Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Welcome to the Leverguns.Com Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here ... politely.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.

Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Old No7
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 3572
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: Southern Maine

Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Post by Old No7 »

From another site...

Pretty informative, thought many of you here would find it interesting.

Note the "gunpowder savings" aren't noted as being due to cap guns not needing any priming powder -- as that's what I think caused most of it.

Old No7

I was reading some back issues of The Museum of the Fur Trade Quarterly. In the Summer 2003 issue, James A. Hanson wrote a piece titled "Percussion Fur Trade Guns". In it he referenced some testing done by the East India Company back in the early 1840s.

He cites two tests of flintlock guns that the EIC conducted. In the first, 13,711 rounds were fired from 1,387 pistols, carbines, and muskets. The total number of misfires were 1,834 or a misfire rate of 13.37%.

In the second test, they fired 19,916 rounds with a misfire rate of 15.67%.

Subsequently, the EIC conducted some smaller scale tests with newly issued percussion arms. "Of 1,080 shots recorded, there were misfires of just 1.57%, a tenth as many with flint guns."

English military arms of the early 1840s using period powder and flints and percussion caps, were 15 times less reliable with flints than with caps.

Another positive the British military noted after the conversion to percussion was that since less gas escaped out the nipple relative to the vent hole, they realized a 13% savings in gunpowder, since they could load the percussion arms with that much less powder and still achieve the same power as they had with flintlocks.

Hanson also commented on the adoption of percussion arms in the western wilderness:

"I have often been told that, in the wilderness, one could lose or run out of caps. That is true, but I have not encountered a written account of anyone having done so. Rather, I have read of flint guns being converted to percussion because the powder had been weakened by wetting, thus not being adequate to prime the pan. And, properly-shaped, quality flints are not to be found indiscriminately [emphasis added]. That's why even Indians preferred to purchase European flints rather than make their own.​"
"Freedom and the Second Amendment... One cannot exist without the other." © 2000 DTH
User avatar
Ray
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 2824
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:45 am

Re: Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Post by Ray »

I've dabbled in firelocks over the years but greatly prefer caplocks.

If the hammer nose is roomy enough and the cone rests in its center, I usually convert to a musket cap cone. CCI changed the musket cap priming formula and now remington 10s & 11s are hotter than CCI musket caps. RWS still makes a hot musket though.

As for firelocks, I finally found a used 24 ga. trade gun that I could afford that has a small siler lock that sparks well despite the steel showing much wear. Looking forward to getting it out and slinging .562" and .570" lead balls.
Last edited by Ray on Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
m.A.g.a. !
JerryB
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 5493
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:23 pm
Location: Batesville,Arkansas

Re: Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Post by JerryB »

Thanks, that is why I had my long rifle made as a cap lock. My friend where I lived in Tenn. was a very talented rifle maker.
It was built in 1968 with a G. R. Douglas barrel 42 inches it is much better in brushy woods.
JerryB II Corinthians 3:17, Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

JOSHUA 24:15
Nath
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8660
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: England

Re: Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Post by Nath »

Good reading and thanks for sharing.
I notice the loss of power via a vent and yes more powder is needed in a flinter over a capper.
I use both and enjoy both, satisfaction from mastering a flintlock is good but I don't get all snobby about it. Some do!
I don't get the flint scarcity thing! I mean I just smash the poor quality rocks I stumble across and manage to get something of use!

In wet weather I use both but the capper definitely has the edge!

N.
Psalm ch8.

Because I wish I could!
User avatar
gamekeeper
Spambot Zapper
Posts: 17322
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 3:32 pm
Location: Over the pond unfortunately.

Re: Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Post by gamekeeper »

Flintlocks have caused me the most frustration and the most satisfaction, when you have a flinter that works reliably you know that you have mastered the complexity of this ancient weapon. Caplocks were and still are a major step forward and overall my preference.
I read somewhere that some old time trappers edged their bets by having a caplock long gun and a flintlock pistol.

Interesting article, thanks for posting. 8)
If more men loved and cherished their wives as much as I love bacon the world would be a much better place.
User avatar
Carlsen Highway
Levergunner 2.0
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 8:23 am
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand

Re: Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Post by Carlsen Highway »

That makes me feel better about my own experiences, I have had two percussion guns which I don't think I had a misfire, but once or twice, and it was a faulty cap. Now I have a flintlock, which when I have a good flint positioned right, is quite reliable for a good number of shots, but when that one wears out, the next one will give me trouble, and only last a short time. I only have a Pedersoli, perhaps one of the better locks they use on custom rifles would perform better.

I have read of people using bottle glass as field expedient flints when they ran out of actual gunflints. Suitable rock is not that common - even the native peoples used to travel long distances in get good stone for tools in many different countries. We have a lot of obsidian around here which is sharp, but I think it would not last any better than bottle glass - which may be only three of four firings I suppose. I will have to experiment.
A person who carries a cat home by the tail, will receive information that will always be useful to them.
Mark Twain
Bill in Oregon
Advanced Levergunner
Posts: 8849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:05 am
Location: Sweetwater, TX

Re: Reliability of Flintlocks versus Percussion in 1840s

Post by Bill in Oregon »

Darryl, interesting thread. Thanks for posting that Hanson material that actually quantifies misfire rates. I've had a love-hate relationship with flintlocks as well. Quality really matters here.
While the percussion systems get relatively good marks, I am reading a biography of John Wesley Hardin, whose grave I visited in El Paso a few weeks back. Not one, but several near-victims survived his attempts at homicide because a cap would not go off in his Colt 1860 Army.
Post Reply