
|
|
| James Nordstrom wrote: |
Yes paper cartirdges were in use, as early as ~1550. You bit open the powder end, dumped the powder in, set the lubed end with the bullet into the barrel and rammed it home, put your priming charge into the pan and used some external source to ignite it. I have never seen a drill manual that says to bite the end of your paper cartridge and prime your pan from it (first or last). The priming charge always came from a separate flask and according to my ECW books used a fine corn powder.
|
Ummmm.... every drill manual from after 1700 to 1855 that I've ever read states that you prime first, from the torn cartridge. A good example is the King's Manual Exercise of 1764: http://www.2nc.org/1764.htm or http://www.2ndsc.org/frames.html , and the von Steuben Manual from 1779: http://www.2nc.org/steubman.htm , or http://www.2ndsc.org/frames.html . (Both sites give you the drill, one is somewhat easier to read, the other has excellent photo's to show the exact position of the soldier for each movement).
Most of the illustrations from the 16th Century show a single flask in use for the arquebus or caliver, while the larger musket usually is shown with bandoliers and a small priming flask. However, my own research into Spanish Colonial expeditions shows that soldiers declared among their goods such items as "an arquebus, with flasks [frasco y frasquillo] and everything else necessary for it", etc. Thus it seems to have depended upon time and place as to whether or not one or two flasks were used. Might have been personal preference, might have been availability of finer powder, who knows. Since each soldier of much of the era prior to 1620 was responsible for the purchase of his own arms and accoutrements, I would vote for personal preference. Two flasks are more expensive, and having two grades of powder was more cumbersome to ensure. However, you had more certain ignition with finer grain powders for priming.
At any rate, as noted above, once the flintlock musket became the standard for issue in Western armies, they seem to have generally used a single fairly large grain of powder for both priming and charging. (There IS an illustration of French infantry equipments from the early 18th Century showing a cartridge box with auxilliary charging flask and priming flask, but that was for after the cartridges were exhausted.) With the shower of sparks from a Brown Bess or Charleville lock, it's not often that it fails to fire!
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Lin Robinson
|
| Posted: Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Goerner wrote: |
Although I am not at all familiar with the early use of powder, I can shed a little light on it's use during the 18th century that may be helpful.
It is true that paper cartridges using all one grade of powder were the standard for use with military muskets. However, hunting weapons, such as the Pennsylvania (aka, Kentucky) long rifle typically were loaded with coarse grain powder from the main powder horn, and primed with finer grain powder from a seperate priming horn.
Why the difference? Hunting guns were made with smaller locks. The smaller flints and frizzens didn't produce the same quantity of sparks. Military locks were much larger and threw a sufficient shower of sparks to ignite the coarse powder. This met the needs of the military who demanded high rates of fire from their troops. The paper cartridge was perfect for eliminating a separate priming horn and speeding up the loading process.
So why did hunting guns favor priming powder and smaller locks? Speed of ignition. While rate of fire isn't critical in hunting, accuracy is. The fine priming powder burns faster producing a faster ignition. A faster ignition means I am less likely to have wandered off target from the time I pulled the trigger to the time the ball leaves the end of the barrel.
Again, not sure what all that means when you wind back the clock to an earlier century, but maybe it at least answers some of the questions regarding use of priming powder and paper cartridges.
Chris |
Recent research by various folks in the muzzle loading fraternity in the US has turned up little evidence of priming horns. The same is true of short starters - which I like to use and which are used by nearly all modern black powder shooters - but which may not have been invented until the percussion era. Any way, those persons who did the research said the main reason they accepted this idea is the significant lack of small horns from the flintlock era. Their belief, which I cautiously accept, is that the rifleman loaded and primed from one horn.
I'm not entirely sure I can agree with your statement that fine powder was used to increase the burning rate of the priming powder and speed ignition. While it is true that FFFFG burns much faster than more coarse grain powder, the chief culprit for slow iginition was the location of the touch hole and the thickness of the barrel walls at the breech. A touch hole that is bored lower than the top of the priming pan requires the powder to burn down until the flame from ignition can reach the touch hole. Over priming has the same effect. Then the flame must get through the touch hole into the barrel to ignite the main charge. If the touch hole is not counter bored from inside and/or outside the barrel, ignition is significantly slower and you get the "whoosh - bang" that is the classic description of firing a flintlock. Gun makers in Europe occasionally fitted rifles and shotguns with touch hole liners of gold and other metals, primarily to resist burn out, but some were also counterbored to improve ignition. Modern builders of flintlock muzzle loaders frequently use counterbored touch hole liners to improve ignition
Muskets were certainly made with much larger locks, some with huge priming pans, in an effort to ensure ignition. Locks on hunting rifles were smaller and with smaller pans. However, having shot both musket and rifle over the years, I find little difference between the larger and smaller locks, all things being equal other than size. Careful priming, a properly bored touch hole and a well-tuned lock make a much greater difference than the power granulation, in my humble opinion.
Lin Robinson
"The best thing in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." Conan the Barbarian, 1982
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic