Which is historically correct, precut patches or cut at muzzle?

Shop deals on ebay
the hawken shop
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Banjoman

Banjoman

Hillbilly
Joined
Jul 10, 2023
Messages
1,066
Reaction score
3,127
Location
Hills of East Tennessee
This question is concerning rifles only, not smooth bores. Which is more historically correct for the 18th and 19th centuries, precut patches or patches cut at the muzzle?

This is not intended to be about which is the most accurate, easiest to carry, etc. I would simply like to hear your opinions on which is most historically correct, whether documented or not. However, documentation would really be appreciated.

Based solely on pictures of shooting pouch contents and what I’ve seen in museums, I’m leaning more toward cut at the muzzle. What say ye?
 
Precut are described in Central Europe in seventeenth century when rifles were still on coltsfoot style stocks.
And show up in nineteenth century, I’m thinking Ned Roberts’s mentions them but don’t have his book now to check.
Balls in patches were known for military guns in early eighteenth century.
Pre cut patches were carried by Austrian riflemen during the napoleonic war, in triangular shapes.
The American butt trap came to be called patch box, suggesting pre cut patches. However Audobon describes grease in tha patch box when he tells of Boone loading his rifle
I use pre cut, but I will lay money the majority cut at the muzzle in America
 
Similar but not quite the same, described in the 18th century book “ On Shooting on the Wing” (I have to find the book for the exact title.) The author tells readers to make 2 inch squares of heavy paper to be used as a “shot cup” when loading shot. Those “patches” were kept pinned togetogether and just torn off as needed.
 
Loading blocks were actually not for loading at the muzzle like many do today, but to hold the ball in the patch while the patch was stitched closed. These pre-patched balls were then carried in the bag, saving a lot of fumbling while in the field.

This method also explains why riflemen would put a ball in their mouths while measuring their powder, then spit the ball down the muzzle- they were spit-lubing their pre-patched balls.
 
Uncle Miltie said:
Pre cut patches were used more often than people think.
In old original bags they have often been found. Square or octagon (corners clipped off) likely cut with scissors on a table at home.
Click to expand...
I was cutting square patches one evening with scissors when I began to wonder about this. Perhaps what I was doing wasn’t that much different than what long hunters did.

The pre-patched ball is interesting also. Could it be that all these methods were used as well as bare balls?
 
I carry my patches in strips placed into a Ted Cash Tinder box.

Keeps them from getting all over. I loop one about my pouches strap whilst shooting and moisten it with the mouth, using a barlow’s knife to cut them at the muzzle.

My piece is coned so no starter is used.
 
Banjoman said:
I was cutting square patches one evening with scissors when I began to wonder about this. Perhaps what I was doing wasn’t that much different than what long hunters did.

The pre-patched ball is interesting also. Could it be that all these methods were used as well as bare balls?
Click to expand...
Bare just won’t do well in a rifle, and my gut tells me it would only be done when there was no other choice.
We don’t have documentation to show civilians useing sewn on patches as was seen in the military.
To me that’s a null argument. Bob is in the military sees seen on balls. Later as a civilian he gives it a try, who is going to write it down. Jack sees Bob doing it and gives it a try, and so on
People will tell you pre cut is easier, or cutting at the muzzle is easier. Or shoots at range with one hunts with the other. Or shoots one gun with cut at the muzzle, and another with precut
And most of us shoot for years without ever writing it down.
I’m willing to bet the old times were as variable as us
 
Banjoman said:
I was cutting square patches one evening with scissors when I began to wonder about this. Perhaps what I was doing wasn’t that much different than what long hunters did.

The pre-patched ball is interesting also. Could it be that all these methods were used as well as bare
Click to expand...
Posted twice
 
Banjoman said:
This question is concerning rifles only, not smooth bores. Which is more historically correct for the 18th and 19th centuries, precut patches or patches cut at the muzzle?

This is not intended to be about which is the most accurate, easiest to carry, etc. I would simply like to hear your opinions on which is most historically correct, whether documented or not. However, documentation would really be appreciated.

Based solely on pictures of shooting pouch contents and what I’ve seen in museums, I’m leaning more toward cut at the muzzle. What say ye?
Click to expand...
I vote for 'cut at muzzle'. I may be biased, but back in 1963 H&A was offering their under hammer rifle, and the brochure (wish I still had it!) showed the buck-skinned frontiersman 'cutting' the patch!
 

Similar threads

flatcreek
CUT AT THE MUZZLE, ROUND OR SQUARE
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
SPQR70AD
S
S
Patches cut at muzzle
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Toscano
Toscano
dave_person
Making an English Turn-off Pistol for Fort Dobbs
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
shorthair
S
dave_person
Making a Rev War Period British Carbine
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
springfield art
S
Loyalist Dave
The Search for a Vintage Cornbread
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
6K
Loyalist Dave
Loyalist Dave

Latest posts

Back
Top