Ball starters

[pondoro]

Claude:
Good advice. And beyond those options it is even possible to say, "I think this is the best way" or "My research implies that this is the most accurate way", without implying that everyone else is inferior.

Passion about learning doesn't offend most of us. I respect those who will not compromise their standards. But other people with the same standards might reach different conclusions. Our passionate members should remain open to that possibility. And those who have high standards should leave room for we who value fun and convienience more than following research in such an orthodox manner.

I think of famous race car drivers. They can drive better than most of us. They can impress us with their skill. But if they spend their time telling the rest of us that we are buffoons we will eventually lose respect for them.

 

[Okwaho]

I started shooting muzzle loaders about 1961 with an old iron mounted half stock for which I paid$45.00. I used an old mold which threw balls close to the gun's caliber.I used pillow ticking and lard and sometimes in the woods I used spit and tree leaves.I've doing this a long time now and maybe I'm one of Swampman Lewis's "old timers" It's been a very long time since I had to be so primitive and I really don't want to go back,I'm happy with knowing how others shoot. I'm sorry he isn't but "C'est La Vie".Also I don't think that Swampman's comments were hilarious as much as they were pathetic.
Tom Patton

 

[Claude Mathis]

Also I don't think that Swampman's comments were hilarious as much as they were pathetic.

You have got to stop beating around the bush and tell us what's really on your mind. :grin:

 

[Okwaho]

You have got to stop beating around the bush and tell us what's really on your mind. :grin:

Claude, There are two people on this board who know every thing there is to know about muzzle loading; one is you and the other is me and I'm not really sure about you. :rotf: The only thing I'm really sure about though is that;
"It's really hard to be humble when you are infallible and a sex symbol to boot" :bow:

Now you are privy to my inner thoughts :v
Tom Patton

 

[Rebel]

"It's really hard to be humble when you are infallible and a sex symbol to boot"

Now wait just a gol darned minute. I resemble that remark. :grin:

 

Now what was this topic about?Oh yeah ramrods.No wait,short starters?Ya that was it. :rotf: So when did people start using short starters?

 

[roundball]

Now what was this topic about?Oh yeah ramrods.No wait,short starters?Ya that was it. :rotf: So when did people start using short starters?

I don't know about when people started usin'em, but I started usin' mine back in the last century...same time as when I recon I started usin' them no account 1:48" barrels
:rotf:

 

[Zonie]

"It's really hard to be humble when you are infallible and a sex symbol to boot"
_________________________________________

That "sex symbol" doesn't look like a phallus does it? :hmm: :hmm: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Sorry, all this talk about a "short starter" got my wheels turning.

 

[musketman]

"It's really hard to be humble when you are infallible and a sex symbol to boot"
_________________________________________

That "sex symbol" doesn't look like a phallus does it? :hmm: :hmm: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Sorry, all this talk about a "short starter" got my wheels turning.

Now I've heard everything... :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[Walks Alone]

As you know, the problem is simply the difference between:

1) A poster offering an opinion on how he/she does something, then ending it;

.....vs.....

2) A poster trying to force his/her specific personal decision on someone else ad naseum;

I agree. We've covered this subject before, with a member who is no longer with us.

And it continues obviously because certain members still with us seem to prefer to post following roundball's option 2 above more often than not AND some folks just can't seem to do what's best for the community as a whole by ignoring those posts. :shake:

 

[mikee51848]

Now what was this topic about?Oh yeah ramrods.No wait,short starters?Ya that was it. :rotf: So when did people start using short starters?

1978, when I built my first ML. :hatsoff:

 

[buckknife]

This post isnt really aimed at anyone inpeticular.The letters IMHO or MHO when used at the begining or end of a post can make for better comunacation.IMHO :winking:
IMHO you can get good accuracy with a thumb started ball as well as one that requires a short starter.Ether one will work.If you have a barrel that dosnt have a coned muzzle a .018 isnt going to start easy on a .010 under ball even with a lot of lube.There is only so much room between the ball and the lands.It starts hard but it fills the groves.
A .010 patch on the other hand loads easy with a .010 under ball because there is less patch material between the ball and the lands,but it dosnt fill the groves.So a wad or just another .010 on the powder as a buffer between the patched ball and powder can do the job.
Swampman has figuared out how to load with a smaller ball and thicker patch and get the same results with no lose in accuracy and no use for a short starter.And i am happy for him.
Yestery day i bought some what id call .010 muslin material to try using the 2 patch method.I remembered back to a day a couple years ago when i was shooting the gpr 54 with very heavy charges of 120gr of 2f on a windy day.The 54 would always do good at 80gr of 2f and a .018 patch but i wanted to really push it to its limits this day for some reason.When it was over the 2 patch .010 method out shined the .018 method,even when i tried 2 .018.That was with the heavy loads.
Yesterday i had the same results using 50gr of 3f black in a 36 and 100gr of 3f in the 50.I tried the same 2 materials the same way and came up with better groups using 2 thin patches with thumb started balls than when using 1 or 2 thick patches and short stared balls.This were all lubed with corn oil because it was handy and is cheap.That was the results i got yesterday with heavy charges.I know that heavy charges are not needed most of the time but i do like the smoke it makes :haha:
So IMHO you can get accuracy with out using short starters,You just have to figuare out how to get a ball to load easy and still fill the groves.Next time im try a .018 on the powder and a .010 on the ball.

Maybe i should change my screen name to Twopatch or 2patch,maybe toopatch or 2Xpatch :haha: :youcrazy:

 

[Claude Mathis]

"It's really hard to be humble when you are infallible and a sex symbol to boot"

Hey, that's what Musketman keeps telling us! :haha:

 

[Landngroove]

The traditional method of using a smaller ball, and a thicker patch reduces fatigue and greatly improves the enjoyment factor.

I did a range session today with my T/C Renegade .54. I used a tight fitting ball/patch combination. I had to use my short starter, due to the tight fit. I got excellent grouping/accuracy,with the shooting I did, but I had to quit early due to fatigue. Darn short starters will do it every time!

 

[Dave_B]

I tried my new (bought just cuz of this thread) short starter and the first balls I have ever cast earlier today. :haha: The starter did make it easier to load the gun. I'll be using it from now on. I mostly used the little starting nubbin, then seated the ball with the ram rod. My short starter is wood, and I scuffed it up a bit to make it look more PC. :hatsoff:
Dave

 

[roundball]

The traditional method of using a smaller ball, and a thicker patch reduces fatigue and greatly improves the enjoyment factor.

I did a range session today with my T/C Renegade .54. I used a tight fitting ball/patch combination. I had to use my short starter, due to the tight fit. I got excellent grouping/accuracy,with the shooting I did, but I had to quit early due to fatigue. Darn short starters will do it every time!

:grin:

 

My short starter is wood, and I scuffed it up a bit to make it look more PC.

"Scuffing" won't make something Period Correct. :winking:

 

[Dave_B]

My short starter is wood, and I scuffed it up a bit to make it look more PC.

"Scuffing" won't make something Period Correct. :winking:

:winking: I wasn't being serious :winking:
It does look PC for the 1990s though.
Dave

 

[Arrowstorm]

Hm.... well I didn't mean to start a riot here. I was just wondering what other people thought about starters... and how "period correct" they were. Someone mentioned how a short starter would only waste time when loading during a battle or something like that. BUT.... most military used smoothbore to fight wars, and thus didn't worry too much about a patch because I understand that they would shoot without one anyway. But when you shoot with a rifle.... with say, a ball that is .010 undercaliber and a patch that is say,.. .018. See, that just doesn't add up, and back in the day... for a RIFLEman, I can't see how they would shoot without a starter. We're not talking about the infantry man who needs to get off as many shots as he can in the general direction of the enemy. We're talking about the rifleman who shoots a tight patch/ball combo... and needs a way to start it down the barrle. Anyway... these are just my two cents. I use one. Always have. When shooting pillowticking, I can't even imagine NOT using one cuz it would be next to impossible to load.