I need a little help

[arcticap]

Pennsylvania has 2 muzzle loader seasons, one allows "muzzleloading long gun of any type or caliber" and the other is the "flintlock muzzleloader season" where no percussion guns are allowed. The primer adaptor is not illegal to use in Pennsylvania, but maybe elsewhere.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&q=151336

I would disagree with the characterization of 209 and rifle/pistol primer adapters as producing more certain ignition. That presumes that there are inherent ignition problems with percussion caps (either musket or No.10/11's) or flint.

I would be embarrassed to have such a device on my gun as it would openly announce my inability to properly tune or load my gun to obtain reliable ignition with a more traditional system. Ignition reliability problems are the fault of the gun's owner, not the gun.

I heard enough complaints about ignition problems with some Lyman factory nipples and CVA Bobcats and how their incidence can be reduced by installing a better performing after market nipple.
That indicates to me that it's not always the fault of the owner that a gun misfires.
More potent primers can enhance performance by burning powder quicker and increasing velocity and apparently can also help reduce the potential incidence of misfires just like after market nipples can.
A small rifle primer is not even as hot as a musket cap, and using a musket cap isn't anything to be embarrassed about because it's just like buying insurance.

On page 83 of DaveEhrig's book "Muzzleloading for Deer & Turkey", he lists some information on percussion caps and primers.
#11 standard cap - 6.53 cc of gas at 3,024 degrees F when fired.
#11 magnum cap - 7.59 cc of gas at 3,717 degrees F when fired.
U.S. #2 musket cap - 14.36 cc of gas at 3,717 degrees F when fired.
#209 shotgun primer - 21.98 cc of gas at 3,024 degrees F when fired.
#200 rifle primer - 11.68 cc of gas at 3,024 degrees F when fired.

 

[mykeal]

You are certainly correct about the Lyman OEM nipples. I've replaced mine with Tresos. In hindsight I wasn't very clear about my opinion above. To me, using a 209/rifle/pistol primer adapter to replace a nipple is a statement that there are no nipples that will give acceptable performance; in other words, the design itself is flawed. I certainly don't accept that premise. I've never encountered a percussion or flintlock gun with ignition reliability problems that couldn't be fixed with a good cleaning followed by a new (sometimes premium) nipple or flint and perhaps some lock adjusting.

I am aware of Ehrig's numbers. Interesting, certainly (I'm curious about the temperatures - they seem unusually repetitive). However, I'm not necessarily inclined to simply accept that if 6.53 cc of gas is good, 21.98 must of necessity be better, or that if 6.53 cc of gas is somehow inadequate, 21.98 is the solution. It may be that the problem is just getting that 6.53 cc to the right place at the right time.

I do not dispute that a 209/rifle/pistol conversion can improve a faulty ignition. situation. I just don't feel that it's a more certain solution than applying some elbow grease and attention to the original design hardware.

I guess it comes down to this: if you're having problems with a traditional design (defined as sidelock for this discussion) percussion ignition system, my sensibilities would tend to stay with the traditional design equipment. I've never seen that fail to work. Slapping on a hot dog ignitor may bring results, but it's covering up the real problem.

And yes, I'd be embarrassed about a musket cap on a Lyman Great Plains. The Treso doesn't embarrass me, however. Maybe it should but I look at it as a better implementation of the original design, whereas a musket cap would be a design change, one that's unnecessary.

I'd still shoot with anyone who had a 209 primer conversion. I just wouldn't use one myself.