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

Banjoman · Aug 15, 2024

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?

tenngun · Aug 15, 2024

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

Banjoman · Aug 15, 2024

Interesting! Thanks!

ppg1949 · Aug 15, 2024

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.

Uncle Miltie · Aug 16, 2024

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.

Tumbledown · Aug 16, 2024

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.

Banjoman · Aug 16, 2024

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.

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?

French Colonial · Aug 16, 2024

So much conjecture, so little time.

Smokey Plainsman · Aug 16, 2024

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.

Kev308 · Aug 16, 2024

After teading Tumbledowns post I am intrigued. I have to try that. Seems like it would make loading alot quicker in a hunting situation drop the powder charge, grab a ball by the trheaded end and and seat it. Sounds like fun!

R Ellis · Aug 16, 2024

Seems to me that if your were attacked by Indians you would not take the extra time to cut at the muzzle but also might not even take the time to use a patch after the first shot

Banjoman · Aug 16, 2024

Probably not!

tenngun · Aug 16, 2024

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?

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

tenngun · Aug 16, 2024

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

Posted twice

Banjoman · Aug 16, 2024

I agree the old times were as variable as us.

springfield art · Aug 16, 2024

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?

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!

Banjoman · Aug 16, 2024

I’m just guessing (no documentation) that maybe many different ways of patching were tried. I still think cut at the muzzle may have been more often done, but that could be because that’s what I prefer and it’s just easier to make it fit my notion of historically correct.

springfield art · Aug 16, 2024

When you cut at muzzle with the patch knife, you get a smooth, perfectly fit patch...

springfield art · Aug 16, 2024

I hear that during the Battle of Gettysburg, here in Pa., foragers were sent around to the surrounding countryside's Wal-Marts to scrounge for Caps!

Sparkplug · Aug 16, 2024

This is just a guess, but I'm sure the methodology was as varied then as it is today. That being said, from what I have seen and read, it seems both methods are historical. However, I believe cutting at the barrel was more common. This would explain the commonality of a patch knife.

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

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

Eager to learn and willing to teach.

Cannon

Eager to learn and willing to teach.

54 Cal.

50 Cal.

58 Cal.

Eager to learn and willing to teach.

62 Cal.

16"/50 Caliber

40 Cal

45 Cal.

Eager to learn and willing to teach.

Cannon

Cannon

Eager to learn and willing to teach.

Cannon

Eager to learn and willing to teach.

Cannon

Cannon

40 Cal

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!