Enlarging flash hole

[patio]

Am reading Spencer Wolf's book on loading cartridges for the original 45-70 Springfield rifle. He recommends enlarging the flash hole to .096 diameter. Is it necessary/recommended to do this?

Thank you

[Larry Gibson]

If you are replicating, as Spence was doing, the original M1873 and M1982 service loads, yes.

[Don McDowell]

No it's not, necessary, and in fact may do more harm than good.

[Lead pot]

Spence had some strange ways I never agreed with shooting black powder rifles..........

[country gent]

I haven't seen any real change in Extreme Spread or Standard deviation from enlarging flash holes the few times Ive tried it. I have seen improvements deburring flash holes and uniforming primer pockets

[Chill Wills]

He was using Goex powder and modern cases that held a good deal less than the 70 grains the heavy loads required. From memory, magnum primers too? I don't know what he saw when working out the original M1873 and M1982 arsenal loads, but I believe he needed to do it, or at least thought he did. I was not there[smilie=1:.

I can say with certainty, full power, match accurate, NRA record setting scores do not need drilled out flash holes.
No offense meant here... as I would not want to assume anything about you knowledge.
I would NOT try this until you are well beyond just getting starting with the Springfield and or BPCR in general. There is no need to do it.

[kokomokid]

I tried both larger and smaller flash holes as well as small primers. Chrony showed slightly better numbers with Lever gun small primer brass but target never proved it.

[Larry Gibson]

patio

As mentioned, Spence was Replicating the M1873 and M1882 service loads. He was not developing target loads. The 45-70 case with 70 gr of 2F BP in it is almost, if not, full. To seat the Lee arsenal replicant 405 gr bullet to original depth requires the powder to be heavily compressed...just as in the original M1873 loads but much more so than in most all loads used by todays shooters. The 70 gr of BP is compressed into a solid plug. Enlarging the flash holes allowed the flash from the primer to better ignite that plug of BP. Using magnum primers (Federal or Winchester) and a proper roll crimp also helps ignition. That is what Spence found and for replicating the m1873 and M1882 service loads he was correct.

If developing target loads with lesser powder charge loads, especially where the powder is only mildly compressed, then enlarging the flash holes is usually not necessary. However, if replicating the M1873 and/or M1882 service loads then you will probably find enlarging the flash holes, using a magnum primers and using a proper roll crimp to give the best results, just as Spence found. Following Spence's advise I have successfully replicated those service loads for use in my TDs just as many others have.

So, if you're just developing BP loads for target shooting there is a plethora of information on that and enlarging flash holes is not necessary. You might read my load development for TDs as I used a lot of Spence's advise but modified the technique as I was developing target, not service, loads for TDs. How I did that is in this thread; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?190999-My-Trapdoor-Loads-Technique-and-Equipment

However, if following Spence's advise for replicating service loads for the TD then follow Spences advise...………….

[greenjoytj]

Uniforming and deburring the flash holes, uniforming primer pocket depth and trimming to a common length is all the case prep I do.

[Chill Wills]

When Spencer Wolf was doing his investigations into the Springfield rifle and the arsenal ammo made for them, the USA made GOEX powder was the common choice to use. There were other powders available here but maybe not so easy to get at some locations. They were not the equal of the old powders either.
Until about 1999 the Swiss made black powder was not widely available here in the USA. GOEX was his obvious choice.

I believe Spencer Wolf would have greatly enjoyed having and using the much more dense Swiss powder that is far closer to the loading and shooting properties of some of the common powders of the 1870's.

The last twenty years have shown that even in modern cases, (less internal volume) the dense Swiss made powder allows both heaver loads un-compressed and greater velocity. And it goes with out saying that slight compression equals even greater amounts. Using Swiss powder recreating those old arsenal loads, should that be your goal, changes the equation. I wish Spencer Wolf would have had a chance to give Swiss a try. Working with powders like the arsenal had 140 years ago may have produced a different set of chapters on loading in his fine book.

[varsity07840]

I tried it when I was getting started in BPCR and my 1888 TD was my first one. I eventually found that a slugged bore and the right size bullet(.462 in mine) was more important. I may have a few opened up cases left but they're mixed in with newer ones.

[indian joe]

patio

As mentioned, Spence was Replicating the M1873 and M1882 service loads. He was not developing target loads. The 45-70 case with 70 gr of 2F BP in it is almost, if not, full. To seat the Lee arsenal replicant 405 gr bullet to original depth requires the powder to be heavily compressed...just as in the original M1873 loads but much more so than in most all loads used by todays shooters. The 70 gr of BP is compressed into a solid plug. Enlarging the flash holes allowed the flash from the primer to better ignite that plug of BP. Using magnum primers (Federal or Winchester) and a proper roll crimp also helps ignition. That is what Spence found and for replicating the m1873 and M1882 service loads he was correct.

If developing target loads with lesser powder charge loads, especially where the powder is only mildly compressed, then enlarging the flash holes is usually not necessary. However, if replicating the M1873 and/or M1882 service loads then you will probably find enlarging the flash holes, using a magnum primers and using a proper roll crimp to give the best results, just as Spence found. Following Spence's advise I have successfully replicated those service loads for use in my TDs just as many others have.

So, if you're just developing BP loads for target shooting there is a plethora of information on that and enlarging flash holes is not necessary. You might read my load development for TDs as I used a lot of Spence's advise but modified the technique as I was developing target, not service, loads for TDs. How I did that is in this thread; http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?190999-My-Trapdoor-Loads-Technique-and-Equipment

However, if following Spence's advise for replicating service loads for the TD then follow Spences advise...………….

Larry
Rumor has it that heavier compression gives cleaner burning/less fouling ? If that is the case (not something I have tested) then it would make sense of the heavier compression used in vintage BP loading - I have dismembered a few old loads over the years and that solid plug of powder was the common factor. I wonder has anybody tested this.

Incidentally I had a high regard for GOEX powder - but it was all made before the plant at Moosic Pa blew up early 1990's --5FA grade Ungraphited - we bought bags of the stuff from a fireworks maker here and stashed it (still got a couple of kilos saved for a special occasion) The descriptions of GOEX performance I read here do not fit the powder I knew those days - thinking they lost the plot some with new management new plant and all.

[Don McDowell]

70 grains of Goex 2f,.030 fiber wad stuffed in winchester cases primed with cci large rifle primers, and topped off with an Ideal 500 grain government bullet cast 16-1, lubed with a variation of the government bullet lube. Clocked at a bit over 1200 fps, and shoots to the sights of an 1884 trapdoor with the buffington sight.. With about all the accuracy you can expect from the ol darlin with her trigger pull such as it is..
Not sure what one would expect wrecking the flash holes in the case would achieve.

I believe what Wolf was trying to replicate by enlarging the flash holes was the amount of fire getting to the bottom of the powder charge with the 3 holes common in Berdan primed cases. Possibly a good test except for historical examination of those old Berdan primers, pre smokeless, show that they were much weaker than primers we have today. Roberts referenced that primer strength in his Schuetzen rifle book when he tells of duplexing with black powder on the bottom smokeless on the top , so the flash of the blackpowder would reliably ignite the then new smokeless powders.Mentioned it as a way of using up a large stash of those old primers and still being able to shoot the new fangled white powder..

[725]

I'm outta my element here. I uniform the flash hole, but don't drill it out to a larger size. Did try a couple years ago and found little difference. Thinking about it, (dangerous for me), I rather thought it like the difference between water flowing from a faucet vs water squirting through a restrictive nozzle. Large primer hole (faucet) allows the water through but the restrictive nozzle (smaller primer hole) forces it more energetically. Again, to my less than scientific brain, this made sense. The flame of the primer passing through my deburred flash hole should create a uniform vortex into the powder. Interesting discussion.

[Larry Gibson]

Don McDowell

The original arsenal M1873 load was with a Benet primer. The arsenal M1882 load was with a Boxer primer. Spence was drilling the flash holes to .096" to achieve the same area for the flash to enter and break up the compressed BP charge as the original cases did. As Spence writes in his book, after conducting numerous tests of various size flash holes, the drilled flash holes gave the best accuracy. Note Spence was replicating the arsenal loads and cartridges. Changing or using loading methods that cause the cartridge to vary from arsenal specifications changes the results. Using target loading techniques specifically. FYI; drilling the flash holes does not "wreck" the cases in any way.

I also shoot 70 gr of GOEX Cartridge or FFFg under a 500 gr (16-1 alloy) Rapine 460500 (M1882 replicant bullet) and get a bit over 1200 fps also. Excellent accuracy out of my TD too!.

[Larry Gibson]

Larry
Rumor has it that heavier compression gives cleaner burning/less fouling ? If that is the case (not something I have tested) then it would make sense of the heavier compression used in vintage BP loading - I have dismembered a few old loads over the years and that solid plug of powder was the common factor. I wonder has anybody tested this.

Incidentally I had a high regard for GOEX powder - but it was all made before the plant at Moosic Pa blew up early 1990's --5FA grade Ungraphited - we bought bags of the stuff from a fireworks maker here and stashed it (still got a couple of kilos saved for a special occasion) The descriptions of GOEX performance I read here do not fit the powder I knew those days - thinking they lost the plot some with new management new plant and all.

I also have/had a high regard for GOEX powders as I burned a lot of GOEX cartridge and fffg up in my MLs and 45-70 TDs. I still use it and still have 3 1/2 lbs of Dupont fffg. I've been told the "olde E" and Swiss burn a lot cleaner and are more accurate but watching the BPCR shooters I see they still are wiping or wheezing, coughing and spitting through a blow tube between every shot....just as they did with GOEX...…. I did try some Swiss BP some years back and found 70 gr under the Lee 405 HB gave about the same accuracy at 200 yards as 70 gr GOEX fffg. Didn't chronograph it though.

The high compression of the arsenal 70 gr BP load was proven to give more efficient burning of the BP. A strong primer is needed and the larger flash hole. If one is loading milder loads with minimal compression for target shooting then no real need to drill the flash holes. Spence knew what he was doing replicating the arsenal loads because he studied them, tested them. learned everything he could about them and thoroughly tested his methods with TDs. Spences technique is sound. So if anyone is wanting to replicate arsenal M1873 and/or M1882 45/70 loads then read and follow Spence's advise. However, if anyone is wanting to develop target or plinking BP 45/70 loads then read and follow Mathew's or someone else's advise.....

[Don McDowell]

Drilling the flash holes will wreck the case if you go to shooting smokeless in it. With the accuracy and velocity of unmodified cases there just really isn't any need to.
If a person is just absolutely convinced enlarging the flash hole is necessary then it is very prudent to mark those cases so they don't accidentally end up in a batch of smokeless loads.
There's a ton of difference in the fouling when comparing goex, to cartridge to Express and Olde Eynsford, some of it due to the recipe, some of it due to the finer grain size of the Eynsford. Fouling control is vital if you're chasing brings in a target rifle match, or silhouette, whether it be wiping or blow tubing. Maybe not so much for a dozen or so rounds busting rocks..
The bore wiping process Perry lined out in his Modern Rifle shooting book is a bit mind boggling in that it required 4 separate wiping rods. So fouling control isn't anything new...

[Larry Gibson]

Drilling the flash holes will wreck the case if you go to shooting smokeless in it. If a person is just absolutely convinced enlarging the flash hole is necessary then it is very prudent to mark those cases so they don't accidentally end up in a batch of smokeless loads.

That myth has been thoroughly debunked;

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?377629-Is-drilling-out-flash-holes-dangerous

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?381156-Drilled-Flash-Hole-Test-44-Magnum-and-45-Colt

Again, Spence Wolf's technique was to replicate original arsenal 45/70 M1873 and m1882 loads so those of us with TDs could shoot them as they were intended. I don't know of any soldiers issued blow tubes or several "wiping rods" to use between shots with the TDs. Nor do I find any reference to such in the "Prescription for use of.....", the manuals of the day.

Obviously some are not going to change their minds on the subject and that's ok as we all have the choice to do what we want. The simple point I'm making, which seems to be lost in many of the answers, is Spence was replicating service level cartridges for use in TDs, not target/match loads. The technique he used to get there was thoroughly tested and works for that application. As I stated in my 1st post, if one is wanting arsenal service duplication 45/70 loads then drilling the flash holes is worth while. If one is developing target/match loads then drilling the flash holes is not necessary or needed as you state.

[kootne]

This is just a .02 cent opinion, take it for what it is worth. I have owned and shot a pretty nice Model 1884 Springfield for about 30 years. All but about the first 10 shots have been loaded "by the Book", Spences' book. Those Springfield rifles were made to bet you life on, not shoot rifle matches while laying on a mat, with a spotter, taking fouling shots, performing CPR on your barrel between shots, waiting for the wind, etc. which is what the "2nd generation BP match shooter" is familiar with.
If you want to shoot a rifle match more in keeping with the intent of the Springfield rifle and Spences' book, shoot an over the course High Power Match with one someday. The 200 yard rapid fire, 10 shots sitting (starting from the standing) in 60 seconds and 300 yard, 10 shots prone (starting from the standing) in 70 seconds phases will prove the wisdom of the original design for the intended purpose. To be able to keep on shooting in a hurry with a fouled barrel.
About 25 years ago, I attended a High Power match in Great Falls Mt. It was a special event they did called the "pick your war match" as I recall. You could use any US service rifle except gas loaders or any foreign service rifle including gas loaders. All to be strictly as issued, with service equivalent loads, no match grade guns. Out of 15 or 20 shooters it was won by a shooter with a 03a3 (no surprise there). I shot the only single shot and the only BP (405 grain bullet and 70gr. FFG) and finished with a score in the middle of the pack. I got off all shots and had no misses. I don't think that could be done with loads like most BP match shooters consider necessary to good shooting. All of which is not to knock one type of shooting for another but just to say apples are not oranges.

[fgd135]

...Those Springfield rifles were made to bet your life on...
If you want to shoot a rifle match more in keeping with the intent of the Springfield rifle and Spences' book, shoot an over the course High Power Match with one someday...

That sounds like it was a fun match!

[Don McDowell]

This is just a .02 cent opinion, take it for what it is worth. I have owned and shot a pretty nice Model 1884 Springfield for about 30 years. All but about the first 10 shots have been loaded "by the Book", Spences' book. Those Springfield rifles were made to bet you life on, not shoot rifle matches while laying on a mat, with a spotter, taking fouling shots, performing CPR on your barrel between shots, waiting for the wind, etc. which is what the "2nd generation BP match shooter" is familiar with.
If you want to shoot a rifle match more in keeping with the intent of the Springfield rifle and Spences' book, shoot an over the course High Power Match with one someday. The 200 yard rapid fire, 10 shots sitting (starting from the standing) in 60 seconds and 300 yard, 10 shots prone (starting from the standing) in 70 seconds phases will prove the wisdom of the original design for the intended purpose. To be able to keep on shooting in a hurry with a fouled barrel.
About 25 years ago, I attended a High Power match in Great Falls Mt. It was a special event they did called the "pick your war match" as I recall. You could use any US service rifle except gas loaders or any foreign service rifle including gas loaders. All to be strictly as issued, with service equivalent loads, no match grade guns. Out of 15 or 20 shooters it was won by a shooter with a 03a3 (no surprise there). I shot the only single shot and the only BP (405 grain bullet and 70gr. FFG) and finished with a score in the middle of the pack. I got off all shots and had no misses. I don't think that could be done with loads like most BP match shooters consider necessary to good shooting. All of which is not to knock one type of shooting for another but just to say apples are not oranges.

I'm not sure where this bit about match rifle comes in... But having grown up shooting the dang things, since the early 1960's the first time I ever heard of enlarging flash holes was just a few years ago on the internet...
As I said in previous posts if a person is loading unmotivated winchester brass, black powder and bullets from the original Ideal moulds, achieving the velocity and accuracy specs of the US government, I'm just not sure what more could be accomplished by wrecking cases..
I guess at this time the proper thing to do is to acknowledge we have different ideas, experiences and opinions, and leave it at that. :)

[Lead pot]

I shot drilled out flash holes but not as large as .096" that Spence said. I shot them in my trapdoors for a short time using black powder and the large firing pin they have blew the Remington large rifle primers I used back then. I can't even imagine what they would do using smokeless.

There was a time I used to uniform the flash holes for my match loads and I would take the largest number drill bit that would fit the new batch of cases and use it for all the new cases and it was a .072" that would just go through my cased.
Did it make a difference with accuracy?? not that I could see, but it's the confidence in the load that helps. :)
If you want to do something for the cases uniform the case neck thickness so the bullet release is the same.

You don't need oversized flash holes to shoot black powder with out fouling control. Just use the right lube and the proper bullets and that will let you shoot as many as you want.

[Chill Wills]

Am reading Spencer Wolf's book on loading cartridges for the original 45-70 Springfield rifle. He recommends enlarging the flash hole to .096 diameter. Is it necessary/recommended to do this? Thank you

To the OP,
There is some confusion here by a few posters with target rifle loads and putting up the two service rifle loads M1873 and M1882 with correct bullet and velocity using resources we have today. Namely modern cases and today's powder and primers.

If you are replicating the original M1873 and M1982 service loads today with the intent to shoot dirty, meaning NO fouling control like the the rifle was intended as issued, you can follow the detailed loading in the Wolf book or you can use a powder he did not have access to. That is the Swiss made BP. He was done and the book out before the 1999 Swiss gunpowder arrived here and in turn the use of regular large rifle primers with standard flash holes. The change to Swiss powder, with the greater density fills the case with a heavier more energetic fuel that shoots cleaner with less compression and produces more velocity than that of even the best lots of GOEX coming out of Mosic, PA could not equal.

I am saying very clearly the answer is no you don't need to modify your cases to make original 45-70 Springfield ammo and shoot dirty with the accuracy the army had in the 1870's. The reason we can do that now is the better powder available to us like they had in the 1870. The reason Spencer Wolf had to jump through the primer hoops was the lesser quality of the average lot of GOEX at the time of his work. He did the best he could and found a way to make it work. A "work around" if you will. In my opinion he did a very good job and his book has been more than a little helpful to many of us back in those days.
My first Springfield was a beater obtained in 1983 and boy howdy I did not have a clue how to get going other than replace the smokeless powder with a full load of Black Powder. Alox and all. There are a lot more resources today than 40 years ago. There is more than one right way to do things. Sharing info is why I am on this sight. Having straw-man arguments mis-characterizing what was not said is hurtful to the process.

Respectfully, Michael Rix

[patio]

Thank you to all for the responses. A lot to digest.

Regards,

Pat

[Outpost75]

When I was on the Technical Staff at NRA I fooled with several original 1884 Trapdoors using enlarged flash holes to 0.096 and 0.120" loading Army A5 black powder which dated from the pre-WW1 period. We cast bullets from 1:40 tin-lead from a period mold, and bullets were bumped in a hammer-swage to form a cup base and bring diameter up to .462". We did most of our shooting at 200 yards. The enlarged flash holes were more accurate with BP and gave less vertical dispersion.

[patio]

To the OP,
There is some confusion here by a few posters with target rifle loads and putting up the two service rifle loads M1873 and M1882 with correct bullet and velocity using resources we have today. Namely modern cases and today's powder and primers.

If you are replicating the original M1873 and M1982 service loads today with the intent to shoot dirty, meaning NO fouling control like the the rifle was intended as issued, you can follow the detailed loading in the Wolf book or you can use a powder he did not have access to. That is the Swiss made BP. He was done and the book out before the 1999 Swiss gunpowder arrived here and in turn the use of regular large rifle primers with standard flash holes. The change to Swiss powder, with the greater density fills the case with a heavier more energetic fuel that shoots cleaner with less compression and produces more velocity than that of even the best lots of GOEX coming out of Mosic, PA could not equal.

I am saying very clearly the answer is no you don't need to modify your cases to make original 45-70 Springfield ammo and shoot dirty with the accuracy the army had in the 1870's. The reason we can do that now is the better powder available to us like they had in the 1870. The reason Spencer Wolf had to jump through the primer hoops was the lesser quality of the average lot of GOEX at the time of his work. He did the best he could and found a way to make it work. A "work around" if you will. In my opinion he did a very good job and his book has been more than a little helpful to many of us back in those days.
My first Springfield was a beater obtained in 1983 and boy howdy I did not have a clue how to get going other than replace the smokeless powder with a full load of Black Powder. Alox and all. There are a lot more resources today than 40 years ago. There is more than one right way to do things. Sharing info is why I am on this sight. Having straw-man arguments mis-characterizing what was not said is hurtful to the process.

Respectfully, Michael Rix

Thank you Michael for your post. Shot this group today. 50 yds, 5 shot. 4 together, 1 flinch. My goal is to duplicate the original load. I used 70 gr Olde E 1 1/2 compressed to a depth of .650-.655 from the case mouth, cast 40:1 Lyman 457125 lubed with Randy's Tac black lube, R-P cases with flash hole drilled out, medium crimp, Old Winchester LRM primers from the DCM (they are hot), cartridge oal of 2.768. Fowling and leading was not bad at all.
262212

[Road_Clam]

I experimented a few years ago with flash holes opened up to 3/32 and didn't notice any measurable difference in accuracy or consistiency. Interestingly what i did observe was a consistient increase in fps (about +22 fps) with the 3/32 flash holed brass. I tested using the 405 RNFP , Goex 2F, and Starline brass, and testing with a Magneto Speed crono.

[Carrier]

To the OP,
There is some confusion here by a few posters with target rifle loads and putting up the two service rifle loads M1873 and M1882 with correct bullet and velocity using resources we have today. Namely modern cases and today's powder and primers.

If you are replicating the original M1873 and M1982 service loads today with the intent to shoot dirty, meaning NO fouling control like the the rifle was intended as issued, you can follow the detailed loading in the Wolf book or you can use a powder he did not have access to. That is the Swiss made BP. He was done and the book out before the 1999 Swiss gunpowder arrived here and in turn the use of regular large rifle primers with standard flash holes. The change to Swiss powder, with the greater density fills the case with a heavier more energetic fuel that shoots cleaner with less compression and produces more velocity than that of even the best lots of GOEX coming out of Mosic, PA could not equal.

I am saying very clearly the answer is no you don't need to modify your cases to make original 45-70 Springfield ammo and shoot dirty with the accuracy the army had in the 1870's. The reason we can do that now is the better powder available to us like they had in the 1870. The reason Spencer Wolf had to jump through the primer hoops was the lesser quality of the average lot of GOEX at the time of his work. He did the best he could and found a way to make it work. A "work around" if you will. In my opinion he did a very good job and his book has been more than a little helpful to many of us back in those days.
My first Springfield was a beater obtained in 1983 and boy howdy I did not have a clue how to get going other than replace the smokeless powder with a full load of Black Powder. Alox and all. There are a lot more resources today than 40 years ago. There is more than one right way to do things. Sharing info is why I am on this sight. Having straw-man arguments mis-characterizing what was not said is hurtful to the process.

Respectfully, Michael Rix

Good post Chill as there seems to be many who throw Spence under the bus and dismiss everything he did. Following his book I was able to get my original 1873 shooting pretty good though I use a lower charge for most shooting now but like to let it roar with the full loads of his.