• 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

Before the micrometer

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Nov 30, 2015
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
141
Location
Georgia
I wonder how our ancestors determined patch thickness before the micrometer. They were stuck with mostly linen, I think, with weaving techniques not as advanced as ours today. So how did they cope with coarse (by modern standards) cloth? Are we overly concerned with patch thickness that can only be determined in with a mechanical device in 1/1000"? How did our ancestors survive with such cloth materials they were forced to use?

I wonder if any original moulds exist that can be related to standard calibers.
 
They overcome the patch thickness by checking the weight of their round balls on a digital scale.
It is much to do about nothing,, but it's fun.
Over thinking IMMHO,it's the chase and without that, what is there??
 
I wonder if any original moulds exist that can be related to standard calibers.

There was little, if any, standardization as we know it back in the day. Old moulds used to be commonly found in antique shops and such. I have had many. Lost most in a move. :(
 
Trial and error......

IRRC, according to William Gussler( in his video)..The accurate load was determined by the gunsmith.

Don't discount the accuracy of weaving...it was probably the first industry to be affected by the industrial revolution...

Also the micrometer was invented in the 1600's...

Not only can original molds be found but original balls can also be found ...Recovered from battlefields.
 
They used what worked. I shot what worked for allot of years because I didn't have a micrometer. I doubt that they(most) cared to what helped them shoot down to a tiny fraction of an inch on paper like many of us do now.
 
Gene L said:
I wonder how our ancestors determined patch thickness before the micrometer. They were stuck with mostly linen, I think,
They used what worked.
Patch thickness is just one variable in a PRB load.
I think we obsess today with highest velocity along with the kind of target accuracy that is cutting X's.
It's still true today to be able to adjust lubrication properties and the powder charge to get the accuracy we need if we have but only one fabric.
And like today, I'm pretty sure there were shooters that weren't concerned with hitting X's on an NMLRA 50-6-8 target and are quite happy with hitting the 8-9 ring.
There are guy's today shooting 80grns and up in a 50cal that would guffaw at using 50grns,, even though that load is plenty to take out deer size game and would reek havoc on an enemy if used for protection or war.
Center mass on a body target is 10.5x14 !
 
The Egyptians were producing cotton with 160 threads to the inch in 1,600 years ago. Thousands of years before that they could produce linen with 160 threads per inch. That's hard to reproduce now.

But that may have been available in the colonies it would have been rare on the fringes of civilization. That's why we see mention of blanket and leather patching. Trade cotton (aka "mattress tick") likely was stocked for trade in more places than fine linen.

My wife has an 18th century linen/flax spinning wheel. Without risking insanity or blindness she can get flax (or wool) down to sock weight yarn for weaving or knitting. With cotton, practice and time she could get down to a "blue jean" thickness of cotton.

Someone doing this "for a living" could produce fine linen with nothing but hand tools. As they said: "a bride should be able to weave a shawl that can be pulled through her wedding ring."
 
Gene L said:
I wonder how our ancestors determined patch thickness before the micrometer. They were stuck with mostly linen, I think, with weaving techniques not as advanced as ours today. So how did they cope with coarse (by modern standards) cloth? Are we overly concerned with patch thickness that can only be determined in with a mechanical device in 1/1000"? How did our ancestors survive with such cloth materials they were forced to use?

I wonder if any original moulds exist that can be related to standard calibers.
The only references to patch thickness I've found are indirect ones. They described the quality of linen cloth by the thread count, the higher the count the tighter the weave and the thinner the cloth. In describing Daniel Boone shooting squirrels, John James Audubon said:

"The gun was wiped, the powder measured, the ball patched with six-hundred-thread linen, and the charge sent home with a hickory rod."

I have an original mold from late 18th or early 19th century which is marked in balls-to-the-pound instead of inches. It's marked 100, and 100 balls-to-the-pound is .36 inches/caliber. I cast balls with it and they measured .34 inch/caliber. If that mold was meant to be used with a .36 caliber rifle, then they would have used a much thicker patch than we would today.

Yes, at least in the 18th century, I believe they were far less concerned with patch thickness, accurate ball diameter, weight of powder charge and type of lube than we are today. A great deal of our modern attitude about such things is just obsessive thinking and has no practical, real world importance.

Spence
 
While Micrometers and Calipers were invented long before, it took the Industrial Revolution until the 1840’s to make a set of precision calipers that were inexpensive enough for gunsmiths and machinists to use. Prior to that, riflesmiths had to go about making their rifles accurate from what they could control and use as comparative measurements.

While we cannot be absolutely certain how early Riflesmiths got the accuracy and precision in making their rifles, we have some documentation for clues and that includes probate inventories of their tools they left behind. Those inventories show a large quantity of cherries to cut molds in different sizes and many rough barrel reamers. There were also finish reamers and rifling benches that were adjustable for different size rifle bores.

Taking these things into account, I speculate it was most likely when the Riflesmith got “bespoke work” or an order for a rifle, the first thing he did was choose the mold cutting cherry as close to the size/caliber the customer wanted. Then he cut and made the bullet mold. He used the balls cast from that mold as a primitive gage to make the barrel for those balls. We know that the adjustable finish reamers they used could cut the bore with shavings “as fine as face powder,” so they could get as close to the fit of the ball as they wanted. But then things get more uncertain”¦.

We know that in every area gunsmiths worked, Weavers (normally men, but also women on the frontier) wove some fairly uniform cloth. The gunsmith most likely bought that cloth so he could use it to wrap the balls from the mold he made and “try” it in the bore of the gun he was making. Thus the gunsmith would provide a barrel and bullet mold that would fit the cloth that was available for the customer.

We also know from the experiments of our Dearly Missed and Departed Forum Member LaBonte (Chuck Burrows) conducted, that animal greased brain tanned buck skin works VERY well in rifles even with balls as close as .005” under the size of the bore. Not sure if the 18th/Early 19th Riflesmiths made the bores that close to bore size, as no original rifle barrels in original condition are available with the original molds made to fit them, but they could have made them that close if they wanted. The usual speculation is they did not make the ball to bore size quite that close though.

If gunsmiths had to make a replacement mold for a rifle they had not provided the original mold for, that could/would have been expensive, unless they already had a cherry that would make ball that fit the rifle. If they had to “start from scratch,” they probably made the cherry “ball” before cutting the teeth in it and wrapped the available patch material cloth around it to “try” it in the bore, before they cut the teeth into the Cherry “Ball.” Once they got the Cherry Ball the correct size for the patch material and rifle bore, then they cut the teeth in the Cherry Ball to make the cutter that would then cut the correct size mold for that rifle.

Gus
 
Stumpkiller said:
With two-ply (two spun strands then again spun together to form a stronger thread) that's 150 warp and 150 weft per square inch to equal "600 thread count"
i know that's the way it's done by some manufacturers today, that they count strands or even fibers in order to up the thread count, and the price, but I have doubts it was being done in 18th century.

Spence
 
George said:
I have an original mold from late 18th or early 19th century which is marked in balls-to-the-pound instead of inches. It's marked 100, and 100 balls-to-the-pound is .36 inches/caliber. I cast balls with it and they measured .34 inch/caliber. If that mold was meant to be used with a .36 caliber rifle, then they would have used a much thicker patch than we would today.

Spence

That would be true, if the mold was intended for a rifle.

However, it may be interesting that mold cast what we would call size OO Buck Shot today according to the below link. So it may well have not been for a rifle, after all. http://www.hallowellco.com/shot_size_chart.htm

Gus
 
Last edited by a moderator:
it's impossible to know what the mold was made for, but I can't imagine their casting buckshot one shot at a time. There are many surviving gang molds which dropped dozens of shot at one time.

John Dabney Shane interview, statement of Benjamin Allen:

"We had brass moulds that ran 60 shot on one side and 78 on the other."

Spence
 
While that is true gang molds were available for buck shot, not everyone could afford them. A single mold for such a small ball would have served a poorer man well for "buck and ball" loads.

Gus
 
I have to say I am often confused by those who believe 18th century rifle mold/ball sizes were much further away than what we use today for accurate shooting, BUT have no problems believing the documented stories of many men being able to hit an orange at 200 yards. (Oranges back then were smaller than today, often just over 2 inches in diameter.) Other stories tell of superb accuracy out much further than 200 yards.

So if the stories are true, that was just over One Minute of Angle at 200 yards for being able to consistently hit an orange. I would love to see a whole group of people who could consistently do that with ball sizes .020" or more under bore size, even with the better powder we have today then they did.

It doesn't matter how good of eyesight or experience the shooters had, if their rifles were not capable of that kind of accuracy, BTW.

Gus
 
Perhaps the problem modern folk have with believing the original rifle smiths did not better match the ball to bore size stems from the fact many of us don't realize they were actually able to make rifle barrels and balls that fit together very accurately and with patching material available in the day? And this without modern precision measuring instruments.

Gus
 
Oh, and one thing more. The tighter the ball fit the barrel originally, the longer that mold could be used for the Iron rifle barrel, as it was "freshed out" when the bore/grooves wore.

Gus
 
Well, in the colonies, things were used until near useless, so a rifling "tooth" might cut larger and larger bores over time. I suppose our ancestors shot whatever was handy. Be it 600-count cloth or a piece of thin skinned hide. They weren't going for the ten ring so much as the dinner plate, literally. Think about the practical range of a period round ball gun using contemporary powder plus typical game and ranges. For example, Eastern woods still limit most shots on deer to one hundred yards or less. At any rate, it seems they did, indeed, survive.
 
I don't think many rifles of that period would shoot a MOA at 200 yards. That's a 20th century thing. I do know Americans wrote their friends in England making claims of extraordinary accuracy (or so I've read) in order to use a primitive form of Psy-ops, in other words. I seem to remember a letter claiming it common practice of hitting a 12" board held between another rifleman's legs at 60 yards. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

I think folks just got by with whatever cloth they could and used what was available. I don't think they had the choices we have today.
 
Back
Top