-
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
early short starter
- Thread starter George
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 4,511
I read an article, I believe in Muzzle Blast magazine, about tapered or coned muzzles and according to the author it was a common practice in hunting rifles before the percussion era. If I remember correctly he sighted several examples of it in original guns,some up to three inches in length and stated that when done correctly it had no deleterious effect on good accuracy.
Perhaps someone else remembers the addition and could help me locate it as I have most of the back issues for about a decade but have no idea where to begin looking. Mike D.
Perhaps someone else remembers the addition and could help me locate it as I have most of the back issues for about a decade but have no idea where to begin looking. Mike D.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,936
- Reaction score
- 1,042
As we are dealing with humans, arrogance and ignorance are part of the package. It is very difficult for some to discover that they are in error and even harder to admit their error. Whether it is attachment to a favored gewgaw, lack of research, failure in understanding the changing and sometimes vague meanings of various terms, the possibility that some writers both period and modern sometimes do not know what they are talking about or have represented things to support a personal agenda, or a lack of appreciation of the standards for academic (a distasteful word to many) research, or the discovery that a favored mentor was in fact in error and a certain tendency to say "good enough", combine to make some accept things too readily and others to cling to mistakes too long. The harder we want to prove something (and we do not prove negatives) the flimsier the evidence that we are willing to accept. We have to ask that if we honestly don't care about what the answer might be, would we accept the offered evidence as proof or as guidance for further investigation. A family member who is badly wants to believe that the gun passed down from father to son was carried by gggrandafther in the CW and considers family tradition as gospel - no liars in my family. Someone who knows their guns and has no interest in the family story sees a m1873 trapdoor that might have been ggrandfathers in the Indian wars but cannot be a CW gun. The truism is that the more we learn, the more we find that there is to learn.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 896
Well-said Coot!
We hear a lot about logic and common sense.Rifleman1776 said:
I wonder how a group of young children would answer the question...
Q: Using your common sense, what do you think would be the best, easiest way to put a ball inside a tube?
A. Use a ball that fits easily.
B. Use a ball larger than the tube and make a specialized tool to pound the ball in with a hammer.
:wink:
:applause: :hatsoff:
Sunkmanitu Tanka
45 Cal.
+ 1 :hatsoff:
I've been experimenting with my .45 to see what my best accuracy would be with ball/patch combinations that don't require a short starter. I played with .440 and .437 balls and patching that was no greater than .015 for the .440 balls and .018 for the .437 balls.
I finished up my testing on Monday and found the best accuracy came from the .440 with a .015 patch.
The .437 balls with a .018 patch gave me 2in groups shooting supported off a bench at 50yds with 52gr of 3F and couldn't hit paper consistently at 100yds with 70gr of 3F. This combination was a cinch to start and ram down and was super-loose. I developed a 30gr charge for squirrels with this combination and it shoots same-hole at 25yds.
The .440 ball and .015 patch gave me practical accuracy out to 100yds shooting supported off a bench. The targets below show the results I got from this combination with 52gr of 3F at 50yds and 70gr of 3F at 100yds. I did find that I needed to ram down a seperate patch over the charge to keep the .015 patched ball from burning with the 70gr charge. What's nice is that I don't have to adjust for elevation shooting out to 100yds when I bump up the charge to 70gr.
In conclusion, this rifle provides for as much accuracy as would be required of someone on the Indiana frontier in 1800 if short-starters were non-existant or uncommon.
My rifle is an interpretation of a John Small rifle, an Indiana Territory gun builder of the period. The barrel is a 44in Swamped B-weight with round-bottom grooves by Charles Burton. The builder was Roy Stroh.
50 Yard Target
100yd Target 8in Bull
I finished up my testing on Monday and found the best accuracy came from the .440 with a .015 patch.
The .437 balls with a .018 patch gave me 2in groups shooting supported off a bench at 50yds with 52gr of 3F and couldn't hit paper consistently at 100yds with 70gr of 3F. This combination was a cinch to start and ram down and was super-loose. I developed a 30gr charge for squirrels with this combination and it shoots same-hole at 25yds.
The .440 ball and .015 patch gave me practical accuracy out to 100yds shooting supported off a bench. The targets below show the results I got from this combination with 52gr of 3F at 50yds and 70gr of 3F at 100yds. I did find that I needed to ram down a seperate patch over the charge to keep the .015 patched ball from burning with the 70gr charge. What's nice is that I don't have to adjust for elevation shooting out to 100yds when I bump up the charge to 70gr.
In conclusion, this rifle provides for as much accuracy as would be required of someone on the Indiana frontier in 1800 if short-starters were non-existant or uncommon.
My rifle is an interpretation of a John Small rifle, an Indiana Territory gun builder of the period. The barrel is a 44in Swamped B-weight with round-bottom grooves by Charles Burton. The builder was Roy Stroh.
50 Yard Target
100yd Target 8in Bull
Thank you very much for showing what can be done with looser patch and ball combinations. Back on page one I gave a short post that stated that I had often thought that if short starters were not used than they had looser fitting balls or coning or both!
Also thanks for resetting the tone and I hope put a stop to the bickering that has taken over. When I saw this pop up again I was shocked to see that it had expanded to six pages. I took the time to read them all. In my eyes anyway it was not this forums finest hour! Geo. T.
Also thanks for resetting the tone and I hope put a stop to the bickering that has taken over. When I saw this pop up again I was shocked to see that it had expanded to six pages. I took the time to read them all. In my eyes anyway it was not this forums finest hour! Geo. T.
I think this also demonstrates what we all know today, is that if a rifleman demanded 200yd accuracy, he's going to need a loading aid of some sort. Be it the butt of a knife or an actual short starter.
I can't see a typical rifle owner 200 years ago needing 200yard accuracy and maybe that's why you don't find examples in documentation or surviving relics.
It makes total sense that there is plenty of documentation of loading aids for militaries of 200 years ago. Stretching the practical range of a rifle to 200 yards or more was absolutely important.
I can't see a typical rifle owner 200 years ago needing 200yard accuracy and maybe that's why you don't find examples in documentation or surviving relics.
It makes total sense that there is plenty of documentation of loading aids for militaries of 200 years ago. Stretching the practical range of a rifle to 200 yards or more was absolutely important.
Not bad for a beginner. :wink:
Actually. :thumbsup: :applause:
Not responding to any one just next in line. After 7 pages no one has yet passed an argument that they didn't exist, or didn't exist here. Lots of mallets that could have been used as starters are known to exist. Any one whos loaded a gun knows they make sense. Just for s&g I tried loading with out one on tues afternoon. A .595 ball a.15 patch lubed with mink oil. 3/8 ramrod, Yes I could do it real pia and I felt it put too much strain on the thin rod. Nor did it make it any faster. My starter is a copy from hansons mm sketch book vol 2.with a charger drilled in the top.
I can understand anyone who says "I can't find a reference to one so I'm not going to use it"
But since we don't know what it was called, since our documentation is so sparse, Since no one has an alternative date for when it was first used invented, my date remains as good as yours.
Back in the 70s some geologist thought a meator strike killed off the dinosaurs. After Levi-shoemaker hit Jupitor and the discovery of a crator off yuctan that became the big explanation. Except a lot of paloentoligist don't believe it.
They aren't lying, they inturpet the evidence diferantly.
When some one says my inturpation of the past is a lie or misrepresentation and all their argument exist of is " I don't think they had them " that person is acting out of conceit and arrogance.
I can understand anyone who says "I can't find a reference to one so I'm not going to use it"
But since we don't know what it was called, since our documentation is so sparse, Since no one has an alternative date for when it was first used invented, my date remains as good as yours.
Back in the 70s some geologist thought a meator strike killed off the dinosaurs. After Levi-shoemaker hit Jupitor and the discovery of a crator off yuctan that became the big explanation. Except a lot of paloentoligist don't believe it.
They aren't lying, they inturpet the evidence diferantly.
When some one says my inturpation of the past is a lie or misrepresentation and all their argument exist of is " I don't think they had them " that person is acting out of conceit and arrogance.
It is impossible to prove a negative. The burden is on those who believe something happened or existed to prove it, not the other way around.tenngun said:
Just like Big Foot - no one can prove that they don't exist. The burden is to prove that they do.
But, in the case of the short starter, people will use them whether they can prove they were used or not and that's fine. Nobody should care what others do. I sure don't. :grin:
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 13
I didn't believe in Big Foot either...till I saw him up close in the forest for myself! :shocked2:
Now all you have to do is document it and I'll believe too. Until then, I have no way to know what you think you saw.Kodiak13 said:
I have no problem with you thinking that you saw Big Foot. It's none of my business and I would never try to convince you that you didn't see it, because I cannot prove they don't exist.
But, let's not go off topic. Let's stay on the short starter in North America and let's stick to the facts.
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 896
The LACK of evidence for short-starters, when we have such clear descriptions of the loading/shooting process, is sufficient evidence that they weren't commonly used. As Claude wrote - YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE (but you can DISPROVE a negative with evidence), therefore the burden of proof is upon those who say they were used/present.tenngun said:
In other words, show your evidence that they were in common use, as without evidence you have nothing but opinion, which is NOT proof...
Who's on first?
:surrender:
Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 896
Got PROOF? :hmm:
Since they are mentioned in England and Portugal on this thread I see that as proof. In any case kodiac 13 is not lying or misrepresenting the facts when he said he saw big foot. I don't know about big foot, I don't know what he saw, but I'll be damned before I would accuse him of misrepresenting the facts... the ( other) pc way of calling someone a lier.
If your are going to make an argument that something I use is not hc the burden of proof shift to you.
Maybe we should change this to something we can settle... right to life vs choice, best way to help urban poor, how to get peace in the near east, life on mars.
By the by I don't see any post that said common... only in use
I ran in to that guy that the songs about. The one who was born about 10,000 years ago. He told me he invented short starters on 7 june 1638. He wrote a book about it... There was only one copy and it was burned by stitch counters in 1971.
If your are going to make an argument that something I use is not hc the burden of proof shift to you.
Maybe we should change this to something we can settle... right to life vs choice, best way to help urban poor, how to get peace in the near east, life on mars.
By the by I don't see any post that said common... only in use
I ran in to that guy that the songs about. The one who was born about 10,000 years ago. He told me he invented short starters on 7 june 1638. He wrote a book about it... There was only one copy and it was burned by stitch counters in 1971.
Similar threads
