The problem with Dean2's argument is that it proves the point he wishes to disprove...,
"There is documented evidence of short starters being used in England, France and Germany and further evidence that at least some of the military units used short starters or mallets. May be more but I don't know about them. Many of those same armies were posted and fought in the Americas.
Almost all immigrants of the day were from one of those three countries, and much of the early rifle designs were based and evolved from German and English rifle designs. Almost all of the technology built into the first American built guns originated from Europe, and the smiths were of European descent. The technology and designs further evolved over the years, in America.
Despite everything else that was copied, used, understood and built on, the mallet/short starter was the only gun technology that never made it to North America because there is no document to prove it did."
That's RIGHT..., there is no documentation here, but so much over there..., why not here too? It's very very odd that there is ZERO evidence of the use of the short starter here. With all of the other evidence from other locations, evidence of short starters should be here too. There is no reason the short-starter would be present and documented in other parts of the globe, and be equally present but not documented in North America in the 18th century. Ah well, it must've been here too, as common sense tells us it was.
Does it?
For more than a century, very learned people, people with PhD's, people who spent their lives studying how civilizations begin and rise, all concluded that to have civilization a group of people must have the wheel. This was accepted as fact, as everywhere civilization was found, so was the wheel. This was especially necessary if the civilization included permanent, large cities. For folks to build a permanent city they had to invent the wheel, or have it introduced by another culture. It was common sense.
Then an odd thing happened. Civilization was found in the Americas..., but no wheels. The wheel must be there, so just keep looking, we know it must be there, was the mantra. They found the ancient people even had round disks with holes in the center for jewelry, for this was seen in the artwork and in burials. So the idea of a round circle with a hole in the center was present, and that is the same idea for a wheel, so the ancient people had to have had them...., but they didn't. After many decades it was finally understood..., "common sense" was disproved, and now the question is why didn't they develope the wheel, and how did they accomplish such great tasks without it?
The basis for the beginning of this argument is: As short starters are necessary to loading a rifle, they must have had them. Which is followed by: " As they are mentioned in other parts of the world, and as these parts of the world had contact with the 13 colonies in the 18th century, that's proof they had them in the 13 colonies in the 18th century".
Well the premise is faulty.
A priori: I have a long rifle. I once used a short starter for loading, for that was how I was taught to load, but one day at a woods walk style match I found that I had dropped the short starter along the trail. I didn't stop to whittle myself a new one, and I couldn't borrow one. Instead, I started using the butt of my patch knife to seat the ball at the muzzle. It was simpler, and quicker, and I haven't used a short starter since. That was 20 years ago, and I haven't broken a ramrod since then either. Ergo, the short starter is not necessary.
Add to that the fact that many of the rifles currently identified as coming from the 18th century are coned at the muzzle, and you have a reason why short starters might not have been commonly used here. Now we have no way of knowing if the majority of rifles made were coned, or not coned..., we have so very surviving examples.
For another example, try this test of the hypothesis. IF the premise used is correct, it MUST apply to other items...
Based on the arguments for they must have had them:
They had steel in the 18th century in the 13 colonies,
They had blacksmiths in the 18th century in the 13 colonies,
They knew about frying food in frying pans in the 18th century in the 13 colonies,
They had charcoal in the 18th century in the 13 colonies, and they used charcoal in brazers,
England established regular trade with China in the 1670's,
After the AWI the United States established it's own outpost in China in 1783, to maintain the previous China trade,
The Chinese Wok is a simple disk, hammered into a concave shape,
A Wok is a good idea, as it uses charcoal it's efficient, and stir fry from a wok is very nutritious,
Ergo, the colonials must have had woks, and made stir fry meals, even though there is nothing mentioned in any of the cook books, nor advertisements in newspapers, nor are they mentioned in journals or in probate records, nor in store inventories, and no woks have ever been unearthed..., but they could've had the local smith knock one up. After all..., the Colonials had ladles, which are a tiny version of the shape of a wok, so yes they must've had them. It's common sense. How could such a nifty, nuritious, efficient, simple item not be present in the 13 colonies, after a century of contact with China? It's foolish to suggest that with all those ships, and all those sailors, and all that time, that nobody brought the wok to the 13 colonies, and it didn't catch on. I can't prove they didn't, and neither can anybody else.
So it should be perfectly acceptable to serve Szechuan Pork at the next 18th century history event, cook it in a wok in front of the tourists, and to tell them it's authentic, colonial American cuizine. Nobody can prove it isn't.
:idunno:
LD
Short starters were used after the first gunsmith put rifleling into a barrel and found out a tight patch needed to be used to get her to group well! :slap: As uncle Si would say....thats a fact jack! :blah:
