early short starter

[Black Hand]

My point exactly, just wanted mine to fit the nonsense of the majority of other post, mainly copied ur style...

Then let me clear it up a bit.

-No evidence (documentation) exists that short-starters were in common use in the American colonies during the 18th and most of the 19th century (Common usage seems to happen some time after the 1860s).

-There are a couple of examples that suggest short-starters may have been used elsewhere during the 18th and most of the 19th century.

-It is incorrect to assume that if short-starters were used elsewhere then they were used in the American colonies during the 18th and most of the 19th century.

-People get upset when you say a short-starter wasn't used during 18th and most of the 19th century because they are so simple/intuitive/etc.

-Some people also assume that since you said short-starters didn't exist during the 18th and most of the 19th century in the American colonies, and they use a short-starter, you are criticizing & ridiculing them.

I hope this helps...

 

[54ball]

I find this discussion interesting and maybe even a little sad too.
For the pro short starters, there is the absence of documentation but I think more importantly, nothing, at least none that I know of are recorded as relics. The same can be said for rifleman's mallets. No description, no relic at least in the American frontier period.

The anti short starters of course have the above on their side but they to grasp at things just to prove their point. IMHO.

Course tapered muzzles where used quite a bit back in the day minimizing the need of a short starter.

I'm not convinced of this. Maybe I have not run across it yet so I may need to hit the books some more but in my studies of rifle building I have yet to find period mention of coning a barrel.

Decorating the muzzle, Sure, it's there. Coning the first few inches of the bore, Nata, in what I've read. If this was a common procedure it seems like it would be mentioned in the manufacture and "repair" like refreshing the barrel.

So what about these rifles that have what appears to be coned muzzles? Could it simply be wear? Wear from the rammer or gritty patch? Wrought iron is a good bit softer than steel. It is pretty rust resistant, could it be that barrels that needed refreshing were from wear, not corrosion?

I have read in print that the patched ball was an American innovation of the rifled barreled gun. Of course we know that is not the case and the only thing that can be claimed as American is the patch box but now that is in doubt.

Should we discount those statements by earlier scholars about the American innovation of the patched ball?

No I don't think so. The Americans may not have invented the patched ball but they used the concept to make the rifle, which in Europe was a slow loading toy of the gentry requiring the ball to be hammered down with a mallet, into fast loading viable combat weapon.

How was this accomplished, by the patch and ball. If the ball was small enough not to require hammering it down the bore, why not take it just a step further by making it small enough that no tool is required to load it, even the knife?

In period accounts it is remarked how small the ball fired from a rifle was. It is a common assumption that this means bore size compared to the large bore of the musket. Could these statements of ball size mean that the ball was a good deal smaller than the the size of the bore and not simply a comparison between the musket and rifle's bore size? Meaning that the greased patch of linen or other documented material like buckskin filled the gap between the small ball and bore.

If this has truth in it, that could mean that no coning was required, no short starters, no mallets, and no knife butts were needed to assist loading.

So the answer could simply be this, the reason no short starters are documented, is they simply were not needed in the unique way Americans loaded their rifles.

The ultra tight loads, thin patches and tight balls could be an innovation from late 19th Century match shooting like the false muzzle.

 

[Coot]

Thank you for a good post that neither brings in straw man arguments nor snide personal comments. Your theory that a faster, easier loading, non equipment intensive use of a looser fitting patch & ball than the very tightly fitted ball as shot by many today is held by a number of people, several of whom I respect a lot. Just as a matter of clarification, "documentation" is not just written period accounts or period drawings but also includes modern photos and descriptions of dateable period relics. Thanks again for your thoughts.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Thanks Travis. Great post, as I was wondering when this "conversation" would get around to the physical evidence.

I normally avoid these debates, as I find they generally degrade into mud slinging as both sides are passionate about their beliefs. I see it all the time in gun building...."Your barrels and locks aren't hand forged, so your gun (no matter how it performs or looks) can not be historically correct." I buy my locks and barrels, as did most of the early American gun builders, and as does Colonial Williamsburg with most of theirs today. Could I afford to buy hand forged barrels and locks, I would. But at the cost, I care not whether my barrel was made on modern machinery along Spring Creek or forged in an 18th century barrel mill along the Lehigh.

Fact is, many, many complete antique shooting bags have been recovered and their contents recorded and photographed. Though they contain all of the other shooting accoutrements that we commonly use (to include measures), as far as I've been able to ascertain, only one short starter. This short starter was with a bag that was recorded as belonging to man who ventured to the far SW U.S. and was in use in the second half of the 19th century....I'll try to find the name of the owner who this bag was attributed to.

No documentation of the short starter being used into the 19th century in N.A., combined with no physical evidence, has proven good enough for most historians.

If one wants to use a short starter in historical representations, I suggest they could just say, "Documentation supports that the short starter was used very early in Europe and while there is no evidence of their use in Colonial and Early America, I believe it is only common sense that they were," or something to that affect.

That supports the reenactor's belief and their choice to use one, but does not lead anybody to believe that there is evidence to the contrary. Seems reasonable to me. As reasonable to me as when people ask if my guns are built just as they were in the 18th century, me saying "Well, the barrel and lock were purchased, as were the rough castings for the buttplate and trigger guard. Everything else is hand made."

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Rifleman1776]

i decided to make a wumper.I made it from a piece of dowel and a flat round top.

That experience should settle the entire discussion. Need is the mother of all inventions. Similar, sometimes identical,ideas have sprung up all around the world without the various peoples meeting each other.
I'm sure if I needed help starting a ball I would do something just like Tenngun did. Not original or clever, just meeting a need, whether it is 1700 or 2013. It is hc/pc to the moment the item is created.

If one wants to use a short starter in historical representations, I suggest they could just say

I rankle at the notion one must "say" why they are doing something. A questioner must have irrefutable proof something did not exist (go ahead try to prove a negative) before criticizing the use of an item.

 

[jdkerstetter]

A questioner must have irrefutable proof something did not exist (go ahead try to prove a negative) before criticizing the use of an item.

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but that sure would leave a lot of room for historical reenactors/recreators to work, wouldn't it? Not needing documentation or physical evidence to make claims, do things a certain way or use a certain object.

It's the argument I often hear from guys supporting the "platypus" guns they build or buy...."Well, who's to say some guy didn't make one like this?" or more specifically, "Just because no surviving Southern Mountain Rifle with a Germanic lock have turned up yet doesn't mean none existed."

It's as logical as the old arguement, "Well if they had this then they'd a used it, they would!" :shake: Enjoy, J.D.

 

[DOUBLEDEUCE 1]

Not that it would amount to a hill of beans, but I recall seeing a photo of a cased pair of pistols. I forget if they were flint or percussion. Inside the case was a loading mallet with a narrow handle. The handle was probably the same length as the barrels. There were also other bits of equipment for the loading process. The pistols were either in a museum or a private collection. They were not reproductions.

As far as written evidence goes, has anyone given any thought to the literacy rate of the early settlers? I wonder how many could read or write.

Another thing to think about is that what is often said, that a lot of antique/ old rifles or firearms no longer retain their original ram rods. If it is easy to lose, break or wear out something so long and big by comparison such as a ram rod, the same might apply to a small loading mallet or short starter. :hmm:

 

[jdkerstetter]

To this point, we again go back to surviving bags. Why do so many exist with their accoutrements intact yet no short starters? No evidence of alternate means of carrying them on the strap as many do today, or any other way? If they were in use in any numbers, we should be able to find some.

This isn't a new debate. Those searching aren't trying not to support their use....just reporting their findings. Nobody's trying to prove they didn't exist, but there are likely many who are looking for evidence.

People aren't raiding the bags found in estates and purposely destoying the short starters. Imagine if you were the one to find one! Likely get your picture in the magazines and books. Get you published or accredited in any number of ways. Think of the value, historically and monetarily.

But, as we see here, many are not looking....or seeing....as they want to believe what they believe regardless of the lack of evidence.

As to a ramrod being long, it's usable end is only as long as the one using it makes it by where he holds it....and has little to do with explaining where all the short starters got off to.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Coot]

A questioner must have irrefutable proof something did not exist (go ahead try to prove a negative) before criticizing the use of an item.

That seems to be the majority attitude at a renfair. :rotf:

 

[Black Hand]

A questioner must have irrefutable proof something did not exist (go ahead try to prove a negative) before criticizing the use of an item.

And the questioned must have irrefutable proof something did exist before presenting said item to the public as fact.

 

[54ball]

I just got through looking through the 1813 Handbook For Riflemen.
Link Handbook for Riflemen

This was a military guide for the rifle corps in The United States Army. This is the earliest known instruction manual that I know of concerning rifles in the US Army. In detail it describes movements, loading and carry of the rifle. It describes the patch in great detail. It describes the pouch, cartridge box, cleaning brush, knapsack, flask, measure,ball,tool punch for wads and patches,loading from the cartridge and loading loose ball. Nowhere does it mention the short starter or the use of a tool of any kind in the loading steps or any provision of such as equipment. This manual gets down to socks and underwear but does not mention a tool deemed by many as essential. :hmm:

 

[jdkerstetter]

If a reenactor was questioned on his use of a short starter, or any other accoutrement where there was no archival evidence of it's use, and the ensuing conversation resulted in said reenactor resting on "Well, what's your proof that they didn't use 'em?" I would contend that he/she is not reenacting at all, but acting.

Furthermore, I would question the character of anybody who, for whatever reason, put forth their opinions as fact, especially when they have an out. The out being to simply state, "What I believe" or "It is my opinion based on what I have read (or seen, or in my experience, etc)."

Is not doing so not the very definition of lying by omission? Enjoy, J.D.

 

[rich pierce]

Obviously folks have different standards in their approach. But I think we can all agree that there a few to no historical references or existing examples of short starters used to load flintlock Kentucky rifles in America. Then do with that what you will.

There is a tendency for people to use the form of logic that nets them the desired conclusion. Sometimes that can come from a self-oriented world view. "If I need it, everyone else must have needed it. If I thought of it, then anyone else would have thought of it."

I agree with JD. Just be honest and forthright. "I find it useful and so I use it. I have no period documentation for it."

 

[jdkerstetter]

Come on Travis! Haven't you been listening??? Lack of documentation in a document is only evidence of an oversight. I'm sure there was an addendum published, either separately or in subsequent editions of the manual. :haha: :haha: :haha:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Black Hand]

I agree with JD. Just be honest and forthright. "I find it useful and so I use it. I have no period documentation for it."

I'm OK with an honest disclaimer.
As a matter of fact, I would clearly make such a disclaimer when asked about the bullet board I carried at one time (but carry no longer due to lack of supporting evidence for the 18th century).

 

[George]

I read a lot of history, and whenever I run across a neat item related to the hobby my first reaction is "Wow!", my second is "The boys would be interested in that", and I hurry off to post it. I hesitate to do that, these days, because it is almost guaranteed to start a battle.

“Dr Johnson said that every meeting or every conversation was a contest in which the man of superior parts was the victor. But I think he was mistaken: for that is surely wrangling or hostile debate, often self-defeating-- it is not conversation as I understand it at all, a calm, amicable interchange of opinions, news, information, reflexions, without striving for superiority.” Stephen Maturin, The Thirteen Gun Salute, Patrick O’Brian

We've lost the knack of conversation, it seems. That and everything else is a contest, these days, but nobody ever wins.

No one will ever even realize what we have lost.

Spence

 

[Rifleman1776]

I recall seeing a photo of a cased pair of pistols. I forget if they were flint or percussion. Inside the case was a loading mallet with a narrow handle. The handle was probably the same length as the barrels.

Not uncommon in museums and books. Mallet handles could double as rammers.

 

[Rifleman1776]

If a reenactor was questioned on his use of a short starter, or any other accoutrement where there was no archival evidence of it's use, and the ensuing conversation resulted in said reenactor resting on "Well, what's your proof that they didn't use 'em?" I would contend that he/she is not reenacting at all, but acting.

Furthermore, I would question the character of anybody who, for whatever reason, put forth their opinions as fact, especially when they have an out. The out being to simply state, "What I believe" or "It is my opinion based on what I have read (or seen, or in my experience, etc)."

Is not doing so not the very definition of lying by omission? Enjoy, J.D.

There is no end to this kind of discussion.
You are right but I'm not wrong either.
I will admit to being fairly sensitive to the issue of 'proving' something one way or the other. I once was refused membership in a Rev. Rifleman reenactment organization because my shirt did not meet their approval. When I requested documentation for the style they insisted upon I was told the person in charge of such things had the final word. My providing documentation for my style shirt carried no weight at all. Such arrogance has surfaced in several occasions where someone with assumed authority debased and insulted my clothes or equipment or of others.

 

[Black Hand]

That is a sticky issue.

However, private organizations can and do set membership requirements for joining/participating (However arbitrary these requirements may appear to be) and logic has little effect.

This is exactly why I prefer to run the woods with a group of like-minded people (that some might describe as stitch-counters) rather than join some club. We know what the parameters are and are willing to help new people who want to play. You are still expected to make every effort to improve upon your impression whenever possible, and it has been a constant evolution for the last 10+ years.

 

[roundball]

The boys would be interested in that and I hurry off to post it.

Sort of like pulling the pin on a hand grenade and tossing it into a conference room full of people...LOL