• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

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

Shop deals on ebay
the hawken shop
shop deals on amazon
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Banjoman said:
Interesting! Thanks!
Click to expand...
Both would be correct.
If loading block is used, precut patches are a necessity.
I shoot precut 100% of the time. I do them in my spare time while watching TV or listening to the radio. In a couple of evenings I can cut and lube enough patches for all year.
Remember, human nature does not change.
If it could be done, it was done, same as now.
If they are precut and lubed at home you don’t to carry so much stuff around when out walking around hunting or shooting. .
 
My guess is, back then it most likely would have been depending on the circumstance/situation. I would reckon that most of the real woodsman cut at the muzzle.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I only big game hunted, cutting at the muzzle would be fine, even though I have never done so. Conversely, for squirrel hunting I find it most conducive to use a loading block. Again precut patches are best for that situation.

I do not know the history of loading blocks.
 
ETipp said:
My guess is, back then it most likely would have been depending on the circumstance/situation. I would reckon that most of the real woodsman cut at the muzzle.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I only big game hunted, cutting at the muzzle would be fine, even though I have never done so. Conversely, for squirrel hunting I find it most conducive to use a loading block. Again precut patches are best for that situation.

I do not know the history of loading blocks.
Click to expand...
Ed
I thought this is an interesting article.
This fellow used a loading block way back .
 

Attachments

  • Contemporary Makers- Rifle and Hunting Pouch Carried by David Cooke.pdf
    370 KB

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240930_154656_Google.jpg
    Screenshot_20240930_154656_Google.jpg
    824.4 KB
waksupi said:
I would bet a lot of thin buckskin was used, most likely cut at the muzzle. I used some flank brain tanned hide for patches. Worked great, I reused the patches a dozen plus times each, until I eventually lost them.
Click to expand...
This is something I have wondered about. You know how particular we are about our patch material. I have had some strange looks cast my way while perusing the bolts at Joann's with micrometer in hand. I have thought about the availability, quality and consistency of 18th century fabrics and the notion of buckskin has come up. I will have to give this a try.
 
I worked in museums for 40 years and in that time looked at thousands of collection items. There were quite a few loading blocks in firearm/military collections, although many if not most were incorrectly identified or classified as "unknown.". Every one of those blocks seemed well used, and at least one that I recall, which was still in a pouch, had lien wrapped balls in it. I believe the use of a loading block was common. I use one hunting because it's convenient and easy, not necessarily because it is faster.
 
I’m a hunter and have used loading blocks for sixty years or more. For my first (and hopefully) only shot needed for large four legged animals I use a fairly tight ball/patch combo. But in my loading block I usually have the same ball but a thinner patch. Second shots if needed often must be quick and I don’t want anything to slow me down. That and a coned muzzle assures I’m ready quickly.

With the materials available in the old days I can’t imagine a hunter using anything nearly as tight as we use today.
 
Tumbledown said:
Exactly speculation. The accountings of having to hammer the ball down the muzzle would say otherwise.
Click to expand...
let's see them.

Not saying they did not run into situations where they needed to hammer one down, but I see no period writings or archeological evidence of "hammers" being carried on a 1700's or frontiersman's person or being available at trading posts for the purpose of loading.

All existing evidence that I have seen is that they used a wooden "wiping" rod that they carried under the barrel to push the ball down, that same wooden rod that several people on this forum can not seem to figure out how to use without breaking it.
 
Last edited:

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
Replies
17
Views
683
dave_person
dave_person
Loyalist Dave
The Search for a Vintage Cornbread
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
6K
Loyalist Dave
Loyalist Dave

Latest posts

Back
Top