Don't be fooled by the bang!

[Gbro]

I use musket caps and have promoted them over #10 & 11's for years. I have to confess that i was wrong.
The modern day musket caps(the ones i use) have a paper wad holding the explosive compound in the cap.
I tried to puff a cleaning patch out of my barrel, and the cap wouldn't hardly move it. Thinking i had a clogged nipple/flame channel i cleaned and tried again this time with the patch slightly protruding from the muzzle. Again the musket cap failed to push the patch out.
Now I take a dremmel and carefully bore a small hole in the paper wad in the cap and the patch now is puffed out of the barrel, mind you just out of the barrel.
Now i don't have a rifle with #11 nipple, but my C&B revolver with #11 will blow that patch 4 feet into the air.

The musket caps i have been using are Navy 2000's and RWS.
I have an old 1865 breach loader that uses musket caps so changing that to 11's is out of the question.

[mykeal]

I think you have the wrong idea about what a cap is supposed to do. They are intended and designed to be the ignition point in an explosive train. Their purpose is to create an energy source sufficient to start the powder burning. Black powder, and smokeless powder also, is ignited by heat, so the cap's purpose is to provide that heat. A pressure wave alone will not ignite black powder, so the amount of pressure produced by the cap is irrelevant to it's function. If you want to measure the effectiveness of your caps you need to measure the temperature of the sparks produced at the point where they impact the powder charge.

I believe the idea behind musket caps vs #10 or #11 caps is to produce a larger amount of spark material, thus a larger area of ignition in the powder itself. Some claims have been made that the spark is hotter, and that may be true, but that seems to be of little importance. Once you've provided a spark of a temperature sufficient to ignite the powder, the greater energy in a hotter spark seems to me to be wasted.

Your experiment is interesting but doesn't really measure what's most important to powder ignition. Also, it's kind of apples and oranges. The musket cap on your breech loader is detonating in a larger cavity than the #11 in your revolver, so the force generated by the pressure wave is effective over a larger area and thus less than that produced by the same pressure wave from a #11 cap in your revolver. To really see the effect of the pressure wave you need to have the same size reaction chamber. In either case the spark material must travel from the cap to the powder, and thus the pressure produced by the cap ignition has some effect, but the distances are small quite restricted, so producing more pressure is of little importance in the overall scheme.

But, in the end, the real test would be to measure the temperature of the spark material.

[Gbro]

I hear(read) you all the way, however the wad in the musket cap is effectively blocking the orifice and in doing so is preventing the introduction of the heat.
Now on further testing i touched a lit match to the paper wad, and it was gone instantly. It must be treated with nitrite to facilitate combustion. But under the cap when its in place on the gun, the wad isn't fully burned. it is just charred and i have had to flick them off, and out of the nipple.
Now i might have some bad caps as i have had them in the tin, but for 5-6 years. My next test will be with new caps and i will install a 11 nipple also.
Now take the 209 shot shell primmer that is used on some imatation muzzel loaders. That primer will propel a retreaver dummy a long way. I once put a shot shell wad(no powder) through the celing tiles of the garage during a preplan for a trigger lock demmo. (i scrapped that part of the demmo, pronto)

I use the Flintlock ignition for the most part but also have the 2 guns w/ musket caps.
Many years ago i was in a class on muzzle loading and the instructor used percussion guns. He said that prior to loading it was prudent to snap a cap with a patch in the end of the muzzle or very close to a dry leaf to ensure a clean fire channel. The musket cap wasn't as available then and guns used #11 caps. I had the old Yankee rifle and no caps. Now i have caps and i feel they are not up to the performance of the originals. (just MHO)

[mykeal]

Yep, sure sounds like bad caps to me. If you are not getting a hot enough spark to ignite the wad you sure won't get any powder ignition. Dump the whole tin full.

[Gbro]

OK i got a tin of CCI's M/Caps, and a nipple for the #11's.

1st. test with cci M/C and the patch was puffed 3' above vertical barrel.
2nd Repeat of 1st. same
3rd replaced nipple and new Rem. #11(with foil). puffed patch 3' above.
4th used old Rem #11 (no foil) puffed 3' also.
Now i need to get some new Navy caps and try them????

The cci caps are constructed just like the Navy w/paper wad.
compound is same (apparent)

[mykeal]

Conclusion: your old caps are bad.

I don't see the need to test another brand. Time to go shoot some powder.