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/2071710800099763970VtTlxW
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.
.
. But seriously, just a party tent in the back.