percussion revolver chainfires

[4V50 Gary]

College denied the proposal.

[RC20]

Of course.

What you have with Grease over the ball is proving a negative. You don't know that did anything because you did not do it WITHOUT grease.

So, back to a video that I felt had merit was the one where the guy put smaller and smaller balls in, until he got a chain-fire (I believe he just loaded one chamber either side so as not to get a totals chain-fire)

Once he got under .452 balls, he got chain-fires. Small enough and it was consistent (and he just said .452 not what below that).

Now I am not anywhere near the volume of others, but I would guess I have shot 1000 balls now and I had no chain-fires. I also did not use any grease.

What I did do was use at least .454 balls or bigger (for the most part)

Now being a chicken (bawk bawk bawk) while I shoot some .451 balls, I use a lubed wad as a flame a flame arestors. I could be fooling myself. But I have seen how effective a lubed wad is as a flame arestor and under a sealed ball, I am good with it.

The well written article (https://www.geojohn.org/BlackPowder/bps2Mobile.html) says chainfire is loose powder ground up. I won't disagree that is a cause and maybe even a main cause, but I have had not a single incident and not being all that adamant about grains of powder (I also did not use any grease so I don't have that as a factor in causing grins to stick where you don't want)

What you need to keep in mind is that shave lead is not a good indicator and as the article stated, could be detrimental in not having a smooth seal formed.

Chamfering sounds like a good idea to me. but you can also check by driving a ball back out of a chamber and seeing what its seal surface looks like. You should have a good band.

The funnel idea has some merit and I may got to using a small funnel vs a case that you can still spill.

As noted one gun does not shave but it has a tapered chamber to start with. Equally if you have a chamber that is even slightly egg shaped, no lead shaved is going to make a ball seal.

I don't use a flask, mine are all measured and the cylinder is on a bench when I do that.

As for Caps aka rear chamber firing? I don't think so, or if it does happen, very rare.

I started with wrong fitting caps, all I could get. Pinch them to get to stay on (11s and not the 10s they call for). I have had caps split, I have had caps peel, jam and every other darned thing, what I did not have was a chain-fiure.

Some seem to get chain-fires kind of easy, I would look to the gun and its setup.

And I sure am never putting no grease over a bullet again. Ungh

[44 AMP]

When the stars line up just the right way, black powder can be shock sensitive. Rare, but not unheard of, this might possibly explain the chain fire detonation.

Adding a wad under or grease over the ball MIGHT just change things enough that a gun which had been chain firing stops doing it.

Just a theory...flash "leakage" into unfired chambers is just as likely, if not more so, I think.

[mehavey]

QUESTION:

Are there historical/contemporary (1850 - 1870's) discussions of chainfires ?
I find it odd that with as much use as these guns must have been put to in that period,
we don't read of it much more.

[Hawg]

I have read of a few instances of chain fires but I can't say where I read them. General Lee's 51 navy had some form of wax over the balls of his 51 navy when it was fired 7 years after his death but that was probably for waterproofing than to prevent chains.

[RC20]

People did not keep journals that talked about that stuff. So we get the big picture part but not the details.

Lewis and Clark journal was fantastic, but a guy went through and cleaned it up and cross checked it all to make it readable.

That is the only reason we have anything on Air Rifles (they had one). Used that when their powder was soaked.

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by RC20

People did not keep journals that talked about that stuff. So we get the big picture part but not the details.

Yeah, people didn't usually write about stuff they took for granted that everybody knew.

[Ricklin]

Been here in the PNW a good many years, I can remember L+C movies and stuff from grade school.
Have not ever heard of the air rifle being used when their powder was wet, there are journal entries of them demonstrating it for the natives they encountered.
It is logical tho. My latest obsession is PCP guns, I finally have my own machine gun...that I can afford to shoot. I bought the .22 version, the .25 and the .30 are way more power than .22 LR. Too much for backyard fun and much more $$$ to shoot. I can do a mag dump for about 35 cents. You quickly learn why the semi-full selector is called the happy switch. It will make you grin dumping 25 rounds under 2 seconds. Until you get in to the big bore airguns...NO RECOIL, that changes the full auto picture a lot. Can put 25 rounds in the size of a dime at 10 meters in about 2 seconds. Varmints don't stand a chance and it is NOT a firearm.

[RC20]

Yeah, people didn't usually write about stuff they took for granted that everybody knew.

And then you need multiple accounts and that also shifts into opinion or Urban Legends and sorting out what was actual vs something that got ingrained.

What I got with my BP gun back in the 70s was you had to use Crisco over the chamber (not sure there was an equal aka beesewax mixes etc).

The best source would be the manuals and they don't list any of that (and good in the chamber would oooze out so it would have to be wax of some type). Lee probably never fired his pistol. So seal it up would make sense. A complete last resort thing.

We really do not know as it was not documented as no one thought it needed to be or any value in it.

[44 AMP]

Yeah, people didn't usually write about stuff they took for granted that everybody knew.

And people also didn't write about things that no one but they knew, as well.

Go back a hundred year, many things are similar to what we do today, in principle, if not in technology. Go bas another century, and you find a lot more different. Go back more and customs change even more.

Not all that long ago there was a "researcher" who claimed that firearms were no where near as common in Colonial American than popularly believed, and were, in fact rather rare.

And, he used the "evidence" of his research as the basis for his argument that America's "obsession" with individual firearms ownership was a recent thing, and did not stem from Colonial times.

OF course, he was proven wrong, on both counts, as his research was done by looking at surviving copies of period wills and bequests and other legal documents covering the transfer or inheritance of property.

He found very few documents (wills, etc) where firearms were mentioned, and he ASSUMED that meant that they were rare and not common objects, and took off from there...

He never allowed for the possibility that firearms, being both common, and not as valuable as real property like houses, lands and even ships, simply were rarely listed in wills and such, being passed down through multiple generations of owners without a single shred of official documentation.

You might find rare mention of that sort of thing in private diaries and journals, but its quite rare as are the journals themselves.

Additionally, it simply wasn't a cultural thing to routinely document every simple thing in life, particularly in an era when a large segment of society was essentially illiterate beyond begin able to do simple sums and being able to read some words, and many couldn't even do that.

Trades and professions rarely had written instructions or manuals, many that did have such books, were guild and trade secrets, taught only to the apprentices as they came up through the ranks and not let out to the general public.

Additionally, since it was primarily the educated class that read for recreation or education, materials covering things that "everyone knew" weren't common, though there were exceptions, of course.

Important things, special things, got written down. Daily things, rarely did, or were just barely mentioned in passing.

Maybe chain fires weren't really a common thing 150+ years ago because people did something "everyone knew" to do when loading, that has mostly been lost in the years since. Unless someone "finds" the "lost" practice, we can't know with certainty.

Back then, fire was a common part of everyday life. All light after dark came from open flames. And wax was a much more common thing than in use today, used for sealing all kinds of things, and it could well have been a common sealant of a cap & ball gun, something that would essentially last until firing where as today we often use a grease meant to last for the day's shooting or so.

I've known some old timers who would use wax even carefully waxing the capped nipples for keeping out water in the field, and why the only holster they would consider for "outside use" was a full flap design.

[Hawg]

I think chain fires back in the day while possible were rare. Caps back then were thicker and made of copper not the thin brass caps we have today.

[4V50 Gary]

Are there historical/contemporary (1850 - 1870's) discussions of chainfires ?

I read a letter about a Root 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle armed Berdan Sharp Shooter who lost a digit from a chainfire. I doubt if there was anything beyond campfire conversation after the fact. Remember there were no gun magazines in those days but there may be an 1862 local newspaper account.

Too bad I didn't make a note of it but I wasn't researching chain-fires at that time.

[4V50 Gary]

The book 44Amp mentioned was Arming America by Michael Bellesiles. It was onced lauded as groundbreaking work that dispelled the firearm culture. He relied on wills/probate records and pointed out that during the War of 1812 a lot of militia under Dan Morgan (not the same as the "Old Wagoneer" Daniel Morgan who fought in the Revolution) reported for duty without arms. If you were called up and there was a threat to the home, would you leave your wife and child unarmed and take the only rifle with you to fight? I'm inclined to think most men would leave the rifle at home and try to get something from the state government armory (states had armories with arms for the militia; but it wasn't nearly enough).

I concur with 44AMP with regards to probate records/wills. Why bother listing everything if it's going to be taxed? Besides, when you can't use it anymore (too feeble), give it to a son/grandson who will bring home some venison for you.

When challenged first by Clayton Cramer and then others with greater credentials (meaning they are papered), it became an embarrassing "dog ate my homework" which raised the issue of fraudulent research. His employer did a review which held it fell short of academic standards and Bellesiles resigned.

After being discredited, historian Michael Bellesiles (sp) taught at some English school (UK) before returning to the US. Supposedly he is now affiliated part time with Central Connecticut State University. He's not listed in the faculty roll so he must be adjunct (as-needed lecturer(?) without tenure).

One of his premise was that arms were not commonly available before the late industrial revolution (Civil War era). He's right in regards there were no large arms factory for the public yet (the US had military armories at Harper's Ferry, VA and Springfield, MA). However, he ignored that virtually every county had a gunsmith or two making firearms. There were plenty of Revolutionary War era gunsmiths who took battlefield salvaged parts and re-built them into muskets for the militia. Barrels, locks, barrel bands, buttplates and ramrods could be re-used on a new stock. In the post-American Revolution/and Federal Period there were also specialty makers like Remington that didn't make guns but was hammering out barrels for gunmakers. Locks could be imported from England or elsewhere so one didn't have to build everything from scratch like Wallace Gusler did in the film, The Gunsmith of Colonial Williamsburg. Wallace proved it could be done (but that didn't neccesarily mean one dude made everything everytime).

[mehavey]

Anyone who wants validation that "arms & the man" were an
everyday condition in the nation's 1860's heyday even OUTSIDE
the Civil Wahr needs read no further than MK's "Roughing It"

[4V50 Gary]

I just happened to have borrowed that very book last week! Can't get much reading in right now though.

[RC20]

Hey guys, going outside the topic of chain fires. Best posted in the open area on Law and Views.

Lets keep it on track. Not that its not interesting but who owned what and one author stupidity is betting pretty far off the range.

I think chain fires back in the day while possible were rare. Caps back then were thicker and made of copper not the thin brass caps we have today. ic.

That assumes Chain fires are a rear of gun aspect and while you might have some wild circumstances it happens, nothing I have seen, read etc says that is true.

[Hawg]

Originally Posted by RC20

That assumes Chain fires are a rear of gun aspect and while you might have some wild circumstances it happens, nothing I have seen, read etc says that is true.

Actually I don't believe they come from the rear. I've tried to make a revolver chain from the rear and couldn't do it. I was just saying.

[RC20]

Ok, I see what you were saying now.

I thought you were one of the sane people on the Chain Fire!~