Musket caps

[tomme boy]

I had another thread about how CCI had changed their musket caps to a new weak power cap.

I went out an found some RWS musket caps. I can say they are WAY more powerful than the CCI new musket caps.

The CCI seem to be about the same power as regular #11 caps. That is pathitic. The # 11 mags are louder than the CCI muskets.

So, have faith if you use these to hunt with. Get the RWS.

[Hellgate]

Thanks for the warning. I have put musket nipples in all my 58 cal rifles and still have some non CCI caps. No way do I want wimpy musket caps. Maybe they won't sell and they will go back to what works. I heard they were marketing them to the re-enactors rather than hunters or N/SSA skirmishers.

[Naphtali]

RWS offers two musket caps, one is conventional-looking four-flange, the other appears to be an oversized #11-style. Never having used the non-flanged version, and never having seen anyone use the cap, is your evaluation valid for both types of RWS musket caps?

[tomme boy]

The ones I have are the Four flange. They did have the other, but I can not say how they are.

[carbine]

The wingless RWS musket caps are just as powerful and half the price of the winged style.

[Omnivore]

I have a musket nipple around some place, but I haven't got around to trying it. I'm getting perfect ignition on black powder with Remington #11s. If I were using Pyro or some other substitute I suppose it would be an issue.

[Baron von Trollwhack]

Here is part of the equation. Did anyone else check?

http://www.cci-ammunition.com/produc...ers.aspx?id=28.

BvT

[Baron von Trollwhack]

Let me address several other issues in this thread so far.

1 You are right, Omnivore, ignition of BP substitutes is ALWAYS an issue as compared to BP.

2 It is correct that that wingless musket caps from RWS are exactly the same in prime and dimensions, other than the wings, as RWS top hat (winged) caps. I have used wingless caps for practice for many years. I have even provided full dimensions in posts right here in the past.

Did everyone know that the winged caps are flanged as they are so that in the heat of battle a soldier could snatch a cap out of his cap box without looking and correctly fit it on the nipple, the last act before aiming and firing?

3 RWS musket caps are much closer in price now than they have ever been. There once was a real price break for the wingless. Not so much now. I have been shooting them both since 1966. Navy Arms put their own label on them in those days.

4 Ten years ago I fell into several thousand of the CCI winged musket caps and tested them. They were hotter than the RWS as it showed up on a chronograph.......................but not as consistent in velocities in my musket with BP and minie' ball. Sold them to skirmishers not of the first rank. Many BP shooters, including myself prefer a milder cap for accuracy. The old timers simply prefered a mild cap that reliably ingited their charge. Of course they could buy a quality variety of BP. But they did not use substitutes.

5 I see nothing in the CCI link above that indicates any change in cap priming at all. They did say in a veiled manner that because of carppy maintenance and the resulting build up in fouling, reenactors should drill out theit nipple flash channels for ignition. NOW DON"T YOU DO THAT IF YOU LOAD YOUR GUN WITH ANY PROJECTILE ! YOU WILL GET EXCESSIVE BACK PRESSURE THROUGH THE FLASH CHANNEL IF YOU DO, IT MAY KNOCK THE HAMMER BACK, MAY BREAK A TUMBLER NOTCH, MAY BREAK THE MAINSPRING STIRRUP, MAY HAVE THE MAINSPRING WHACK OUT A PIECE OF WOOD BENEATH THE LOCKPLATE, and all that will make you feel stupid.

BvT

[tomme boy]

As I said in my first post. These are weaker. My other post I was talking about, I had stated I was using a Substitute in my inline. I was having all kinds of problems with the NEW CCI musket caps. It had all kinds of ignition problems. My accuracy was horrible. I tried these RWS top hats an now everything is working again.

So to me, the RWS have more power than the new CCI top hats. I never had any problems with the old CCI's.

[Baron von Trollwhack]

Friend, let's have the proof of the "weaker" caps. There is too much speculative talk in the BP shooting arena that is just that, and it is a negative influence on those seriously learning an intresting and satisfying shooting sport and being safe about it.

POST the CCI reformulation notice from the manufacturer ! You have wiggled your poor ignition statements around in two different posts now and it is just changing statements and unsupported assertions. You have to know that cap strength affects ignition and velocity and accuracy.

Now I don't care about CCI caps. I've always used RWS for my own reasons, but lots af darn good skirmishers use them successfully.

But few here viewing these posts are that. Most are shooters wanting to shoot better, maintain their equipment better, be safe and be knowledgeable. If your old caps sound weaker, maybe your gun is still fouled from your last postings .

BvT

[curator]

Many Civil War reenactor groups had banned CCI musket caps due to minor injuries suffered from cap fragments. The suspicion was the CCI caps were "too powerful." CCI responded with reduced power caps to not drive off this large segment of their market. Most musket caps are needlessly powerful for shooting black powder but may be just right with some of the substitutes. Reenactors' needs are very different than shooters. Every .45 and .50 caliber percussion rifle I have converted to use musket caps ended up becoming somewhat less accurate even after careful load development. Converting back to a #11 cap restored the original accuracy. I found this to be true when using real black powder only. Accuracy stayed about the same when loading Pyrodex or Tripple seven.

[451 Pete]

Bvt,
You mentioned in your post about testing your musket caps and finding velocity differs on a chronograph between the type of caps and the brands. I am curious. How much variation were you finding between the brands or even in the deviation within a lot or batch of caps?

I know this may only be able to be applied to what you have found in your caps as we don't know how caps are stored or how old they might be before they get to us. I also know of one vendor that stores caps in kitty litter to keep any moisture out of his inventory.

Just my thoughts ..... Pete

[tomme boy]

Baron, what do you want me to say? In my testing the CCI ssounds less powerfull. When I pop one the gasses coming out the barrel are less. The Old 300's would throw sparks out the end of the barrel, the new 301's do not. I did not have ignition problems with the old 300's, I do with the 301's. I used new powder and a new nipple. I'm using the pyro pellets. And no the breech plug is not! fouled. I take it out every time I use the gun and clean it.

Tell me what you think. Do you think they are less powerfull or not? Have you even tried the new ones? If not I don't see how you can say they are not less powerful.

[stuffy25thia]

My son and I both shoot Civil War events. He is using a Maynard carbine, I shoot a Gallagher carbine. We have tried the new CCI four wing caps, and we don't care much for them. Have a lot of hang fires and no fires at all. We went to the RWS wingless caps, and have no problems with them. We keep our weapons very clean, have way to much money tied up in them not to. They are just a little harder to get a hold of in our cap boxes. Sure wish CCI would return to the 6 wingers.

[NHGrumpyGramps]

The new CCI muskets caps are marked "re-enactors" and they do not have anywhere need the Power of the RWS or the old CCI caps. I have a Sharps breech loader which has a long flame path. I went through 15 of the new CCI caps without having a single one work. I put on 1 RWS cap and it fired without a problem. I had bought a tin of the new CCI musket caps thinking they were the same as the old ones and have not been able to get one to fire imy Sharps. Local gun shop says they can't get the RWS caps so I have been searching to find some. Finally found one shop that had them at $12.99 per hundred, which is high priced but much better than the CCI caps at $5.99 without have one work. Does anyone have a source for the RWS caps at better price? Haz mat charges make those that I have found online about the same price as what I paid at gun shop.

[stuffy25thia]

Here is the best price I have found on the net, but it's plus shipping and Haz-mat.
http://www.rrarms.com/catalog.php?prod=2105225#

[tomme boy]

This is what I keep trying to say. But, Baron does not believe anyone. I think he needs to go out and buy a tin and waste his money like the rest of us have.

[451 Pete]

Gentlemen,
A few years back I was concerned about trouble coming from some of our newly elected officials in making supplies needed for shooting hard to obtain. ( I am still not certain this will not happen if this bunch is re- elected next year. )
One of the things I did was purchase some nipples threaded for my muskets that take the #11 cap's. If you are shooting black powder and your rifle is in good working order the #11's will work well and #11's can be found even at my local Wally World. ( Winchester Brand if I remember correctly. )
I am not saying it will work with all the synthetic powders, they have a higher ignition temp. But this might be a temporary solution if your shooting black powder to keep you shooting. The price of a new nipple would be cheaper than paying the haz mat fees and double pricing until you either find several fellows locally to go together and place a large order ( kind of a local group buy ) or until your local shop can get some better musket caps in stock.

Just my thoughts .... Pete

[stuffy25thia]

Using the #11 caps would be even harder to do, when your standing on the firing line, in a timed event, they would be very difficult to remove from the cap box, and place on the weapon.
My personal feelings on CCI changing to a lower powered cap, is that they are afraid that someone is going to try and sue them if one of the 6 winger caps were to injure someone. But I've been wrong before.

[Baron von Trollwhack]

I would like to publicly apologize to tomme boy on the issue of the weak CCI caps. I located a thread on another forum, http://www.n-ssa.org/vbforum/showthr...ment-Caps-quot, that indicates in 2009 CCI dropped the musket caps they had been selling for years and only now sells the "re-enactor caps" The undated link I had earlier posted from the CCI website while saying one thing to me, in view of their priming charge change in 2009 that I just now verified, appears to be corporate baloney. They weakened the priming charge in the cap, then advised re-enactors to drill out the nipple flash channel to still work in some fashion, where there had been other problems for re-enactiors earlier with hot caps even if the nipples were drilled. I could guess that the skirmishers were right in that the "hot" caps were causing cap spitting fragments in view of re-enactors' practices of no eye protection and unusual gun maintenance. CCI even changed from 6 flange caps physically to 4 flange at the time of prime reduction.

This is to apologize to tomme boy. I was wrong about the CCI strong caps. Those now appear to be a thing of the past. From what I read from the skirmishers the caps now are pretty weak, and for shooting BP substitutes would not likely work well at all. That would make the RWS musket caps, the better standard now, as the old CCIs were like "magnums" if you needed extra hot ignition. Nevertheless the matter of cap testing may be helpful. I'll give a little explanation of what I did in my testing back then that may be helpful.

I took the breechblock out of my Garret Sharps ,cleared a good space on my workbench top and lined up 2 x 2 inch blocks and spaces. Along side of that I nailed a little brace for the breechblock, turned out the lights and started setting caps off on the breechblock nipple with my knapping hammer. Best I could figure then was the CCIs were throwing a 12 inch flame and the RWS a 9 inch flame. The CCI were more powerful. Someone could do that test today. The skirmishers mentioned this testing they did. I did this in a lot earlier.

You could do that test also on a BP revolver in a dark space to get an indication of cap strength if you made sure the nipple flash holes were all the same, or limited testing to one cylinder chamber. But I always bought standard caps that fit by the 2 thousand at a time, always used BP and never had ignition problems whether using Remingtons, Navy Arms, or CCI pistol caps.

As to the other testing back then, I shot many 5 shot strings out of my musket and chronographed them. The only thing that I changed was from my RWS caps to the old "HOT" CCI caps. I tried hard to keep all conditions the same otherwise. On a good running musket you can shoot all day in Carolina because the humidity sometimes keeps the fouling soft like grease and that's great for consistency. I was closely averaging 880 fps with about 15-18 fps standard deviation in velocity with RWS and 925 fps and 20-27 fps deviation with the "HOT" CCI. I used 40 grains fffg Goex, a cast RCBS minie' @ 530 grains, and my own lube. I figured the "HOT" caps gave me less consistency. Velocity is important at distance for accuracy.

It seems now that if a RWS musket cap wil not ignite a gun's substitute BP powder charge reliably the only option left will be to shoot the real thing, BP.

BvT