18th-century PRB?

[George]

Has anyone ever found a single legitimate original reference to the use of patched round balls in any smoothbore in the 18th century? I’ve searched my database for every term I can think of and have not found a single reference.
I have found quite a few references to wads being used, but most of them are most likely for charges of shot, not round ball. Only one item can reasonably be interpreted to mean wads were used with round ball:

The Pennsylvania Gazette
July 18, 1734
From Shrewsbury we hear, That on the 5th Inst. being Training Day at that Place, One of the Soldiers having his Musket loaded with a hard Wadd on the Charge, in attempting to fire between the Legs of one Samuel Davenport his Fellow-Soldier, about Twenty-five Years of Age, the Wadd struck his Ancle Bone with such Force, that it was shatter'd, and broke quite off; and a Day or two after, the poor Man's Leg was cut off, and it was greatly fear'd he would lose his Life thereby.

A militiaman armed with a musket at muster can reasonably be assumed to be loading a round ball over that hard wad, or at least a round ball and some swan/buck shot, so this may be a legitimate early indication of wads and round ball. Indirect but possible.
Can anyone provide references to PRB or to any others describing wads with round balls?

Spence

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Same thing here Spence

 

[BillinOregon]

Spence, are you specifically excluding paper-patched round ball musket cartridges?

 

[BigDeutscher]

Bill
The Bess is in Harrisburg but they wont let me come pick it up
Bastards!:}
Roll up some paper cartridges
Your bess likes um
Deutsch

 

[BigDeutscher]

Those fellas in P.A. just aint right!
You think they might of been drinkin some hard cider before the attempt to show off their shootin skills?
Deutsch

 

[paulvallandigham]

Spence: Its always been my understanding( how I can't say, as its been too many years since I even thought about the issue, and I can't remember what source gave me the information) that the use of a patch around the ball came with rifled barrels, in Europe. The idea was to allow a smaller-than-bore-diameter lead ball to be run down a rifled barrel, with the cloth patch( or some other substance) used to hold the ball in the bore, and Transfer the spin of the rifling to the ball to stabilize it during flight. I don't think anyone even thought THEN, about using that patch to seal the bore from the gases, as distances were still relatively short. The rifled barrels gave an advantage to the hunter/soldier, by extending the range over which he could accurately place a ball on his target.

The use of a patch around the ball in smoothbores simply was not considered, as without rifling, these guns were considered short range weapons at best. I suspect, but have no information to confirm my suspicion, that using a PRB in a smoothbore was done out of frustration by troops issued muskets, but facing, with alarming frequency, and devastating, lethal, accuracy, enemy soldiers armed with rifles. The hope was that while perhaps having no assurance of hitting a man-sized target at 100 yds, or longer, that getting a big RB close enough might discourage the riflemen, and move them back far enough that they didn't pose as much a danger to the soldiers armed with smooth bores.

I used this same idea personally, many years ago, when I was armed only with a shotgun, and rifled slugs, but was being shot at by someone with a rifle, from about 1/2 mile away. He was in Missouri, and I was in Illinois. My slug was only rated to travel 1/2 mile according to factory data. I located the probably site of the assailant by listening to more than 30 rds. being fired at me, and others in my hunting party. I elevated my shotgun to 45 degrees, and fired three shots towards our attacker. A minute or so later, a figure was seen running away from the location where I had sent my slugs, without a gun in his hands.

The idea worked. No more shots were fired at us.

I did have, then, a very good idea what those British Soldiers must have felt like facing Colonials armed with rifles, in our Revolutionary War. I suspect a similar feeling occurred in Vietnam for every soldier and Marine fighting there when they were being bombarded by mortars, and rocket propelled grenades, having only a rifle with which to defend themselves. And it hasn't changed much, since. :hmm: :thumbsup:

 

[George]

Spence, are you specifically excluding paper-patched round ball musket cartridges?

Yes. I'm looking for instances of the use of lubricated cloth or leather patches wrapped around the ball in a smoothbore, rifle fashion.

Spence

 

[matt denison]

"Has anyone ever found a single legitimate original reference to the use of patched round balls in any smoothbore in the 18th century?"

Hey Spence. I have looked and looked also. No can find. I did read this statement by James Hanson, Phd, of the Museum of the Fur Trade in the now famous "Firearms of the Fur Trade", page 35. He is refering to Indian use of smoothbored guns. Indians learned from whites how to load and shoot.
quote:
"The powder was hed in place with a blanket wad, as was the ball. No ball patch was used, and I have never read of an Indian patching a ball in a smoothbore gun"

So. My conclusion is that if The Man Himself can't find reference from the hundreds of books that he has read/studied then who am I to continue searching my paltry library. I'm inclined to just take his word for it.

Did early frontiersmen who used ball in smoothbore guns before the age of rifles patch their balls? They seem to have forgotten to document it if they did.

A bare ball held with only a wad in a rifled barrel just sounds stupid. What would be the point of the rifling. I'm thinking that the use of patches came into use with the use of rifled barrels. That, friends, is just an opinion.

 

[George]

You think they might of been drinkin some hard cider before the attempt to show off their shootin skills?

Shooting blanks between a fellow's legs seemed to be a popular sport, and here's one incident where some kind of liquor was involved, probably a lot of it.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
January 16, 1753
ANNAPOLIS, December 7.
Last Monday, being Christmas Day, some People having got pretty merry at the House of Joseph Crouch on the North Side of Severn, his Son very imprudently attempting to fire a Gun between his Father’s legs, shattering the Bone of one of them with the Wad in a terrible Manner, so that it is thought he cannot recover.

Spence

 

[Britsmoothy]

Where did the idea for using a patch around the ball for a rifle come from if not allready used in a smooth bore? Perhaps it was such a common known practice nobody noticed it like buckling up in the car now!

brits.

 

[tg]

I have seen nothing mentioning patches, I have no doubt that balls were used very often as the French show barrels full of balls of various sizes shipped to the gulf area in 1700+/- balls from .54thru .57 in the same barrel or something along that line of sizes, wadding seems to be the way they held the ball in place, I often wonder about smoothrifles it would seen that the patched ball would be just another of the rifle attributes that was carried over to that type of gun, and the wadding was mainly to hold the ball in place, it would seem like after the rifle and PRB cncept became known that this might have been tried as a viable way to keep the ball in place, quicker and more efficient than two wads if one has balls of consistant size and smaller than bore size enough to allow several shots before fouling ruined the day, My personal take on it is that at some time it became evident that this would work in smoothbores and was likley done to a probably limited extent but therr is no records explaining the process which I find not to be unusuall this happens often with many things/practices in the past, at the same time a PRB in a smooth gun would notlikley pass mucter at a ridged juried event which is fine and as it should be. It is just hard to imagine even when putting aside the 21st centiry that the practice of thePRB was never embraced with smootbores anywhere/anytime due to the practical/efficient method of keeping the ball in place and checking the gases thatit is just my thoughts, I find acceptable accuracy with either method but I know the ball is held more securely with a patch and it also forms a tighter "seal" twixt ball and barrel.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Where did the idea for using a patch around the ball for a rifle come from if not allready used in a smooth bore? Perhaps it was such a common known practice nobody noticed it like buckling up in the car now!

brits.

If you read period 18th century material concerning prb in rifles, the mindset of the linen or leather patch is to only seat in the rifling to impart spin and not as a gasket seal of the bore. As far as I can tell, prb in smooth bores is a modern thing adapted by rifles shooters bitten by the "fowler" bug in the last quarter of the 20th century.

 

[George]

...wadding seems to be the way they held the ball in place...

But not just that. There is at least circumstantial evidence that they put wad over powder, then loaded ball. Excuse the long tale...

In a description from 1753, by James Glen, Esq; governor of South Carolina, a Cherokee killed an Englishman. The English demanded his life in return, and the tribes agreed. They appointed a relation of the man to do the deed, "and the Place fixed for that Purpose was the Town House, when he came to see the Dancing, as they commonly do every Night, and for that End his Relation had provided himself with a Pistol, which he kept concealed under his Blanket, but by his Motion in Dancing the Bullet had dropt out, however he wounded him slightly with the Wadding and Powder;"

Had to be a bullet over wadding, and when the term bullet is used they invariably mean a ball.

Spence

 

[Mike Brooks]

You fellows are undoubtedly right, butg they sure shoot better with a tight patch and ball combo!
But, I have had fowling guns that shot a bare ball, no wadding, surprisingly well.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

I understand the desire for documentation but sometimes a thing is so obvious I think common sense supersedes documentation. Wrapping a bit of cloth or leather around a ball to prevent it rolling back out of the barrel is such an obvious thing a person would have to be a total idiot NOT to think of it. To assume that all of the millions of people around the world who shot smoothbores over 500 years were all idiots makes an idiot of those who would thus assume. :youcrazy:

 

[Stophel]

There's a huge problem with the "come on, they HAD to have thought of it" argument, for this or any other subject. Apparently, they didn't think of it.

How many times have you seen some new invention, or some new way of doing something, something so simple, so logical, so obvious, yet no one had ever done it before, and you say to yourself "why didn't I think of that?" Everything was invented by someone. Before that, it didn't exist or was not done. One can look back through history and find any number of things that "surely they thought of it"...when fact, they didn't. :wink:

 

[Le Grand]

I understand the desire for documentation but sometimes a thing is so obvious I think common sense supersedes documentation. Wrapping a bit of cloth or leather around a ball to prevent it rolling back out of the barrel is such an obvious thing a person would have to be a total idiot NOT to think of it. To assume that all of the millions of people around the world who shot smoothbores over 500 years were all idiots makes an idiot of those who would thus assume. :youcrazy:

I like Coyote's answer. At the same time we can easily see how the availability of materials with uniform thickness for patching could have been rather hard to come by, especially for the Indians. Wadding doesn't require such uniformity in thickness and materials for wads were generally available.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I like Stophel's response better :thumbsup:

 

[George]

I like Stophel's response better :thumbsup:

All the answers are interesting and probably contain some truths, but I'm looking for instances where patches were actually mentioned. Or, if not by name, at least something which can reasonably let us conclude patches were used.

I'm fascinated with learning how early the old boys figured out how guns worked, how early they understood things we think only we moderns have figured out. For instance, this interesting tidbit about obstructed barrels:

"SOUTH-CAROLINA Gazette
February 17, 1757

”” The like Accidents have been known to happen, even from the Wad not being ramm'd down close to the Powder."

I'm impressed that the old boys understood much more than we give them credit for, and much earlier. Finding little items like that makes my day. :grin:

Spence

 

[CoyoteJoe]

There's a huge problem with the "come on, they HAD to have thought of it" argument, for this or any other subject. Apparently, they didn't think of it.

How many times have you seen some new invention, or some new way of doing something, something so simple, so logical, so obvious, yet no one had ever done it before, and you say to yourself "why didn't I think of that?" Everything was invented by someone. Before that, it didn't exist or was not done. One can look back through history and find any number of things that "surely they thought of it"...when fact, they didn't. :wink:

As a pre-schooler I discovered that wrapping a bit of paper napkin around a pea would prevent it rolling out of my pea shooter, though I can't prove that it shot more powerfully or accuratly. :haha: