Author Topic: Hubbard's Huntsman/Sidekick Carrierless 209 Breech Plug (PICS) (Read 4307 times)

Busta · « **on:** June 27, 2008, 08:22:16 PM »

My Breech plug arrived in the mail Friday the 27th. Ben did a great job making this plug, the tollerances are right on the money. The shoulder on the plug is made to fit flush with the breech end of the barrel and locks up tight to the standing breech. Perfect fit! You just use the standard NEF POS breech plug wrench to install the plug. The 209 primer holder is a 3/8" hex and used 1/4"-28 threads. I use a 3/8" White breech plug wrench for the holder, any 3/8" socket will also work. The primer fits a little loose in the holder, I'm sure that is for removal of spent primers, as the primer is headspaced at the rim, rather than the front. This is the only feature I am not 100% on board with yet, but the proof will be in the shooting. I popped a cap as is and got a bit of soot back on the standing breech. I installed a .012" shim/washer between the primer holder and the plug to tighten the headspace at the rim up and got rid of almost all of the primer fouling on the standing breech. A very small o-ring inside the primer holder just might tighten up the headspace at the front of the primer pocket. I will do some experimenting with that at a later date.

The primer holder has a .035" flash hole. The breech plug also has a flash hole beyond the primer holder, I'm guessing in the .045" to .050" range. I will measure that later and let you know what I come up with. The plug is installed and ready to shoot sometime this weekend. Our power went out for about 3 hours last evening as a T-Storm was blowing through. It is getting very late, and way past my bedtime, so I'll just post a few pics for now and add to this post later this weekend. Photobucket has been giving me fits uploading lately, so I'll post a few pics I was able to get uploaded. More later.

Can't wait to shoot it. Maybe now the Huntsman will be able to shoot Blackhorn 209 with 100% instant ignition. I;ll keep ya posted.

Busta · « **Reply #1 on:** June 28, 2008, 03:18:07 AM »

Raining this morning.

LHitchcox · « **Reply #2 on:** June 28, 2008, 06:10:26 AM »

Mine should be here by Monday. I have the Buckhorn 209 on the shelf. I am also off work for a month (I teach and I just finished a month of summer school). Sounds like its playtime. I intend to shoot Hornady 300 gr. XTPs out of Harvester Crush Rib sabots through my Sidekick and my Omega. The Sidekick is my youth gun. I will let you know how it works out.

Leon

Busta · « **Reply #3 on:** June 30, 2008, 12:03:48 PM »

Sorry guys, but I just got off the phone with Ben, he will not be making any more Huntsman/Sidekick plugs. They are just to cost prohibitive to make by hand, and the tolerances from one NEF breech to the next are just too great. The way he makes these plugs, they come all the way back to the breech end of the barrel and fit flush.

A lot of work goes into making up one of these plugs. I just couldn't understand how he could do it without having to charge an arm and a leg. I'm sorry I got everybody excited, I really thought we were on to something here.

Back to the drawing board!

We need to find someone with a CNC that could make one just like the T/C plug.

Buckhammer74 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 09, 2008, 06:09:29 PM »

Busta,

I havent been able to find the digital, but the only differnce that I can tell between our plugs other than 7/8 and 5/8 is that mine has a 1/8 set screw for the second flash hole, which I removed. I couldnt see in your pics if yours does or not.

I went to the hardware store today with your o-ring idea in mind. I picked up the smallest one I could find and it slips right over a primer. I think this would work great for our sealing problem. The only problem is that with the ring on it makes the primer stick too far out of the holder. I am thinking that I might remove some material from the top of the primer cup until I get a flush fit(leaving a little extra for squishing of the o-ring) I guess if I take too much off all I have to do is shim it back up. The little buggers are 25cents apiece but I am sure that they could be reused.

UPDATE!!!!!

I just put the o-ring on the primer and put it in the plug. The gun closed! I didnt think the ring would squish that much. It is after midnight so I wil test it tomorrow. Keeping my fingers crossed!

Buckhammer74

Buckhammer74 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2008, 06:20:18 PM »

Well,

It did not work, hangfire again! How much more sealed can it get if an o-ring is between the primer and the carrier, and putting pressure towards the breechface?

I have now taken .5mm off of the top of the carrier and tried it again with the o-ring. Taking .5mm off removed the bevel Ben put in the inside and took 99% of the slop out. Tried it again with an o-ring and still HANGFIRE!

My last ditch effort is to shim up the carrier and try it without the o-ring. Like I said the primer fits in the carrier very well with the .5mm removed, but I dont see how this would work any better.

Oh well Ill give it a shot. If it doesnt work I will either reside myself to shooting 777 or sell my Nef and get a TC.

Buckhammer74

Buckhammer74 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 13, 2008, 08:16:37 AM »

Busta,

Like I said, mine came with an 1/8 set screw that screws down near the end of the plug and is removed from the top.. Does yours have this? The set screw is basically another flashhole. I removed it with the thought of why constrict the fire in 2 places(primer carrier and set screw)?? As posted it didnt help the hangfires. My next modification is going to be drilling an 1/8" hole straight through the primer carrier and put the set screw back in. After looking back at the diagram of the "IDEAL BH209 PLUG" from www.hpmuzzleloading.com this is what their diagram suggests as "IDEAL". I guess it gives the fire a longer channel before it is restricted. I was wondering why Ben made my plug with this set screw. Maybe he had this in mind, afterall I did send him acopy of the IBH209 BP DUH!!

What do you think of this Idea?

Buckhammer74

Busta · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2008, 10:26:30 AM »

Buckhammer74,

Mine does not have this set screw you refer to. Mine has about a .045" to .050" flash hole below the primer holders .035" flash hole. Mine has fired every time, with no hang fires or delays of any kind.

If you could, post some pictures so I can see where the diferences are. What size is the flash hole in the set screw? What is the size of the flash hole in the primer holder?

I woud think twice before drilling out the primer holder, you will only get one chance. Might be better to drill out the plug instead, and leave the .035" flash hole in the primer holder??? Get some measurements first.

lindyds · « **Reply #8 on:** September 22, 2008, 02:59:20 AM »

Hi, I am new to the Greybeard forums

. I have a sidekick muzzleloader and just got a hold of Hubbard to get the replacement ramrod and breach plug. The Ramrod is shipping today, the BP will ship later. Do you guys get less blowback with his breach plug?

Busta · « **Reply #9 on:** September 22, 2008, 06:14:24 AM »

lindyds,

Welcome to Graybeard Outdoors!

The last time I talked to Ben, he said he wasn't going to be making any more plugs for the NEF's. If you want less blowback, the .25 ACP plug is the way to go. I wanted a 209 plug to be able to shoot Blackhorn 209 powder, the .25 ACP and standard NEF 209 plug are not 100% reliable.

Ben headspaced the primer at the rim instead of the face, so it has plenty of blowback. I shimmed the primer nipple to help in that regard, but could not eliminate it.

lindyds · « **Reply #10 on:** September 22, 2008, 06:19:28 AM »

Quote from: Busta on September 22, 2008, 06:14:24 AM

lindyds,

Welcome to Graybeard Outdoors!

The last time I talked to Ben, he said he wasn't going to be making any more plugs for the NEF's. If you want less blowback, the .25 ACP plug is the way to go. I wanted a 209 plug to be able to shoot Blackhorn 209 powder, the .25 ACP and standard NEF 209 plug are not 100% reliable.

Ben headspaced the primer at the rim instead of the face, so it has plenty of blowback. I shimmed the primer nipple to help in that regard, but could not eliminate it.

Does Ben's have less blowback than the stock BP?

lindyds · « **Reply #11 on:** September 22, 2008, 03:22:26 PM »

Quote from: Busta on September 22, 2008, 06:14:24 AM

The last time I talked to Ben, he said he wasn't going to be making any more plugs for the NEF's.

He must have more time on his hands, mine ships tomorrow

.

kody · « **Reply #12 on:** September 25, 2008, 05:51:35 PM »

Busta, What is your experience with the Vari-flame product? Ken

Busta · « **Reply #13 on:** September 25, 2008, 08:08:31 PM »

Quote from: kody on September 25, 2008, 05:51:35 PM

Busta, What is your experience with the Vari-flame product? Ken

None with the Vari-Flame, just the .25 ACP plug. IMO the Vari-Flame would be a waste of time in the Huntsman/Sidekick, still gonna have blowback with the primer carriers. I use the .25 ACP to reduce blowback by about 95%, not for the added accuracy.

kody · « **Reply #14 on:** September 26, 2008, 06:12:22 AM »

What do you attribute the Vari-flame blowback to? They seem to be a shorter version of the .25 ACP. I've never handled either let alone shot them and analyzed the results like you have.I want to take the shortest route to the most highly regarded method. [ yeh, brainpicking ] When I see comparative results of the various makers breech plugs ,some seem to stand out as successes. It doesn't seem to be very difficult for the mfrs. to take the most promising one and adapt it to their particular plug and thread dimensions. Ken

Busta · « **Reply #15 on:** September 26, 2008, 06:58:33 AM »

Blowback would be from the main charge, the primer carriers do not seal in the breech like a 209 primer would seal in a T/C for instance. All the Vari-Flame would do for you in a NEF is reduce the primer charge, it will not seal the breech like a .25 ACP case will. If the NEF had a 209 primer pocket like T/C, then there would be a use for it IMO. Your right, it wouldnt take much to make a 209 plug for the NEF, but nobody is stepping up to the plate, and probably won't since the NEF has been discontinued.

Bottom line, if you want to get rid of blowback in a NEF the Vari-Flame would be no different than using a 209, the .25 ACP on the other hand does a good job at harnessing that blowback. Not 100%, but probably around 95% in my example.

lindyds · « **Reply #16 on:** September 27, 2008, 04:18:01 AM »

I got my breach plug yesterday. It doesn't fit quite right. I may send it back.

Busta · « **Reply #17 on:** September 27, 2008, 05:35:04 AM »

Quote from: lindyds on September 27, 2008, 04:18:01 AM

I got my breach plug yesterday. It doesn't fit quite right. I may send it back.

lindyds,

Can you explain? Do you have the 5/8" of 7/8" breech plug? Can you provide pics, or explain where it doesn't fit? Ben did say that the tolerances from NEF were too great from one rifle to another to make a plug that would fit every rifle. The standard plastic primer carriers pick up the slack in that regard.

If you have a 5/8" plug, I would really like to see some pics please.

lindyds · « **Reply #18 on:** September 27, 2008, 01:02:31 PM »

Quote from: Busta on September 27, 2008, 05:35:04 AM

lindyds,

Can you explain? Do you have the 5/8" of 7/8" breech plug? Can you provide pics, or explain where it doesn't fit? Ben did say that the tolerances from NEF were too great from one rifle to another to make a plug that would fit every rifle. The standard plastic primer carriers pick up the slack in that regard.

If you have a 5/8" plug, I would really like to see some pics please.

I have the 5/8"bp. I'll get some pics soon. I want to take some measurements to get a better feel for where it would need to be adjusted to get it to be flush with the end of the breech and seat properly on the bottom of the BP. It appears that the head on the bp hits before the bottom seats. Might be something simple I can take to work with me and touch up on the lathe. I also don't like how loose the primers fit in the primer nipple.

Measuring....

lindyds · « **Reply #19 on:** September 28, 2008, 04:49:55 PM »

I took some measurements on my sidekick and the Hubbard breech plug and discovered the problem. The overall length of the bp is perfect. The head on the bp is too thick, it needs to have about .030" taken off the bottom of the head so it clears. Then it will fit perfect. I am going to email him back and see if he wants to fix it or just have me do it. I will get the pics soon

.

LHitchcox · « **Reply #20 on:** September 29, 2008, 09:00:50 AM »

I posted several weeks on this topic. I was lucky enough to get a first run BP/Carrier (7/8in.) from Hubbard and it was too long to fit in my Sidekick. This was not Ben's fault. The NEF tolerances are too great. Afterward Ben decided to stop production because there of the variation. My breechplug was about 55 thousandths too long to seat flush. I got it to work by filing off one and a half threads and grinding off the breechplug from the bottom until it fit flush.

I feel that if Ben would shorten the threads a couple of turns, we could then have a grind to fit plug that would work well.

Leon

lindyds · « **Reply #21 on:** September 30, 2008, 04:10:24 PM »

I'm sending mine back because it can't be skimmed off to make it work without making the head very weak

. I am however going to have a guy in the CNC dept where I work make some aluminum primer carriers based on the plastic ones

. I designed some up in CAD. They will be custom machined to fit more closely into the breech plug and hopefully reduce the blowback. When they are done i'll take some pics so you can see my hair brained scheme

.

kody · « **Reply #22 on:** October 04, 2008, 03:41:10 PM »

Busta this is aimed at you in particular,based on all you have given us in the past and the fact that you are still asking questions about the Hubbard product. I have a 7/8 plug whose apparent overall length is to much. I am in the process of taking all the measurements I can imagine and making an engineering drawing of the result. I will forward this to you when I'm done and you can compare it with your product. I'm not sure if all of these plugs were made exactly alike and only individual measurements will answer that. One apparent difference I can already see is the shape of the exterior ov the primer "barrel" . Yours has a slightly rounded-off top edge that then tapers at a constant rate down and outwards to the edge of the 3/8" hex. Mine has a fairly sharp lip with its exterior surface running parallel with the inner wall [.030] for 1/16" and then angling at about a 30 deg. angle down and out also to the hex surface.PM me for any specific measurements you want. Ken

Antietamgw · « **Reply #23 on:** October 07, 2008, 02:23:04 AM »

Kody,Busta and all,
I'm a new guy here but have used the original Huntsman's off and on since the '70's. My first new style barrels are on their way right now and the first thing I expect to do is eliminate the primer carrier - I just don't like having to rely on "extra stuff". My original thinking after hearing about the .25 ACP conversion was "Cool, good idea - why .25 ACP? , why not something small, more common, rimmed and easy to handle, Hornet or .32 S&W, etc." I have the ability to make these breechplugs but it makes sense (to me, anyway) not to have different folks all headed in the same direction, individually. Cody, if you get a drawing together, would you provide me a copy as well? I'll be glad to share whatever I come up and how it performs. I expect to have at least one of the new barrels by the end of this week and will likely have a breechplug of some sort by early next week. If I get a little shop time this week I'll be making a .32 S&W breechplug for my old .58 and give it a try this weekend.

Keith Lewis · « **Reply #24 on:** October 07, 2008, 02:36:51 PM »

The .32 S&W is the one Doc White used for his Thunderbolt. I have one of them but have not had time to play with it. One option is to opt for the smokeless barrel which has a breechplug without the carriers and uses 209 primers. A little expensive but another option.

Antietamgw · « **Reply #25 on:** October 08, 2008, 04:33:52 AM »

.32 S&W makes sense to me, I already have a bunch of brass. I've not seen the new style barrels or primer holders yet so can only speculate but suspect that the reason they exist is that some sort of extraction system is needed and that was cheap and easy. If the primer seat is cut close enough to the size of the primer to eliminate a lot of blow-back, it will be difficult to remove fired primers after a couple shots. I ran into this when I made a 209 breechplug for my switch-barrel Rolling Block .50 cal M.L. barrel. That big honkin' plastic thing solves the problem and creates new ones...

kody · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2008, 10:13:05 AM »

Did you receive the drawing and,if so, was it of any use to you? Do you have any observations as to the accuracy of the drawing or any of the diameters or flame channel dimensions? Ken