I lurk at another board (occasionally, since its Politics forum is a cesspool of stupidity and I can’t stand much of it), and I came across this post:
In front of me right now, I have my two .44 BP revolvers; a Colt 1847 Walker, and a Remington 1858 New Army.
[ul][li]The first shot lit not only the load under the hammer, but also the next chamber to the left and two more on the right.[/ul][/li]On the Remington, about 1/3 of the chambers not in line with the barrel are blocked by the frame. On the Walker, the off chambers are barely obstructed. Typical .44 revolvers on the market were the two I have, plus the Colt Dragoons (based on the Walker) and the 1860 Army. I assume that Dragoon chambers line up similarly to the Walker. I cannot check the alignment of an 1860. Given that a chain-fire is a lead vs. steel scenario, how dangerous it it to the gun (not to the shooter)?
[ul][li]It almost produced a full-auto revolver, as the hammer was blowing back far enough to almost index the gun for the next shot[/ul][/li]I get that more mass means a stronger reactive force. But BP revolvers don’t have a firing pin as such. There is nothing to impact the hammer and force it backwards. Yes, if the hammer is forced backwards the cylinder rotates; and if the trigger is held back and the cylinder reaches the index, the gun will fire. But given that there is no moving part to drive back the hammer, is it really reasonable to assume that a properly-working gun could drive the hammer back just by recoil? (If the gun is worn, then maybe the spring is strong enough to ignite a percussion cap, but not strong enough to keep the hammer down under greater-than-normal recoil?)
I don’t think I understand. Is he saying that the shot in the chamber that lined up with the barrel cooked off the shots in two adjacent chambers?
Also, I don’t know of any way it is possible, except on some weird revolver/semi-auto hybrid whose name escapes me and which didn’t use BP either as I recall, for a revolver shot to cock the hammer. It sounds like they guy is either misremembering or just full of shit.
A ‘chain-fire’ occurs when powder in chambers not aligned with the barrel is ignited. The common cause of this is not providing a proper barrier. IME, chambers are slightly smaller than the ball. When the ball is seated a ring of lead is shaved off. Theoretically, it’s as tight as it can be. But for some reason, perhaps a ball that’s not true or powder residue between the ball and the chamber wall, flashover can occur. The traditional remedy is to use Crisco or some other lubricant to seal the end of the chamber against flashover.
The question is, how damaging is a soft lead ball to the steel frame?
While I won’t say it’s impossible, I can’t see how this could happen; hence the question. The recoil would have to be so great as to overpower the mainspring and throw the hammer back.
Could it be that the increased chamber pressure of the two balls loaded in each chamber would cause enough gas to exit the nipple that it could cock the hammer? I’d not think so, but my black powder experience is limited.
Too bad I don’t have the budget to destroy a gun. (Even the brass-framed guns are a little pricey for that.) I’m thinking a ‘Testing to destruction on video’ thing.
I have seen muskets with the hammer blown back to half-cock after being shot. It’s usually the fault of a very stiff load and a nipple with the flash hole the size of a small dog.
I have never seen it happen with a revolver, and I have seen a lot of BP revolvers shot. Not impossible, but not likely.
I believe current thinking is that chain fires are as likely to be caused from ill fitting caps and from sparks across the gaps between them than from being ignited across the cylinder face. As you stated above the chance of that happening with a single ball would be rare, with two cylinders it really gets to the “highly improbable,” three extra makes me think bullshit.
Looking at the collection the 1860 Colts are flat through the area a chain fire would impact, the Navy being more restricive of the opening than the Army. The Rodgers and Spencer is almost identical to the Remington as far as obstruction goes.
My thoughts would be that any of the ones in my posession would have been yanked out of my hand by the chain fires as described by the person’s post you quoted.
This seems less likely to me than forward ignition. I’ve never had a chain fire, but then I lube the chamber ends (easier to clean the gun later) and the percussion caps fit snugly. For a rear-ignited chain fire, ISTM that a percussion cap would have to be loose to the point of falling off (if it were not held in place by the frame) and a spark would have to move to the next nipple, make a 90º turn, and then either ignite the percussion cap or make a 180º turn, travel down the nipple, and ignite the powder.
In the case of a forward ignition, I see it like this: There’s just enough lubricant or something else in the chamber that allows a bit of powder to stick to the wall upon charging. Rather than being pushed down by the ball, the powder scores the soft lead allowing access to the powder in the chamber. The flash from the discharged cylinder reaches residual powder and makes its way down the path to ignite the adjacent cylinder. I imagine this might be a larger problem if one routinely does not use lubricant and there is heavy fouling in the chamber.
As I said, I’ve never had a chain-fire. I’ve also not attempted to study the problem. So I’m just guessing.
That’s interesting. As I said, I failed to consider the hole in the nipple. Based upon what you have witnessed, it sounds plausible that that could cause a ‘machine gun effect’. If I were going to experiment to failure (or success, depending how you look at it) I might imagine that someone replaced the nipples with ones with larger interior diameters, perhaps believing it would result in more reliable ignition. (I’ve not had any problems with factory-spec nipples.) Then let’s assume a well-used gun. If the mainspring is weak, that would mean less force holding the hammer down. The mass of two balls would be a factor, of course; and perhaps if one wanted to fire two balls he’d pack in as much powder as he could. (This would be easier in a Walker, which had such large chambers the originals sometimes blew up.)
Cheap replicas are often of the 1851 Navy revolver, and they often come in the incorrect .44 caliber. These guns often have brass frames instead of the correct steel ones. A problem with brass frames is that they wear easily. So if we assume a heavily-used brass framed 1851-style revolver in .44 caliber with two balls and a heavy load of powder, perhaps with oversized nipples, and a weak mainspring, it sounds like it’s plausible – though I hasten to reiterate, highly improbable – that a ‘machine gun’ failure mode might be achieved.
