A Few Words About Smoothbores.

[George]

Would not a ball being In cased compleatly in kidskin cut off level watch the top of the ball count as a patched round ball in a smoothie?

It would in my book. My area of interest is much earlier, essentially 18th century, so, personally, I wish that reference was not so late, but it seems good for mid-19th century.

BTW, the fellow who wrote that was Levinge, not Leavings. That gave me considerable trouble finding the original post you mentioned above.

Spence

 

[Rat]

I think this is a wonderful discussion and debate. Now, I don't think the wad people are wrong, or that the patch people are right, for sure...I don't know enough about it to say. My logic tends towards patching being more common. However, I'd like to make a point about documentation. Bear with me, it may seem a bit off-topic, but I think that documentation has become a big part of the debate.

I have a large, impressive, library of congress book book, first published in 1912, about the settlement of the area I live in. It is also much to do about the battle of Four Lakes, about eight miles from my home. (google it!)Now I know a little bit about this history. I retired from the Cheney school district three years ago, but one of my passions was teaching about the battle of Four Lakes, the local tribes, etc. (High School level)

Now, the reason Col.Wright was able to beat the allied tribes in 1858, in this battle, his army (his infantry) was equipped with the then new model 1855 Springfield rifle. It was the first time this rifle was fired in anger. Of course there were other factors, such as him being a good tactician, but the new minie' ball rifle was a biggie. And have you ever heard of an entire infantry being equipped with the Henry? Nope. And not in 1858.

In this book, which most would consider absolute first class documentation, the author states that Wright was able to beat the tribes because he had "Henry repeating rifles". 1858 was two or three years BEFORE the Henry appeared. That's a big mistake, and there was even veterans of that battle still alive. Dude really didn't do his research on that. Rest of the book, a work of art, and that's the only mistake I can find in the entire book.

So, what's my point? Books, and the written word, are not always the absolute truth, or the whole truth. Documentation can be flawed. If I presented this documentation to you, to prove the Henry was used before it existed, would you believe me?

Still not saying anyone is wrong, but documentation is not always the final word.

 

[Le Loup]

Keith, I don't recall where I have read that, and if I could, it still might not meet your standards for "documentation". And I am well aware, through this Forum, that the argument of "common sense" - "in a tight situation, running out of cloth patches, the shooter might resort to ones of leather, rather than firing with a bare, undersized ball." - well, that just doesn't meet the standards of historic accuracy many of us strive for.

So, I can only respond by quoting information which you, yourself, posted on 14 May, 2011, in "A Woodsrunner's Diary" : "The first rifles were loaded by driving the lead ball down the barrel with a mallet, no patch was used. In Germany, they started using leather and cloth to patch the ball."

Now, I grant you that you were writing of rifles, and their use in Germany. We all know that many of those German gunsmiths came here to ply their trade, bringing their gunsmithing skills, and their shooting knowledge (including the use of leather patches). I think we can all agree that the use of patched roundballs was not common in smoothbores, and less so, leather patches.

But these were resourceful people, who used whatever was at hand, particularly if the question was one of survival. I do not see how we can categorically rule out the use of patches, leather or cloth, in a smoothbore.

As for the semantics of "patch" or "wad" - the paper surrounding the ball performed, among others, the same function that a patch would, i.e. lessening the freespace for the ball to wobble down the bore ( or fall out). It matters little whether an 18th century musketman would have referred to it as "wad", "wadding" or "patch". ( Similar to the historic vs contemporary terms "steel"/frizzen, "cock"/hammer, "tricker"/trigger.)

We may never find the desired documentation for this, and countless other questions re our historic interests. Can we say that leather patches, or any patches, were period correct. Probably not, with any kind of certainty. I have learned on this Forum, that some of our smoothbore shooters use paper cartridges, some use various waddings (grass, tow etc.), and some use patches on the roundball - because they have found that it works, making for a safe, accurate load. These latter folks may have come to smoothbores from shooting rifles, and didn't know that patching wasn't "HC" (I never knew about wadding until I came here.)
Is it not possible that some shooters in the 18th century had the same experience?

As always, we have no "argument". I have read your "A Woodsrunner's Diary" many times, always impressed with your dedication and knowledge. I was delighted to discover that you are a member of the Forum (for longer than I have been). My only disagreement is with your emphatic use of the term "NOT".

One of these days, I hope to join the rank of smoothbore shooters. When I do so, it will be with the knowledge I have gained from folks like you, Spence, Tenngun, and so many others here on the Forum.

Richard/Grumpa

Richard, try & think of this as a documented quote, rather than something that I personally have said. This post is generating interest & hopefully will produce more useful documentation. I personally carry a bullet board on my shot pouch strap, in the past I have used patched round ball. But this is NOT about me, this is about research & looking for answers.
When I purchased a .70 caliber smoothbore pistol, I thought about being able to use the same ball size as I use in my .62 caliber fusil. I decided that were I in that position in the 18th century I could simply patch the undersized ball with leather. Now this is all very well, & it would work, but would I have thought the same way in the 18th century? I don't know, because this decision would be perhaps based on my experience at that time. So I research, I look for answers. Until I find those answers I must be content with the present documentation suggesting that wads or wadding was used & not patching.

Regards, Keith.

 

[Huntschool]

A single unequivocal description of patched round ball being used in a smoothbore will answer the question. If it was as commonly done as many people speculate, it shouldn't be hard to find just one.

Spence

George:

I find the following quote from your page interesting:

When it comes to loading the ball, I shoot two different combinations. For most hunting, and for those times when I need best accuracy, I load a ball patched with a well greased (beeswax/lard) ticking patch .017 inch thick

I guess we all make choices............

Just me sayin........

 

[George]

When I use the term 'documentation', I mean primary source material, written in the period. Any later analysis or opinion of the events is what I call secondary source material, and I have much less confidence in it's authenticity. I want to know what Daniel Boone wrote down, not what someone said he wrote down. Your 1912 book falls in the latter category.

Spence

 

[Rat]

And now, I have a question, or perhaps a riddle, which is on topic because the Post title says "smoothbores" and not "smoothbore rifles" My riddle concerns the large-bore, smoothbore pistols of the same period, carried in pairs, by officers, in front of, or on the pommel of the saddle, hanging muzzle down.

My riddle is, if these pistols were loaded with a undersized ball, dropped down a clean barrel, and held there by a wad, how many minutes could you trot the horse before the wad, ball, and powder would be at the muzzle end of the barrel, or in the bottom of the holster? Think about that if you have ever ridden a horse.

Would not a patched ball be required, in the smooth bore of the smooth bored pistol, to hold the load in place?? If so, would not patching a ball in a long gun be more common? Or not? Riddle me that. And if this is true, can you still say that "smooth bores" were NOT loaded with patched ball, or would the clarification be that pistols were, and muskets not?

 

[Rat]

Ahh...Spence, very good.

 

[George]

I guess we all make choices............

Just me sayin........

There are times when I do use only the methods and materials I think the old boys did, but there at least as many others when I shoot what I please. The idea that I believe we should only do it the old way is an idea you came up with, not something I've ever thought or said.

Where did you get the idea you can criticize what I do, anyway? It's a wrong one.

Spence

 

[Huntschool]

Let's keep things in perspective here & not get personal! My post is based on original 18th century writings, but these writing are based on gun use in Europe. In the New World things may well have been different, but for those of us who are interested in authenticity, it behooves us to do the research & find out for ourselves. No one is saying you can't use a patched ball in a smoothbore if you want to Huntschool, this is NOT a personal attack or shaming of none traditional members. This is about enjoying the research & coming up with documentation.
Keith.

Keith:

You are correct in the endeavor of correct history but as you say these suggestions are based on guns in Europe. I am speaking of the reality of guns in use in colonial America..... built by the newly emerging American firearm makers in their style and also to the folks using them.. I have sent a request to someone I believe to be an authority on the subject and will post back with results.

As to me being a non traditional member.... I think not..... lets leave it at that.

 

[Huntschool]

There are times when I do use only the methods and materials I think the old boys did, but there at least as many others when I shoot what I please. The idea that I believe we should only do it the old way is an idea you came up with, not something I've ever thought or said.

Where did you get the idea you can criticize what I do, anyway? It's a wrong one.

Spence

Spence: I suspect something was lost in the post. I did not mean for it to sound like criticizing just that you gave the perfect example of doing what you wanted to do. If you took that wrong, I apologize, my bad.

 

[Le Loup]

And now, I have a question, or perhaps a riddle, which is on topic because the Post title says "smoothbores" and not "smoothbore rifles" My riddle concerns the large-bore, smoothbore pistols of the same period, carried in pairs, by officers, in front of, or on the pommel of the saddle, hanging muzzle down.

My riddle is, if these pistols were loaded with a undersized ball, dropped down a clean barrel, and held there by a wad, how many minutes could you trot the horse before the wad, ball, and powder would be at the muzzle end of the barrel, or in the bottom of the holster? Think about that if you have ever ridden a horse.

Would not a patched ball be required, in the smooth bore of the smooth bored pistol, to hold the load in place?? If so, would not patching a ball in a long gun be more common? Or not? Riddle me that. And if this is true, can you still say that "smooth bores" were NOT loaded with patched ball, or would the clarification be that pistols were, and muskets not?

A very good question Rat, which will no doubt produce a flurry of fresh researching! Would tight wadding or wads be good enough? I don't know, same problem, we don't know! Thanks for raising this question Rat.
Keith.

 

[tenngun]

It would in my book. My area of interest is much earlier, essentially 18th century, so, personally, I wish that reference was not so late, but it seems good for mid-19th century.

BTW, the fellow who wrote that was Levinge, not Leavings. That gave me considerable trouble finding the original post you mentioned above.

Spence

Spell check got me when I wrote his name,

 

[tenngun]

Some years ago we kicked around shortstarters and ball boards. I think they were used earlier then we acknowledge today. However we can’t document startes before the 1840s and ball boards before 1860s or 70s.
So,
While I use it comfortably in the woods or just me shooting on my own. When I’m at an event in front of public or talking about it in an historical I don’t mention either one.
The same can apply to PRB in a smoothie. When talking about it historically I don’t mention it.... even though I THINK it could have been done.
At 25 yards wad or patch makes no difference in my shooting, at 50 yards I get fine groups out of wads, that would be fine hunting, but am more comfortable with PRB when hunting. I’m pretty sure my PRB won’t move going through the woods.

 

[Huntschool]

Well, the source that I thought could put the lid on this also said he has seen no verification of patched RB's in a smoothbore. However, and he is a stickler for PC, said he does not see why not.....

So, I am left at the same crossroads. Its been a fun conversation..... I will continue to shoot patched balls in my smooth rifle...... and sometimes shot which of course will require the use of cards and wads.

 

[George]

Would not a patched ball be required, in the smooth bore of the smooth bored pistol, to hold the load in place??

Well, Rat, here's a little item which will prove that you are right about that. And that you are wrong abut that.

Background: The English were trying to catch a NA for some infraction and hang him. They let the Chiefs know about that and told them it would be done unless the tribe took care of it, themselves.

The Pennsylvania Gazette
August 30, 1753
The further Conference between his Excellency JAMES GLEN, Esq; Governor of South Carolina, and Malatchi and other Headmen of the Creek Indians.

"...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; he, conscious of the Crime he had committed, and finding that his Life was aimed at for Satisfaction to the English, immediately fled into the Woods, and hid himself in a hollow Tree...."

So, you are right, a wadded ball in a pistol could be jarred loose.

And, you are wrong, they did use wadding in pistols.

Spence

 

[Capt. Jas.]

One can only authenticate where documentation is present. The documentation for patched balls in smooth barreled guns is to date not there. The references and surviving loaded guns that do present as evidence show wadding was the norm.
From reading period writings, the intent of a patch back then was to fill the grooves and impart spin in a rifled barrel. Even well into the 20th century, hunters using muzzleloading shotguns would use "punkin balls" which were round solid balls wadded fore and aft.
As far as smooth rifles in the period, their name came from their appearance likeness of a rifle, not that they were loaded in the same manner. Does anyone have 18th century documentation for patching balls in smooth rifles?

My comments do not suggest that I dont condone someone shooting a patched ball in a smooth gun in 2018. I do sometimes ; )

 

[George]

I will continue to shoot patched balls in my smooth rifle......

And so will I. My experience has been different than yours, apparently. Shooting ball with only wadding has proven to be only a little less accurate than patched ball out to moderate distances for me in my 20 gauge smoothbore. For instance, I killed a nice little buck at 40+ yards using ball wadded with shredded cedar bark, aimed at his heart and hit him....well, you can see.

Spence

 

[Le Loup]

Some years ago we kicked around shortstarters and ball boards. I think they were used earlier then we acknowledge today. However we can’t document startes before the 1840s and ball boards before 1860s or 70s.
So,
While I use it comfortably in the woods or just me shooting on my own. When I’m at an event in front of public or talking about it in an historical I don’t mention either one.
The same can apply to PRB in a smoothie. When talking about it historically I don’t mention it.... even though I THINK it could have been done.
At 25 yards wad or patch makes no difference in my shooting, at 50 yards I get fine groups out of wads, that would be fine hunting, but am more comfortable with PRB when hunting. I’m pretty sure my PRB won’t move going through the woods.

tenngun, I did post on bullet boards a long time ago on my blog, you can see what I posted here: https://woodsrunnersdiary.blogspot.com/2013/08/18th-century-bullet-boards.html The author claimed these were 18th century. I just checked the link & it won't load for me, but anyway you might find it interesting.
Regards, Keith.

 

[Rat]

Oh no, didn't say they didn't, just that I don't see how they could when the pistols were in holsters, hanging over the withers of a horse, muzzle down. ! However, in this case, it could be easily proved one way or the other, by loading such horse pistols (good article in the American Rifleman about Washington's pair of matching horse pistols) with loose ball and wad, putting them in replica horse-holsters, and going for a ride. I don't have horses anymore, or a pair of large caliber, smooth-bore pistols, or horse-holsters that were commonly used, but I bet there's someone out there that does, and could perform the deed. The results, and conclusions would be most interesting.

 

[Le Loup]

And so will I. My experience has been different than yours, apparently. Shooting ball with only wadding has proven to be only a little less accurate than patched ball out to moderate distances for me in my 20 gauge smoothbore. For instance, I killed a nice little buck at 40+ yards using ball wadded with shredded cedar bark, aimed at his heart and hit him....well, you can see.

Spence

View attachment 683

Excellent Spence! Great to see experimental archaeology results. I favour using wadding & wads because in a wilderness situation they are readily available, where patch material is not unless you want to go to the trouble of brain tanning skins.(raises questions regarding rifles in the wilderness, Boone was a deer hunter, hunted for skins, littered the forest with deer carcasses, did he carry a lot of patch material, or did he load without a patch?)
Thanks for sharing, made my day

Keith.