The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A buddy of mine told me that on the advice of a seasoned muzzy man, he bored out his touch-hole a bit, and it really decreased his misfires. Well, I had him do mine, and I must say, I think it has decreased mifiring as well for me. One problem I've noticed though, is some of the larger 2F grains bleeding out and entering my flashpan. Any of you folks hear of, or have done this ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,138 Posts
On some web sites, it is common for folks to claim that boring the touch hole slightly larger has shown some advantages. And apparently it doess work for some of the exterior coned touch holes. My flinters have touch holes that are coned on the interior. I want those grains of 2fg to be hanging at the opening, not quite able to fall through. With a proper touch hole, the grains will be sticking partially out just at or slightly above the top of the pan and flush with the barrel flat. Easier and shortest jump for any sparks or flame to ignite the powder in the touch hole. I certainly don't want my charge leaking out through the touch hole into the pan. Delays ignition to have too much powder in the pan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
It would have been better to have a liner installed. They are coned from the inside so the wall is thinner, less distance for the spark to jump. If you drilled out your touch hole large enough for 2F powder to come thru, you lost some speed. Too much pressure will exit the hole rather than push the ball out the barrel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,414 Posts
I agree with Zimm.I don't want to carry my muzzy all day and end up with a charge in the barrel that is 5 or 10 grs lighter than I started with.I have not had the need to opened up a touch hole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
889 Posts
I will bow to the wisdom of what the guys above have said. I am by no means an expert on this subject. All I can say is if the hole was suppose to be bigger for faster ignition then why wouldn't they make it that way??

Now the problem I see here is different from what the guys above have been saying. You said you were doing it to stop misfires-you did not show any concern about ignition timing. Personally I think you have other problems causing your misfires-unrelated to the size of the flash hole. That is where you should investigate.

I haven't had an MZ misfire is 20 years, and I shoot a good bit. But I take all necessary precautions to prevent this. And none of those precautions are drilling bigger holes. Tom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,391 Posts
I've never bored the diameter of the touch hole any larger, but I have reamed the inside a little deeper and wider, along with making a very small cone on the outside. It works. My GPR has almost instant ignition with VERY few misfires.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,138 Posts
not all touch hole liners are coned on the inside. Those that use an allen wrench are coned from the outside. My touch holes are turned in and then filed flush with the barrel flat, so not even a screw driver slot. The closer the charge powder to the pan the faster the ignition and the less chance of flashes in the pan. There have been some experiments on flint ignition speed. But I don't belive they tested the difference between the usual liner, the slotted liner and the allen arench liners. Some folks "think" they get immediate ignition. The truth is that experiments show the time for a normal flush liner is about .028 seconds. To normal human time accuity, that is nearly intantaneous. If it were twice as slow or .056 seconds (1/16th of a second), some still would think it is instantaneous. If you hear chunk, pfffft, boom, there is something wrong. If you hear cha-boom, it is still a bit slower than it could be. A flint set up right just goes boom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
I have never had a missfire. I did bore out my touch hole to .064" this has given a faster ignition time (Lock Time?)
Never have seen any powder leakage from touch hole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
zimmerstutzen said:
What type of touch hole liner? Removeable??
It is a removable type liner. I replaced the original with an internal cone shaped liner that I drilled out, also partly coned the outside also
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,138 Posts
hose that are coned from the outside even a little move the charge powder at the touch hole away from the pan. The farther from the pan the farther the spark and flame has to travel to ignite the charge. In my flinters, when loaded, if you run your finger along the barrel flat, a grain of powder can be felt sticking out the touch hole. Think of the pan like a grenade and the charge powder as the enemy. The closer the grenade is when it goes off, the more likely and surer the injury. If you move the charge twice as far or three time further away, less chance of ignition. A guy named Pletch has been doing alot of experiments with this concept and ignition speed.

I would want the charge as close as possible to the pan. When the pan prime is ignited, the flame and spark burns up and away from the pan surface in a 3 dimensional 360 radius. If you think of the touch hole as a target, the closer the target the easier it is to hit, if you move that same size target down range, it becomes more difficult to hit. So when the touch hole is moved twice as far away, the same target is proportionately small in minutes of angle. There are two ways to make that target easier to hit. make it larger, ie drilling out the touch hole, or to move back toward the shooter. ie making it flush with the barrel flat. Since the grains of powder dictate the maximum size of the touch hole, there is only so large you can make the touch hole without destroying the utility of the touch hole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Zimmer, you'e obviously correct in stating that boring the touch-hole indeed is putting the proverbial "band-aid" on a larger problem with ignition.

Couple things to that.

1. The gun is a Traditions .50 that I bought in the late 80's. Judging by what I've seen "out there", this muzzy would be considered an economy model if you will. My guess is that the frizzen is of lower quality compared to what most of the BP enthusiasts would shoot.

2. I'm NOT an enthusiast.
That said, I care more about ignition itself than I do about the speed of ignition. Would I love to experience the instantaneous ignitions every time ? Well yeah. But in my current state of BP shooting, I'll take ANY ignition at all.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,896 Posts
I used to get a few misfires with my Lyman GPR until I heard of taking a needle file and ever so slightly enlarging the touch hole in the liner. Even with the internally coned liners, enlarging the hole somewhat, greatly reduced misfires and increased the lock time as well.

I've had powder dribble out of untouched liners so I don't think opening one up a smidge is going to hurt anything. Of course if you open it up to the point that you lose 4 or 5 grains of powder at a time, then you've definitely gone too far, and its tiime for a new touch hole liner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,138 Posts
Back in thhe 1980's traditions guns were merely cheaper quality copies of CVA guns made in the same factory in Spain with less quality control. (They have improved some since then) My experience with CVA flinters is that the frizzens were pretty fair. Is the gun sparking every time? If not, a touch hole won't make a difference. That could be oil on the frizzen or flint, bad flint, low carbon frizzen. Could be that a simple replacement or half sole will do the trick.

Which model is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
It's the Frontier. Although I see some changes from the late 80's. They now have synthetic ramrods, and optic front sight. My original wood ramrod broke the 2nd year and I replaced it with brass. They also are now 1:48 twist. Mine is a 1:66 twist.

I take fair precaution with getting cleaning agents on the frizzen, pan, or flint. Actually while hunting, I'll periodically wipe all down with alcohol wipes.

Oh, I should add. I believe I paid around $190 if memory serves me right. I see now they are about $380
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top