Chain Fires: fact or myth

marcseatac · February 16, 2007, 02:27 PM

I got this reading another forum. Can't say I agree with this guy. I don't know what benefit his argument makes. Seems even like a nutty kind of thing to prove. He's claiming it's almost impossible to cause a chain fire. It's an interesting read. I feel you can never use enough caution when dealing with explosives.

http://www.svartkrutt.net/engkjedeant.php

biermkr · February 16, 2007, 02:51 PM

I believe original guns may chain fire from weakend cylinder walls resulting in fractures which allow hot gases to pass between cylinders.

RedneckFur · February 16, 2007, 09:13 PM

I've seen an 1851 colt-style navy pistol and one of those uberti "peacemaker" style black powder pistols chain fire. In both cases, the shooter didnt seal the end of the cylinder with grease patch. The uberti wasnt damaged at all. The colt copy was beat up a little, but the shooter was unharmed.

mec · February 16, 2007, 09:50 PM

they happen. The front of the cylinder can be sealed against them either with grease, a wad under the bullet or simply by a bullet that fully seals the chamber.

They can also start from the back of the cylinder if a nipple becomes uncapped.

BigBang · February 16, 2007, 10:06 PM

It's just plain stupid to think that a chain fire couldn't happen. There are two obvious factors here. 1) The powder in a loaded gun is not sealed very well. There are holes and gaps on both ends of the cylinder. 2) When you shoot a 150 year old gun, flames and sparks go everywhere. Now add the two together and what might happen?

joab · February 16, 2007, 10:22 PM

I can tell you from experience that they do happen
I had a powder burn for many years afterwards

I never did know what I did wrong but it felt and looked like someone threw half a handful of lit matches at me and there was a lead streak down the left side of the frame of the Remington 1858 I was shooting where the unintended bullet went. Other than that the gun was OK

l.cutler · February 17, 2007, 09:47 AM

I agree with him, in fact this seems to be becoming the accepted theory. He isn't claiming that chain fires don't happen, he is saying they are more likely to originate in the rear of the cylinder not the front. There are almost no reports of chainfires during the Civil War, when these revolvers were used extensively under harsh conditions. They did not grease the front of the cylinder in any way. The difference is in the nipples, originals had nipples that fit percussion caps properly, and were seated deep enough to avoid any contact with the recoil shield of the revolver. On todays repros you often have to pinch a cap to make them stay on, and sometimes the caps actually drag on the recoil shield when rotating the cylinder. By all means continue greasing the chambers, I do and always will, but also pay close attention to the caps and nipples.

pohill · February 17, 2007, 11:14 AM

I've had two double-fires (two chambers at once) in the past year. Two different guns, both .36 caliber (a Paterson and a Spiller & Burr). Each time, the caps were in place, unfired, on the last chamber to fire. One with Crisco over the ball, the other with a lube pill under the ball. The cause? Poorly cast balls (my fault). No damage to either gun, just an extra pop.

**4V50 Gary** · February 17, 2007, 12:15 PM

Ditto what L. Cutter says. Chainfires originate from the rear of the cylinder. One fellow at another muzzle loading site loaded a cylinder and ran a propane torch over the cylinder's mouths. No bang at all.

There is historical fact for chainfires during the Civil War. Before given their Sharps rifle, the Berdan Sharp Shooters were issued Colt Root Revolving Rifles. One man lost some digits when he suffered a chainfire. Wiley Sword mentions it in his book on Berdan.

mec · February 17, 2007, 12:20 PM

Probably exagerated, but they used to joke about how long people had been in those units with colt's revolving wheel of misfortune by counting the remaining fingers.

faraway · February 17, 2007, 02:01 PM

Concerning chain fires, have seen such happen. One, fired two adjoining cylinders, shot the barrel wedge out and bent the arbor. End of one Colt Navy. The other, was probably an unsealed chamber, as this was at a 'historical' reenactment in Colorado. No ball loaded, but did crossfire the cylinder. In reference to Civil war incidents, there is a triomphe le oil painting (still life) which shows a Colt Navy picked up on the Gettysburg battle site. Two of the cylinders had been damaged. Also might consider that, in military use some did have extra preloaded cylinders. So these would have been very carefully loaded prior to a fight. And also, insofar as infantry units, usually the officers had the pistols. And being line officers, their main focus was keeping the unit in control...so their pistols were not used that much.
In a civilian context, in the towns...it wasn't uncommon for pistol owners to pay gunsmiths and etc, to carefully load revolvers. (Mentioned in some California Rush journals). That would have reduced the likelyhood of chain fires

l.cutler · February 17, 2007, 02:26 PM

The revolvers were most heavily used by the cavalry, I think they more often had more than one loaded revolver rather than spare cylinders. I can't imagine trying to load one in combat, I get all fumble fingered with the caps as it is! They did have it a little easier, paper cartridges dropped in the cylinder and then rammed home, cap it and done, no powder flask, no powder measure, no wads or crisco.

Nortonics · February 18, 2007, 08:18 AM

Quote:

I've seen an 1851 colt-style navy pistol and one of those uberti "peacemaker" style black powder pistols chain fire. In both cases, the shooter didnt seal the end of the cylinder with grease patch. The uberti wasnt damaged at all. The colt copy was beat up a little, but the shooter was unharmed.

Not only seen it, experienced it, twice, using that exact style gun, with the exact reason you stated - a spark getting deflected from the cylinder strap back down the throat of an adjacent cylinder, of which none of the cylinders had a patch or lube, and the balls were slightly undersized.

Hellova' feeling when two of them go off like that, and one of 'em comes out of the side of the cylinder. Didn't damage the gun in either instance, yet you'd surely want to keep spectators fully behind you unless they may like the feeling of hot shrapnel splattered across the side of their body.

faraway · February 19, 2007, 01:42 PM

Out of 13 some posts, there's been mention of at least 6 chambers crossfiring. Fairly small sample, but given the high relative number of chain fires; it would seem that in the original period these events were common enough to not really warrent comment. Could have been even more frequent due to the greater use of these firearms, and the milder steels from which the cylinders were made. Recall a cheaper Italian version of a 3rd Dragoon, where the chambers had actually (and visably) gone out of round due to firing pressures. Retired it, very quickly due to that condition. But since the steels of the era weren't as good, as say a Colt/Uberti replica today, distorted chambers and splits between chambers might have been a problem under heavy usage. And perhaps (in addition to weight) that might have been a factor in the choice of many to carry such as Colt 1851's, 1860's, or 63 Remingtons...rather than the heavier charged pistols like the Dragoon series. Have had one crossfire (the damaged Colt Navy mentioned earlier, not a pleasant event). Likely with such as a Dragoon, much worse. (Although 3rd model Dragoons are my caplock of choice...

mec · February 19, 2007, 01:51 PM

With some older revolvers- particularly ASM, it was common to find chambers bored to two or more different sizes and sometimes out of round. This might encourage flash-overs.

faraway · February 19, 2007, 07:47 PM

Makes sense, don't recall the make of the Dragoon mentioned...but the chambers did seem to distort, with very little use. Broke it up for parts, and recall only using the stocks. Perhaps some of the modern replica makers, equivalent to the period manufacturers in NYC, Mexico who copied the colt '51 and 49 pocket. And seemingly these were made in fairly large amounts, and without proofing. So perhaps that is an additional factor to the period chain firing problem.

James K · February 19, 2007, 10:35 PM

It has already been mentioned, but I think the main reason chain fires were rare of non-existent in the "old days" was that they loaded cartridges, which give a tighter seal than round balls. In addition, I would think the pointed bullet might be less susceptible to flashover than a ball.

I know modern shooters use round balls, but for most use in those days, the ball was almost never used, even in civilian life. Cartridges were purchased by the pack and loaded. Except maybe in the CS irregular forces where supplies were often short, no soldier carried a powder flask or round balls or grease.

Jim

Double J · February 20, 2007, 03:28 PM

Besides the outside chance of a chain fire is the nasty thing called hang fire. A little damp powder,weak cap, or maybe a little oil, can cause the load not to go off quick. Being in a hurry lots of folks will naturally cock the hammer again.Now the hang fire goes off outside the barrel ruining a nice day. Happens once in a while with muzzle loading rifles too, then you point it away and wait a while. When a revolver miss fires, don't cock it. Wait, then replace the cap and try again.

February 16, 2007, 02:27 PM	#1
marcseatac Senior Member Join Date: October 7, 2006 Posts: 225	Chain Fires: fact or myth I got this reading another forum. Can't say I agree with this guy. I don't know what benefit his argument makes. Seems even like a nutty kind of thing to prove. He's claiming it's almost impossible to cause a chain fire. It's an interesting read. I feel you can never use enough caution when dealing with explosives. http://www.svartkrutt.net/engkjedeant.php

February 17, 2007, 12:15 PM	#9
4V50 Gary Staff Join Date: November 2, 1998 Location: Colorado Posts: 22,318	Ditto what L. Cutter says. Chainfires originate from the rear of the cylinder. One fellow at another muzzle loading site loaded a cylinder and ran a propane torch over the cylinder's mouths. No bang at all. There is historical fact for chainfires during the Civil War. Before given their Sharps rifle, the Berdan Sharp Shooters were issued Colt Root Revolving Rifles. One man lost some digits when he suffered a chainfire. Wiley Sword mentions it in his book on Berdan. __________________ Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. *Molon Labe!*

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 16, 2007, 02:51 PM	#2
biermkr Junior Member Join Date: July 31, 2006 Location: Frederick, Maryland Posts: 11	I believe original guns may chain fire from weakend cylinder walls resulting in fractures which allow hot gases to pass between cylinders.

February 16, 2007, 09:13 PM	#3
RedneckFur Senior Member Join Date: January 14, 2007 Location: Central NC Posts: 1,424	I've seen an 1851 colt-style navy pistol and one of those uberti "peacemaker" style black powder pistols chain fire. In both cases, the shooter didnt seal the end of the cylinder with grease patch. The uberti wasnt damaged at all. The colt copy was beat up a little, but the shooter was unharmed.

February 16, 2007, 09:50 PM	#4
mec Junior member Join Date: December 6, 2001 Posts: 1,536	they happen. The front of the cylinder can be sealed against them either with grease, a wad under the bullet or simply by a bullet that fully seals the chamber. They can also start from the back of the cylinder if a nipple becomes uncapped.

February 16, 2007, 10:06 PM	#5
BigBang Member Join Date: January 31, 2007 Posts: 31	It's just plain stupid to think that a chain fire couldn't happen. There are two obvious factors here. 1) The powder in a loaded gun is not sealed very well. There are holes and gaps on both ends of the cylinder. 2) When you shoot a 150 year old gun, flames and sparks go everywhere. Now add the two together and what might happen?

February 16, 2007, 10:22 PM	#6
joab Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2002 Location: Orl Fla Posts: 3,254	I can tell you from experience that they do happen I had a powder burn for many years afterwards I never did know what I did wrong but it felt and looked like someone threw half a handful of lit matches at me and there was a lead streak down the left side of the frame of the Remington 1858 I was shooting where the unintended bullet went. Other than that the gun was OK

February 17, 2007, 09:47 AM	#7
l.cutler Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2005 Posts: 276	I agree with him, in fact this seems to be becoming the accepted theory. He isn't claiming that chain fires don't happen, he is saying they are more likely to originate in the rear of the cylinder not the front. There are almost no reports of chainfires during the Civil War, when these revolvers were used extensively under harsh conditions. They did not grease the front of the cylinder in any way. The difference is in the nipples, originals had nipples that fit percussion caps properly, and were seated deep enough to avoid any contact with the recoil shield of the revolver. On todays repros you often have to pinch a cap to make them stay on, and sometimes the caps actually drag on the recoil shield when rotating the cylinder. By all means continue greasing the chambers, I do and always will, but also pay close attention to the caps and nipples.

February 17, 2007, 11:14 AM	#8
pohill Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: northeast Posts: 521	I've had two double-fires (two chambers at once) in the past year. Two different guns, both .36 caliber (a Paterson and a Spiller & Burr). Each time, the caps were in place, unfired, on the last chamber to fire. One with Crisco over the ball, the other with a lube pill under the ball. The cause? Poorly cast balls (my fault). No damage to either gun, just an extra pop.

February 17, 2007, 12:20 PM	#10
mec Junior member Join Date: December 6, 2001 Posts: 1,536	Probably exagerated, but they used to joke about how long people had been in those units with colt's revolving wheel of misfortune by counting the remaining fingers.

February 17, 2007, 02:01 PM	#11
faraway Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2001 Location: ne montana Posts: 437	Concerning chain fires, have seen such happen. One, fired two adjoining cylinders, shot the barrel wedge out and bent the arbor. End of one Colt Navy. The other, was probably an unsealed chamber, as this was at a 'historical' reenactment in Colorado. No ball loaded, but did crossfire the cylinder. In reference to Civil war incidents, there is a triomphe le oil painting (still life) which shows a Colt Navy picked up on the Gettysburg battle site. Two of the cylinders had been damaged. Also might consider that, in military use some did have extra preloaded cylinders. So these would have been very carefully loaded prior to a fight. And also, insofar as infantry units, usually the officers had the pistols. And being line officers, their main focus was keeping the unit in control...so their pistols were not used that much. In a civilian context, in the towns...it wasn't uncommon for pistol owners to pay gunsmiths and etc, to carefully load revolvers. (Mentioned in some California Rush journals). That would have reduced the likelyhood of chain fires

February 17, 2007, 02:26 PM	#12
l.cutler Senior Member Join Date: October 18, 2005 Posts: 276	The revolvers were most heavily used by the cavalry, I think they more often had more than one loaded revolver rather than spare cylinders. I can't imagine trying to load one in combat, I get all fumble fingered with the caps as it is! They did have it a little easier, paper cartridges dropped in the cylinder and then rammed home, cap it and done, no powder flask, no powder measure, no wads or crisco.

February 19, 2007, 01:42 PM	#14
faraway Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2001 Location: ne montana Posts: 437	Out of 13 some posts, there's been mention of at least 6 chambers crossfiring. Fairly small sample, but given the high relative number of chain fires; it would seem that in the original period these events were common enough to not really warrent comment. Could have been even more frequent due to the greater use of these firearms, and the milder steels from which the cylinders were made. Recall a cheaper Italian version of a 3rd Dragoon, where the chambers had actually (and visably) gone out of round due to firing pressures. Retired it, very quickly due to that condition. But since the steels of the era weren't as good, as say a Colt/Uberti replica today, distorted chambers and splits between chambers might have been a problem under heavy usage. And perhaps (in addition to weight) that might have been a factor in the choice of many to carry such as Colt 1851's, 1860's, or 63 Remingtons...rather than the heavier charged pistols like the Dragoon series. Have had one crossfire (the damaged Colt Navy mentioned earlier, not a pleasant event). Likely with such as a Dragoon, much worse. (Although 3rd model Dragoons are my caplock of choice...

February 19, 2007, 01:51 PM	#15
mec Junior member Join Date: December 6, 2001 Posts: 1,536	With some older revolvers- particularly ASM, it was common to find chambers bored to two or more different sizes and sometimes out of round. This might encourage flash-overs.

February 19, 2007, 07:47 PM	#16
faraway Senior Member Join Date: September 22, 2001 Location: ne montana Posts: 437	Makes sense, don't recall the make of the Dragoon mentioned...but the chambers did seem to distort, with very little use. Broke it up for parts, and recall only using the stocks. Perhaps some of the modern replica makers, equivalent to the period manufacturers in NYC, Mexico who copied the colt '51 and 49 pocket. And seemingly these were made in fairly large amounts, and without proofing. So perhaps that is an additional factor to the period chain firing problem.

February 19, 2007, 10:35 PM	#17
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	It has already been mentioned, but I think the main reason chain fires were rare of non-existent in the "old days" was that they loaded cartridges, which give a tighter seal than round balls. In addition, I would think the pointed bullet might be less susceptible to flashover than a ball. I know modern shooters use round balls, but for most use in those days, the ball was almost never used, even in civilian life. Cartridges were purchased by the pack and loaded. Except maybe in the CS irregular forces where supplies were often short, no soldier carried a powder flask or round balls or grease. Jim

February 20, 2007, 03:28 PM	#18
Double J Senior Member Join Date: February 12, 2007 Location: So. Illinois Posts: 547	Besides the outside chance of a chain fire is the nasty thing called hang fire. A little damp powder,weak cap, or maybe a little oil, can cause the load not to go off quick. Being in a hurry lots of folks will naturally cock the hammer again.Now the hang fire goes off outside the barrel ruining a nice day. Happens once in a while with muzzle loading rifles too, then you point it away and wait a while. When a revolver miss fires, don't cock it. Wait, then replace the cap and try again.