early short starter

[cynthialee]

seriously?

So it would be more in line with logic to assume that the British left the short starter at home? Or that even if they did bring them with them no body bothered to copy them?

You can take that fantasy to Neverland and play with the lost boys for all I care.

 

[George]

As yet in the whole of this passage I've not read one argument that supports the idea that short starters weren't used here.

And that's to be expected, because there's no proof they weren't. At this stage of things, there's no proof they were, either.

tenngun, you are obviously very knowledgeable about our history, much more than most. I understand your point about all the things which were available, all the interchanges which took place between this country and many other parts of the world. I've read many thousands of items from the day detailing the amazing complexity of it, and it is truly impressive. I have no doubt whatsoever that the average re-enactor has a pretty skewed and simplistic picture of what life, and material culture, was like in the day. I also have no doubt that a million things which would be of interest to us were never written down or otherwise documented. And that is the key point, I believe. Since I've been in this goofy game there has been a sort of unwritten agreement by the serious among us that we will assume it never happened if we can't find it documented, even when we know damned well it did. That still leaves a wide opportunity to study their ways, experience them for ourselves and have a lot of fun doing it. It has certainly worked for me, even though I've been doing it solo for many years.

I believe short starters were used by some of the old boys back into the 18th century. When I am in my serious mode, though, and go out in full drag with only my smoothbore, I don't use one. I also don't use patched roundball, a dedicated patch knife, or a dedicated priming powder, etc., etc. I don't do these this because I have no proof the old boys did it, and doing it as they did is the game I play.

There is ample evidence that the technology of the day transfered very slowly, sometimes. In his book of 1789, the Englishman Wm. Cleator, writing about rifles, showed very little awareness of the way they worked, even though the American riflemen had played such a significant roll in the very recent unpleasantness. In 1795-7 Isaac Weld wrote to his English readers about the American long rifle as though they would have never heard of it. In this book I've been discussing, Beaufroy says, in 1808, "It is but within these last few years that the rifle has been generally known in this country, although in Germany, Switzerland and most parts of the continent, it was in common use." and "Who, five years ago, when Rifles were just coming into notice, would have credited the assertion, one telling him that, with practice, 300 yards would be an almost certain distance? And yet we now see men among us firing successfully from the shoulder, at distances which before were scarcely ever attempted even from a rest?"

Seems impossible, to me, knowing the big picture from this distant day, but they apparently didn't really know about rifles in England in the way I would have expected.

And, in this country, how on earth could they not have made the cognitive leap from patched roundballs in rifles to the same in smoothbores? Yet I've never seen a single 18th-century citation of an unquestioned use of a patched ball in a fowling piece or other smoothbore. And of course that has to mean they never did it. :haha:

Spence

 

[54ball]

I was going to joke with you little, decided it was not funny.

 

[nkbj]

This is easy to resolve by using your own common sense. Just think about the availability of components and ask yourself what conditions could have made you whittle a short starter.

 

[Black Hand]

This is easy to resolve by using your own common sense. Just think about the availability of components and ask yourself what conditions could have made you whittle a short starter.

Wishing something existed does not make it true. This argument you make is fallacious, because common sense and the availability of the materials count for NOTHING until someone has the idea.

To belabor a point, they had the materials and common sense to make a Zippo lighter, a centerfire cartridge, aspirin tablets, bicycles, airplanes and even something as simple as a graphite pencil, but they DIDN't exist. Think how often you see a clever invention today and think "I could have made that" but you DIDN'T because you were lacking the IDEA.

The same concept applies. We have access to information from world-wide sources today that would stagger the mind of an 18th century person. An 18th century person would have been lucky to be able to read, and most likely lived & died within 20 miles of where they were born. You cannot apply 21st century logic to an 18th century situation.

Once again, believing something existed and having evidence that it did are two entirely different things. That is why we use evidence to base our knowledge upon, and leave speculation and conjecture out of the process.

Ultimately, I lose nothing by following the evidence saying that short-starters were not present. Unfortunately, the burden of proof falls to those who believe they did.

 

[Claude Mathis]

As yet in the whole of this passage I've not read one argument that supports the idea that short starters weren't used here.

No one is saying they weren't used here. They're saying it's not documented that they were.

Remember, you cannot prove a negative. The burden is not to prove they weren't, but to show that they were.

It's an academic exercise - nobody really cares what others use. If you want to wear a Roman helmet to a rendezvous, becuase you know they existed, I'm okay with that. :grin:

 

[Black Hand]

Remember, you cannot prove a negative. The burden is not to prove they weren't, but to show that they were.

Exactly!
The same applies to the celtic-style pins and bullet boards.

 

[Claude Mathis]

For me, this discussion isn't whether I think a short starter was used in North America or not, it's about documentation. What I think may have happened is irrelevant.

Some want to use them because they have chosen a load that requires them, while some think they are historically accurate, while others perhaps just like them. None of those things are an issue for me. It's your choice.

Separate topic: Is there documentation that they were used in North America and if so, when. On this topic, there is no place for, "Well, they were used on other continents, so they must have been used here." This is a search for documents, not a speculation fest. When documentation is found, then the case is closed, everybody wins because we have the facts, and we move on. That's how research works.

 

[Billnpatti]

Actually, that $5 will get you 2 non-historically correct coffees at Starbucks. I drink it all the time......yummies! yummies! Now grab your short starter and let's go do some shooting.

 

[Coot]

Remember, you cannot prove a negative. The burden is not to prove they weren't, but to show that they were.

Exactly!
The same applies to the celtic-style pins and bullet boards.

So true. As mentioned, the most simple & practical things did not exist until someone thought of the idea and then it may have taken a long time to become common. Other things that were once common fell out of use. Many things were kept secret by trade guilds or governments. People who are serious about a historically correct kit are always open to new information but while logic and speculation may point us in promising directions for research, they are not evidence and do not justify calling the use of an item as known to be historically correct. Part of the business of hard feelings is that some who are very focused on historical accuracy sometimes look on the use of "coulda" items in a public setting as a form of lying, while others who are more casual in their overall approach can sometimes be a bit desperate to justify use/carry of a favorite item. People are just like events, some are stricter than others in what they accept.

There are three main groups: :wink:

1) I love to count stitches - but only documented stitches count.

2) I am only here to hoot & holler - in an olde timey coulda way.

3) There is something besides hunting? Ok, maybe target shooting??

No matter which group anyone belongs to, try to play nice with the others. :v

 

[tenngun]

This might run on a bit, But here it goes. I don't know how you box and quote some one so I will just make reference back to the post.
Rod L posted on 8-02-0246 a quote of audobon describing loading, by pouring powder over a ball in the hand until covered. I think Audobon was in the Great Lakes area at this time. Does this quot show that chargers were unused at this time, hence a new York charger of early 19th century in a book doesn't prove it was used in the great lakes area. And anyone who makes that claim is steam punking.
Rod l then goes on to quote a description of hunting in Kentucky. The quote states " the powder was measured" but doesn't tell us how. Was it poured in a charger, palm of the hand, out of the horn in to the barrel for the time it took Boone to recite the line of a poem? "the ball patched with 600thread linen and the charge sent home with a hickory rod." So does this quote tell us how the ball was started? Did he thumb it, use a knife, smack it with his belt ax? Since it doesn't say we have to assume it was any thing but a short starter.
Did he cut the patch at the muzzle, or take it precut from his patch box? If a person broke his hickory rod and hickory wasn't quickly available was his gun useless because he couldn't use osage orange or elm, white oak, or the red center wood of juniper or any fiberous wood.
Black hand from 08-03-1216 reads Cynthia lees post and calls it wishful thinking, but doesn't tell us why he comes to that conclusion. Is there some reason to think that what was in a britishs solders kit didn't go with him where ever he went? By the by do people really pay $5 for a cup of coffee?
Then Claude of 8-03-0259 compares short starters to taking a Roman helmet to rendezvous. Where would a person get such a helment in 1830? To make one requires a lot of skill beyond being a black smith or tinker. Iron helms fell out of style about 1650, and roman style 1100 years before that. Can you think of any reason a MM would have wanted a Roman helm? Yet we know that in spite of all logic against it at least one suit of armor was wore at Rendezvous. Does it make sense to compare a suit of armor or even just a helm that required a complex learned skill to make to something anyone could whittle out?
Coot in his post from 08-03-0401 people who are focused on historical accuracy look on could of as a form of lying where others are more casual about it. I know I'm not casual about it I reguard closing our minds to the rich tapestry of the past, and making narrow inturpitations of abilities as just as much misrepresention of the past as what Horwad Zinn did in his works.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Rod L posted on 8-02-0246 a quote of audobon describing loading, by pouring powder over a ball in the hand until covered. I think Audobon was in the Great Lakes area at this time. Does this quot show that chargers were unused at this time,...

I won't address all your quotes, but this is a good example of how I feel you misinterpret things. [/b]You cannot prove that something was unused[/b]. No one is trying to do that.

The fact that there's a reference to "Pouring powder over a ball in the hand until covered", does not eliminate other methods, it only testifies to one method. It does not disprove anything or eliminate anything.

Until this basic understanding of documentation is reached, it will be difficult to discuss history.

 

[nkbj]

This is easy to resolve by using your own common sense. Just think about the availability of components and ask yourself what conditions could have made you whittle a short starter.

Wishing something existed does not make it true. This argument you make is fallacious, because common sense and the availability of the materials count for NOTHING until someone has the idea.

To belabor a point, they had the materials and common sense to make a Zippo lighter, a centerfire cartridge, aspirin tablets, bicycles, airplanes and even something as simple as a graphite pencil, but they DIDN't exist. Think how often you see a clever invention today and think "I could have made that" but you DIDN'T because you were lacking the IDEA.

The same concept applies. We have access to information from world-wide sources today that would stagger the mind of an 18th century person. An 18th century person would have been lucky to be able to read, and most likely lived & died within 20 miles of where they were born. You cannot apply 21st century logic to an 18th century situation.

Once again, believing something existed and having evidence that it did are two entirely different things. That is why we use evidence to base our knowledge upon, and leave speculation and conjecture out of the process.

Ultimately, I lose nothing by following the evidence saying that short-starters were not present. Unfortunately, the burden of proof falls to those who believe they did.

You think I am making an argument. In this you are mistaken. My position is that when people need a short starter they use one. If you think no one ever needed one I don't mind.

 

[Black Hand]

You think I am making an argument. In this you are mistaken. My position is that when people need a short starter they use one. If you think no one ever needed one I don't mind.

And my position (from personal experience and documentation) is that short-starters are unnecessary. Additionally, if you didn't know what a short-starter was or did, how would you know to use one? The common sense thing is to whack the ball with the handle of your knife to seat it and then run it down the barrel with the rammer.

Either way, you and tenngunn are convinced that they must have existed because they are so simple and intuitive. I contend that you are incorrect and are using conjecture instead of documented evidence to support your position. Use one if you like, no one is stopping you. Just don't try to tell others that they are PC/HC for the 18th and most of the 19th century, because they are not.

 

[nkbj]

You think I am making an argument. In this you are mistaken. My position is that when people need a short starter they use one. If you think no one ever needed one I don't mind.

And my position (from personal experience and documentation) is that short-starters are unnecessary. Additionally, if you didn't know what a short-starter was or did, how would you know to use one? The common sense thing is to whack the ball with the handle of your knife to seat it and then run it down the barrel with the rammer.

Either way, you and tenngunn are convinced that they must have existed because they are so simple and intuitive. I contend that you are incorrect and are using conjecture instead of documented evidence to support your position. Use one if you like, no one is stopping you. Just don't try to tell others that they are PC/HC for the 18th and most of the 19th century, because they are not.

You want the argument so OK.
Yes, yes, yes, and JoAnn, Handcock or the great Wal provided you with the fabric of amazingly consistent thickness the wrap around balls cast from lead of modern unalloyed purity cast in precision machined molds, all three of which are the products of and delivered on demand by a technological civilization the planet has not experienced since long before the historical period in question. The assumptions you make leading to the point of saying short starters were unnecessary (as in forever for everyone on a continuous basis) are patently absurd. Thinking that no one would be smart enough to whittle a stick to push a tight ball / patch combination into a hole instead busting their ram rod rates the same. I'm going to go now and do something really important like watch May Bell play on the tree house I built for her this morning. This topic will not be revisited.

 

[Rod Lassey]

"Yes, yes, yes, and JoAnn, Handcock or the great Wal provided you with the fabric of amazingly consistent thickness the wrap around balls cast from lead of modern unalloyed purity cast in precision machined molds, all three of which are the products of and delivered on demand by a technological civilization the planet has not experienced since long before the historical period in question."

I can't speak for Blackhand, although knowing him he probably does the same, but I use fabric that I select by 'feel', I don't mic it, and have no idea how many 1/1000 of an inch thick it is. I like getting fabric from places like this: http://www.burnleyandtrowbridge.com/ http://www.carolinacalicoes.com/framed.html http://www.eatonhilltextiles.com/index.htm http://www.historicaltextiles.com/index.html

Not necessarily for the sole purpose of rifle patches, but that's certainly where the scraps end up. I use blanket wadding (yes, I chop up perfectly good blankets, too) for my smoothbore.

My lead is in bars (marked St. Louis Bar Lead), which I cut into chunks, melt in a forged ladle over a wood fire, and cast my balls into scissor moulds, some of which are originals.

With all that I still don't use a shortstarter, nor see a real need for one.

As you can no doubt see, there's probably a fair amount of variables in my loading technique---and I for sure won't win any matches against those who mic their patches, weigh their balls, etc. But that's not my point---my point is to accurately replicate the loading methods used in the time period I study, by the people in one particular area [western fur trade]. I want to see how they did it, and find out for myself the pitfalls and advantages to their methods. I also realize this isn't for everyone.

Rod

 

[Zonie]

...I contend that you are incorrect and are using conjecture instead of documented evidence to support your position....

I find this statement rather humorous.

Not your comment that they are using conjecture because they are, but you imply that you are using documented evidence to support your position.

You have no documented evidence that can support the idea that short starters were never or seldom used.
No such written evidence exists.

You only have a lack of documented evidence to support your claim that they never were used.

By itself, a lack of evidence proves nothing except possibly in a trial where it can "prove" someone's innocence.

 

[tenngun]

I do disagree with you contention they are incorrect and not used in the 19 and 18th cent. Over and over references qouted refer to mallets. Take a 2 inch diameter piece of hard wood about three inchs long. Shape it in some what of a water barrel shape with flat ends.Stand it on end and mark a point at the equator. Drill a 7/16 hole through and through. Insert a 7/16 dowel with a slot cut in the inserted end. Drive a wedge in to that slot,cut off dowel at about 5 or 6 inchs. Smooth, stain and oil and you have a mallet. Thumb ball in grasp malletby handle and thump ball into bore. Place handle on ball slap head with hand drive ball down bore. Finish with rammer. Call it mallet and not starter. Buy your meat at a shambles, put some lights in your stew.Were not talking rocket science here. Instead of telling me not to say to the public they are an 18th century tool why don't I tell you not to tell the public they wern't around.

 

[Black Hand]

Instead of telling me not to say to the public they are an 18th century tool why don't I tell you not to tell the public they wern't around.

At least I wouldn't be deceiving the public.

AND until you can show that they existed in common useage, that is exactly what you would be doing, deceiving the public...

 

[Zonie]

I guess I should add some thoughts to my last post to save people the trouble of telling me why they don't have to have documentation to prove short starters were not used.

IMO, if they take the stance that there is no documentation that short starters were used in America I totally agree. (Although Spence's information that started this topic does add some interesting issues.)

If the reinactors tell someone that is carrying a short starter for their firearm,
"It's very unlikely that anyone had such a thing during the time being reinacted." they would be totally correct, as far as we know.

If they told someone, "No one has ever found anything written that suggests that a short starter was ever used in America prior to the 20th century." They would also be totally correct.

It's when they start making statements like "No one ever used a short starter in America ......" that I question their comments.

Notice the first two examples are simply statements of the truth.
No one has found any documentation supporting the use of a short starter in America prior to the 20th century.

The last example I gave was made as a statement of fact. Therein is the major difference.

Without evidence supporting their statement, it has no validity.

IMO, it is best to say, "Nothing supports the use of a short starter during that time.
A few may have been used but at the moment we really don't know if any were used."