Range report on Doc Hoy's spout/measure invention.

[Bill Akins]

Back in April Doc Hoy very kindly sent me one of his handmade, clear plastic tube, 5 grain line graduations, sliding plunger, flask spout/measure inventions. He also sent some spare felt rings to replace used ones on the sliding plunger.
Doc also sent his own special preparation of lube and 3 sets of 20 lead balls of .451, .454 and .457.

This report adds to some posts and pics of Doc's that he made recently about his spout/measure invention at this thread. Check it out. Doc's pics are a lot clearer on closeups than mine are....
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...22#post4678022

Yesterday my friend Pete came over to shoot BP revolvers with me and I decided it was a good time to try out what Doc had sent me. Here's what Doc sent me. A container of his specially homemade lube, 3 different sizes of lead balls, a small container holding spare felt rings for the plunger. And replacement spout/measure with sliding plunger.


Doc's clear plastic spout replacement was threaded and after I removed my brass spout, Doc's screwed right on my CVA powder flask like this.....


and this.....


You slide the plunger so that the felt ring on its end comes to or between the grain graduation lines on the clear tube. Then you point the flask downward and open its valve so powder can pour into the clear tube. That powder is then stopped by wherever the plunger and felt ring is at. Then you make sure your flask valve is closed so the powder in the tube will not fall back into the flask.......


Here it is with the powder trapped in the tube with the plunger still in the tube....


and with the plunger slid out of the tube ready for pouring the powder into another powder measure....that is not really used as a powder measure in this instance, but just to transport the powder to the cylinder so there is no direct interaction between the flask itself and the cylinder....to be safe and preclude any possible ember in a fired chamber from ever exploding your flask in your face like a grenade.


Continued next post due to 6 pics per post limit....


.

[Bill Akins]

Pouring the powder from Doc's flask replacement spout/measure tube into another powder measure just to transport it to the cylinder......


Loading the cylinder's chambers.....


Selecting .454 lead balls that Doc sent......


I usually use cornmeal between my BP and lead balls as a firebreak to prevent front of cylinder chainfires, and that works great for me, but this time I greased over the loaded lead balls and lubed the cylinder's arbor using Doc's special lube preparation.....


and here you can see Doc's lube container and the butter knife I used to grease the chambers and cylinder arbor with.....


My friend Pete shooting my stainless, short barreled, target sighted '58 Remy at a peanut can and soda bottle after loading using Doc's spout/measure.
I loaded the Remy with 22 grains of BP for one cylinder, 25 grains for another and 30 grains with another. All three loads performed very well on the peanut can and plastic soda bottle. Just informal, laid back but safe, back yard shooting.


Continued next post due to 6 pics per post limit.


.

[Bill Akins]

Couple of more pics of Pete shooting my '58 Remy....




Some pics of me shooting my '58 Remy. This is the one I coated the grips to look like ivory on. The revolver is not recoiling at all. The pics that look like it is recoiling, are actually me in the process of purposefully moving the barrel skyward and slightly tilting the barrel to the rear when I re-cock the revolver. I do this so percussion cap fragments fall downward out of the revolver rather than get jammed under the hammer or fall inside the action jamming it when the revolver is re-cocked. I was using #10 caps and some of them stuck on the nipples after firing and some didn't. No problems with the '58 Remy, but we had one instance where a cap stuck under the hammer of my '51 Marshal so far and jammed everything, that I had to remove the hammer screw to loosen the hammer enough to unjam the cap so it would fall out. After that I would always re-cock both revolvers like you see in the old movies with barrel skyward barrel tilted back and there were no further jamming problems when the caps would fall off after firing. (Yes I know SASS would not allow that).








Continued next post due to 6 pics per post limit.



.

[Bill Akins]

Continued from last post....

I always enjoy shooting my '58 Remy.


Next we switched over to using Doc's special loading spout/measure on my 1851 Marshal revolver. I used the same 22, 25 and 30 grain loads in it that I had used in the Remy. Here's two pics of Pete shooting the '51 Marshal.....




The results of a very perforated boiled peanut can and soda bottle.....






We had a great time and both Pete and I really like Doc's clear tube, replacement spout/measure. It allows you to actually SEE the charge within the clear tube. It is easy to slide the plunger to the volume of powder you want and the 5 grain graduation rings give you a good indicator of where to place the felt ring on the end of the plunger at. You can even slightly compress the powder charge using the plunger so there is no air voids.

Once it was attached to my flask, all I had to do was set the plunger to the volume of powder I wanted, point the flask downward and fill the clear tube by depressing the powder dispensing valve and releasing it, pull the plunger out of the tube, pour the powder in the tube into another measure just for tansporting to the cylinder and then use that measure to load the cylinder.

It is actually faster I think than just pouring from a flask into a powder measure and then to the cylinder. Because.....when you pour into a regular powder measure, you have to take time and be very careful when the powder gets to the top that you don't overfill it and spill powder. Sometimes you spill a little out of the top of your powder measure. But not with Doc's you don't.

With Doc's spout/measure, you don't have to take the time to be careful about that. The tube holds what you set the plunger for it to hold. Then when you remove the plunger, you just pour the powder out into a carrier to take to the cylinder. It's very fast and easy and definitely not only saves time, but I had no loss of any grains of powder dropped at all. It takes only a second to reset the plunger to measure out the next powder charge.

Upshot? Total success Doc. I love it. You ought to build those and sell em Doc. Thanks very much again for sending one to me.

End of range report.



.

[Doc Hoy]

First of all, thanks for the positive remarks, Bill. I am glad you like it.

1. I have redesigned the spout a bit because I found that the lucite tube seems to lose strength when its surface is scored as occurs when the threads are cut in the flask end.

So on the latest version, I cut off an old Treso spout, drilled it for the exact size of the tube, and then cemented the tube into the fitting made from the old spout. In this way the tube resists breaking off at the threads. (I encourage you to use caution, Bill. That tube has a natural weak spot right where the threads end.) The brass fitting also makes the thing easy to install in the flask. Check Bill's link above for photos of the new version of the measuring tube.

Also, on Bill's spout, the grain graduations are scored in the tube. On the latest model they are marked on the plunger itself.

2. Bill's technique of measuring the powder and then transfering it to a second vessel for pouring into the chamber avoids the dangerous practice of charging a recently fired revolver with a flask. I think he mentioned this but it is worth repeating. There is some inherent danger in charging direcly from the flask. I might add that I think at some sanctioned events, the practice is unacceptable because of the danger and therefor is interpretted as a violation of the rules.

If you check the Lyman Blackpowder Handbook, you will find a photo showing a revolver being charged directly from the flask. No comment is made in the text about the possible additional danger of the practice. I checked with CVA who makes the flask, the NRA and the NMLRA to get their thoughts on the practice and none of these organizations were able to supply me with evidence of a powder flask explosion when the shooter was charging a previously fired REVOLVER. Single shot weapons, yes. Revolvers, no. I came to the conclusion that the risk was not significantly increased and could be mitigated with additional precautions at the loading bench, and therefore I load the revolver with the cylinder removed directly from the flask. I have said as much in a post some months ago but in that post I failed to mention the obvious dangers involved until late in the thread.

If is more dangerous to load a prevously fired weapon directly from a flask than to load with a scoop. If you load the way Bill describes, you will avoid that increased risk.

[Bill Akins]

Hi Doc.

Yes I noticed the plastic threads being the fragile weak spot, cantilevered, fulcrum point of any stress on the clear tube. It works fine though Doc, and I am VERY careful with it making sure the tube never gets hit. If it ever does get accidentally broken, I'll just pick up another tube of the same size, cut off a brass spout and fit/epoxy it to it just like you did Doc.

I'm curious why you switched the grain line graduation rings from the tube to the plunger? Without a fixed line graduation on the tube for you to gauge the movement of the plunger's end against, how are you doing the measuring with only the plunger being marked Doc? Or do you actually have a base line on the tube and the rest of the line graduations on the plunger? I'm interested in how your latest one does that.

[Bishop Creek]

Bill,
Looks like your shooting might have disturbed a wedding party:

[noelf2]

Great write up, but I'm confused a bit. What's the point of using the plastic tube with plunger versus the regular spout on the flask if you're going to pour the powder into a measure anyway (for safety). I don't see the advantage here.

[arcticap]

Because the spout is clear, it can be seen whether it's filled with powder or not.
And the fact that it has easy adjustment allows dropping charges for more than one gun or different load combinations without needing to change spouts, or needing to buy and custom size a bunch of different spouts.
So it adds convenience, versatility and certainty about how much powder is in the spout.
It looks like it's a very handy and useful item!

[noelf2]

No offense to anyone. I'm not being critical of the design or loading practice. I'm just not seeing the advantage unless the tube/plunger eliminates the need for a powder measure/funnel entirely (which I presume the design intends to do). In Bill's case, he still needed the measure to safely pour powder into the cylinder (although he just used it to funnel the powder, measuring was done already). IMHO, Bill could just as easily have used the flask to pour powder directly into an adjusted measure.

[Doc Hoy]

To Bill,

I switched to the plunger graduations so as not to add more weak spots to the tube. I marked the plunger and align the marks with the top of the spout/tube. Works just as well.

To Bishop Creek,

If you knew Bill, you would realize that it was the wedding that disturbed the shooting. Or perhaps the shooting was the main event.

To Noelf,

First of all, great to be communicating with you once more. Anyway, Articap tagged it. My initial reason for making the clear spout had to do with the fact that I was fairly certain I was getting some voids in the powder in the CVA/Treso spouts. As well, the phenomenon of the finger impression in the end of the spout concerned me. (It no longer does besause for my shooting there is not a nickels worth of difference between 23 and 25 grains. It is just important that the charge should be consistent.

As regards pouring directly from the flask into the chamber, your method is the method I use. I am convinced that my technique of marking the target after each cylinder, loading the pistol with a press (cylinder outside of the frame) taking a very close look into each chamber and if there are any remains, swabbing the chamber with a patch, reduces the risk to an acceptable (to me) level. I do acknowledge that to others on the forum, that increase in risk is unacceptable and consequently they never load directly from the flask into a recently fired weapon. I never tell anyone else how they should load and I pay very little attention when someone else tells me how I should load. I think that during some sanctioned events,, the practice constitutes a violation of the rules.

Bill was shooting with e relatively new shooter and hence may have been making use of some extra precautions. I don't like shooting with others around since two people shooting is more than twice as dangerous as one person shooting.

[ZVP]

Plenty of pictures and text!
I like your Backyard range, you can stop for some cold champagne when you are done!
Just one warning. The Filler you mentioned is purely to space the ball forward in the chamber and to make the cylinder to forcing cone jump minimal. COW and other cerials are flamable!
Best to use a treated Felt wad or flash-over protection or Crisco over the balls. In fact, even Wheel Bearing Grease will work just great for lube and flash-over protection.
Ya did a real nice job on the report!
HTH,
ZVP

[arcticap]

Originally Posted by Bill Akins

I usually use cornmeal between my BP and lead balls as a firebreak to prevent front of cylinder chainfires, and that works great for me, but this time I greased over the loaded lead balls and lubed the cylinder's arbor using Doc's special lube preparation.....

Originally Posted by ZVP

The Filler you mentioned is purely to space the ball forward in the chamber and to make the cylinder to forcing cone jump minimal. COW and other cerials are flamable!

I think that the jury is still out about the filler only serving to close up the amount of head spacing. There was a chrony report that showed that filler can help to make the velocity more consistent than not using filler, and consistent velocity could also contribute to the better accuracy rather than it just being a matter of head spacing.
The jury may also be out on whether filler can help to prevent chainfires or not. While the cereals may be flammable that doesn't mean that when compacted, they don't help to prevent chainfires. Not everyone wants to use more than only a wad or filler and or grease. Some folks load without using any of these and some even claim that most chainfires originate through the nipples due to caps coming loose or being too large.
If the cereal could catch fire by simply being in proximity to the adjacent chamber that's being fired, then one would think that using filler would cause more chain fires. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Wads might be flammable too yet most claim that they do help to prevent chainfires. That may have to do with the density and compression of the filler material and wads.
Anyway I think that there will be a hung jury regarding these topics that will go on nearly forever since there's very little data or proof about any of it.

[Bill Akins]

Noelf2 wrote:
No offense to anyone. I'm not being critical of the design or loading practice. I'm just not seeing the advantage unless the tube/plunger eliminates the need for a powder measure/funnel entirely (which I presume the design intends to do). In Bill's case, he still needed the measure to safely pour powder into the cylinder (although he just used it to funnel the powder, measuring was done already). IMHO, Bill could just as easily have used the flask to pour powder directly into an adjusted measure.

First, thanks everyone glad y'all liked my range report on Doc's invention.

Noelf2 I think I can help you visualize the advantages of using Doc's invention for BP loading over conventional BP loading.

It all has to do with kind of a "time and motion study" thing as well as having as close as possible to a consistent charge as is possible without using a scale.

When we go over the "time and motion".....the "movements and time"....that one uses in loading a BP revolver using several STANDARD type powder measures, the difference in time saved and less motion wasted using Doc's spout/measure will become evident.

Now Doc loads directly from his flask using his plunger tube/spout/measure and that would be the fastest way to load. With his technique of checking his targets, then removing the cylinder and inspecting it/quick swabbing it, and loading it with a bench loader off the revolver,.....is no doubt pretty safe considering the time and swabbing precautions he takes before he pours powder. And for old salts like us that are shooting by ourselves and know what we are doing that is fine.

But the very first time I ever fired a black powder revolver was a Colt Walker .44 clone I bought back in the '70's and my very first shot was a chainfire and I felt lucky that I had only loaded two rounds which both went off at the same time. My very first time shooting BP and my very first shot! I was alone.

I don't know if the chainfire was caused from the cap side or the cylinder front. But there were no computers then and my only instructions had been how much to load using a Walker flask (I still have) and a primitive 5 graduations line, no funnel, open top measure. I hadn't been instructed to grease over anything. So my suspicions are, that me being a newbie, had not checked to see that no BP grains were exposed around the edge of the loaded balls and with no lubing over the ball to cylinder wall, I think the chainfire came from the front of the cylinder. If indeed from the front, it was either hot gases or flame getting past the ball on some errant granules. I also doubt that it was from a loose percussion cap because I didn't realize at first that I had fired two balls. I had only heard one explosion. It was only when my second shot went "snap" instead of "boom" that I realized they had both fired. If it had been flame going up the side of my percussion cap, into the nipple and igniting the charge, then I think that explosion would likely have also detonated my percussion cap. But it didn't. For these reasons I believe the powder ignited from the front of the chamber due to me not having a firebreak over the powder or balls.


I never forgot that and after a trip to the library I found out how to properly load and grease over the loaded balls. I also always used a powder measure religiously after that. Just the however remote possibility that a teeny, tiny, ember almost too small to see might still ignite and follow the pouring powder like a fuse right up into the flask exploding the flask in your face, permanently blinding you with embedded burnt powder grains blown deep into your eyes, embedding burnt powder grains into your face, chest and arms and indeed the entire front of your body, blowing your hand off to a bloody red tangle of dangling exposed bone, tendon and red horror.....if you lived....was too much of a risk to take for me....EVER. No matter how remote the occurrence....it only takes once to ruin your life....or take it.

Take for example the soldier who used a .50 cal round to hammer a pin in on his M2 and the round exploded in his hand. Although a .50 caliber BMG round uses smokeless, it doesn't use as much powder as is in your flask, and it had a bullet it could blow out to lessen the pressure and still did this much damage. The flask has no such bullet it could blow out to relieve pressure. I believe the results would be about the same or worse to you if your flask blew up. WARNING, THE PICTURE OF THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE SOLDIER'S HAND IN THIS LINK IS VERY GRAPHIC AND GRUESOME. But this is what could happen if your flask exploded in your hand.

http://good-times.webshots.com/photo...99763970VtTlxW

Pretty gruesome isn't it? Now imagine it was your hand.
Is it worth the risk to you no matter how remote the occurrence of a flask blowing up from direct loading a cylinder? Like I always say...."it only takes once". And that is one "once" I wouldn't like to experience.

So even though the way Doc loads is fine, because he knows he's taking time to check targets to let any possible embers burn out, followed by quick swabbing before pouring powder directly from the flask into the cylinder and that is safe for someone who knows what they are doing. But I strive to whenever possible to use a measure instead of pouring directly from a flask. I believe it is a good habit to get into so when in the field you won't forget and load a just fired cylinder directly from your flask that you for a moment forgot you didn't let sit for a while before your poured into it because you got into the habit of always loading that way. Again,.....it only takes once.

Although old salts at BP have their own ways of doing things that are usually pretty safe or they wouldn't still be here, I never want to show or encourage a newbie to load directly from the flask. They aren't experienced enough to know the myriad of things we know and might not realize I had let the cylinder sit plenty long enough to preclude any glowing embers. And they might load that way sometime right after firing without realizing the old salt had purposely waited, but they don't wait and load and an ember is in the chamber and BOOM! So I teach them the no risk safe way. And I leave for them to learn how they could load directly from a flask with enough time passage and or quick swab on their own....when they become an old salt at it and realize they know and can do things a newbie couldn't that could get that newbie killed.

So I do it not only to get myself into a good habit of not loading directly from the flask, and also to not pass on info to a newbie that they are too new to realize how to safely handle like the old salts can. "Here pour it into the measure like this, now set the flask down and pour the measure into the cylinder". The most that could happen there would be singed eyebrows maybe. Anyway, my conscience would be clear if they had an accident because I taught them to never load directly from the flask.

Now back to how Doc's spout/measure is actually faster than loading from a standard flask spout to a measure.

First we analyze a plain, primitive, non funnel attachment powder measure. Just a tube within a tube with graduation lines on one tube that you line up with the bottom of the other tube. No pivoting or sliding funnel attachment.

Pouring from the flask you first put your finger over the end of the spout, point the flask downward and depress the powder release valve filling your spout. But....you have your finger over the end of the spout. The slight impression of your finger taking up space in the end of the spout might be different from charge to charge. Perhaps not enough to make any difference....but the goal is to always whenever possible....be as consistent in loading as possible.

So you fill that measure up to its top. But at the very top of your pour, you have to take TIME to be careful that you do not overfill the measure. There is this TIME spent carefully dribbling the end of your powder as you get to the top of your measure. You usually pour until a teeny mound is over the top so that when you slightly vibrate the measure that mound levels out and hopefully is flush with the top edge of the powder measure.

But your charge might be just a tad high and not flush with the top. Mounded up in the middle. Some people might not care to conserve a few granules of powder and just slide their knife edge over the measure to level the powder, spilling some granules as the knife blade passes. Or you take the TIME to tap the measure two or three times to settle the powder. Oops, not enough you need to tap it several times again, nope, one or two more taps. All of which takes TIME. In tapping it a few granules of powder fall out. Now you empty the measure into the chamber of the cylinder.

Movements and time? 1. Your main pour. 2. jiggling the flask to gauge the dribbling end of the pour and taking extra TIME doing that. 3. Tapping the measure multiple times to settle the powder to be flush with the top of the measure. 4. Pouring the measure into the cylinder. Four actions of movement with #2 and #3 taking up the most time and a few granules of powder lost. (I didn't even count the possible movement of drawing your knife to scrape over the measure's top to level the powder.)

Next let's analyze using a powder measure with either a pivoting funnel attachment or sliding funnel attachment. Everything is pretty much the same as with the non funnel measure. Same motions and time except for one extra motion and TIME of pivoting or sliding the funnel over the charge. Same loss of granules when you pivot or slide the funnel over the powder charge and scrape some powder off. Same motions and time consumed watching the powder and jiggling carefully when the charge is filling to the top. Same time and motion tapping the measure to level the charge.

Now let's analyze loading with Doc's spout/measure compared to those same time and motions.

When you set the plunger on Doc's tube and fill the tube...there is no TIME or motions spent jiggling the charge to the top of a measure carefully so you wouldn't overfill it. Doc's tube cannot be overfilled. You tip the flask down and the tube fills to where the felt ring is on the plunger. No jiggling the charge at the end of a pour into a measure, no time spent being careful to not overfill. Just tip down and back up. Also no TIME consuming Motions of repeated tapping because you haven't overfilled a measure trying to get it to level off. No powder loss either since the powder is in the tube.

Time and motion using Doc's invention? 1. Tilt flask down and fill tube.
2. Remove plunger. 3. Pour into carrier. 4. Pour into cylinder.

Still 4 motions, but no loss of time judging your pour as it comes to the top (sealed tube did that for you) no jiggling, no tapping, absolutely no loss of any granules of powder. You have to do it to actually see how much faster it is to load using Doc's invention. Using Doc's invention I never have to judge a pour as it comes to the top of a measure again nor have to tap a measure to level a charge again. It really is a time and motion saver.

I hope this helped you visualize it better Noelf2.


.

[Bill Akins]

Doc Hoy wrote:
Bill was shooting with a relatively new shooter and hence may have been making use of some extra precautions.

Exactly.

Doc Hoy wrote:
If you knew Bill, you would realize that it was the wedding that disturbed the shooting. Or perhaps the shooting was the main event.

It was a shotgun wedding! . But seriously, just a party tent in the back.

Doc Hoy wrote:
I switched to the plunger graduations so as not to add more weak spots to the tube. I marked the plunger and align the marks with the top of the spout/tube. Works just as well.

I figured something like that Doc. On your new ones you used the top of the tube as your baseline with the graduations on the plunger.

I have an idea you might like to try making Doc. It's similar to but may be an improvement over epoxying the clear plastic tube to a cut off brass spout base.

Take a tube of brass the length you want and that is the correct diameter to thread to the threads in your flask. Now thread the end of the brass tube to screw into your flask. Now mill out a long slot on each side of the brass tube so you can still see the powder that will be in your plastic tube, but the brass tube has a strut on each side to strengthen the brass tube all the way to the end. Inside this twin slotted long brass tube, you epoxy your clear plastic tube. So your clear tube is inside the slotted out brass tube. That would take all stress off of the plastic tube and put all stress on the slotted brass tube sleeved over the plastic tube. Plus you would never break your plastic tube off of a short piece of brass spout either because your plastic tube would be oversleeved entirely with the slotted brass tube. A much stronger setup.

Whatcha think Doc? Give it a go?


.

[Doc Hoy]

When I was looking for ways to strengthen the base of the tube I quickly siezed upon the cut-off Treso spout so that is when I stopped thinking.

I did think about turning down some brass and quickly abandoned that because I did not have the right size brass stock. I do have some steel that will work and the idea of a fitting that is milled out so as to permit sighting the powder inside the fitting is a good one. The device has to be small enough to prevent interference with the spring and such but there is still a good bit of space for strengthening mass.

[Bill Akins]

I wouldn't use steel for the slotted out sleeve over the clear plastic tube Doc. Steel can make sparks if your tube rubbed up against another steel piece like when you loaded a steel chamber or even if you dropped the flask on the concrete and the steel tube sparked against the concrete. Brass and copper don't spark like that. That's one reason flasks and spouts and measures were/are made from brass or copper. And why they used wooden implements instead of steel ones in the old gunpowder mills. Steel can spark.



.

[Doc Hoy]

Its a good point you make.