Hard to start the ball

[nkbj]

This thread reminds me of a comment once read about the Revolutionary War, that Americans used smooth bores because rifles were too slow to load even though the rifles would have increased the envelope of engagement far beyond that of their enemy.

 

[Dphar]

...If you don't need a short starter to get the prb into the bore then your load is too loose.

I guess that all the accounts of American riflemen loading without short starters in the 18th and early 19th centuries just prove how much smarter 21st century people are than the likes of Daniel Boone!

Euopean target shooters and military aside, where do you see any evidence that short starters were needed or used?

Gary

Read "British Military Flintlock Rifles" by Dewitt Bailey.
The British issued a mallet to every two rifles with the Baker. Why? Because they issued 2 ball sizes. One for tactical use and one for precision use. One loaded very easy but shot with less precision, the other was for shooting at individuals or at longer range where loading ease was secondary.
Nor were the Baker's coned to my knowledge, at least I don't think Bailey mentions it.
I suggest that you do more research and that you start attending matches where people shoot for money ON PAPER, shooting hit or miss steel plates is no test of accuracy. Money tends to make things more "serious".
I would also point out, again, that with a lube with reasonable lubricity I can load a .535 in a 54 with no starter or pounding.
However, I would also point out that a starter reduces stress on the weaker parts of the rifle when starting a ball. I tend to use one with my swivel breech for this reason.
But not always and its very small and has no metal its all wood and antler. I use it when I shoot using the Schoultz method in it or my 50 caliber match rifle as well. This lube does start harder but also seem to shoot better.
I don't even have a starter for a rifle I have owned for over 20 years. I have one for my 16 bore rifle but it has a lot more lead to compress than a 50 or 54.
I see them as a specialty item, that if very large is just in the way.
Others use them religiously and love them.
If one thing or another works for the shooter who CARES how he loads his rifle?
ITS HIS RIFLE.
HIS SHOOTING.
HIS BUSINESS.
I will post what I do, but if someone else does something different this does not make me wrong.
I belong to a Gunmaker's Guild. EVERY maker does things differently to a greater or lesser extent to achieve the same end. We all learn from each other constantly.
Forums like this serve a similar function. If people want they can find and try many different methods to the same end to see what might work best for them.

Dan

 

[stormcrow]

Is it possible that they used the butt of their knives to seat the ball (ala Hershel House) then used the ramrod from there? This would seem both conceivable and practical assuming patches were being cut at the muzzle and a knife was in hand.

 

[Rifleman1776]

It is entirely possible that the old timers used a loose patch/ball combination that was easy to start with just some moderate thumb pressure.

From many various readings it is obvious, to me, that was the norm. Unlikely that 'X' hunting was a priority. Minute of deer, or bear or injun was what was important. Plus speed of reloading on occasion.
Personally, I drop a ball size for hunting. e.g. .445 to .440; .535 to .530. Ded deer don't know difference.

 

[jdkerstetter]

300, 500 makes little difference...was trying to spare everybody the history lesson :grin: .....just making the point that our fore-fathers cared some about accuracy and did more than just throw any old ball and patch rattling down the barrel.

To even get close at those ranges with a flintlock round ball rifle you need a heck of a lot better than minute of deer or minute of man accuarcy.

By the way Jerry, you know accounts of the day say the distance was impossible to determine but estimated between 300 and 500 yards, one says it was paced off at 430. What you posted was a direct quote form the Wiki website and we know they are British and would only give Timothy credit for the minimum distance. :hatsoff:

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

What you posted was a direct quote form the Wiki website and we know they are British and would only give Timothy credit for the minimum distance.

:rotf:

 

[Rifleman1776]

When I see range and distance estimations in historical readings I take them with several huge grains of salt. Most folks cannot estimate range worth a hoot. Even the best, modern day, snipers will admit their reported results are only from hits. They do not record the numbers of misses. I'm sure the same with shooting 'back then'. Lucky long range kills became legends.

 

[ZUG]

Sorry, I just had to chuckle at this one -- I get a blister when I do this :rotf: :rotf:

If it doesn't remove any metal why not forget the fine sandpaper and just use your thumb.

 

[Coot]

...If you don't need a short starter to get the prb into the bore then your load is too loose.

I guess that all the accounts of American riflemen loading without short starters in the 18th and early 19th centuries just prove how much smarter 21st century people are than the likes of Daniel Boone!

Euopean target shooters and military aside, where do you see any evidence that short starters were needed or used?

Gary

Read "British Military Flintlock Rifles" by Dewitt Bailey.
The British issued a mallet to every two rifles with the Baker. Why? Because they issued 2 ball sizes. One for tactical use and one for precision use. One loaded very easy but shot with less precision, the other was for shooting at individuals or at longer range where loading ease was secondary.
Nor were the Baker's coned to my knowledge, at least I don't think Bailey mentions it.
I suggest that you do more research and that you start attending matches where people shoot for money ON PAPER, shooting hit or miss steel plates is no test of accuracy. Money tends to make things more "serious".
I would also point out, again, that with a lube with reasonable lubricity I can load a .535 in a 54 with no starter or pounding.
However, I would also point out that a starter reduces stress on the weaker parts of the rifle when starting a ball. I tend to use one with my swivel breech for this reason.
But not always and its very small and has no metal its all wood and antler. I use it when I shoot using the Schoultz method in it or my 50 caliber match rifle as well. This lube does start harder but also seem to shoot better.
I don't even have a starter for a rifle I have owned for over 20 years. I have one for my 16 bore rifle but it has a lot more lead to compress than a 50 or 54.
I see them as a specialty item, that if very large is just in the way.
Others use them religiously and love them.
If one thing or another works for the shooter who CARES how he loads his rifle?
ITS HIS RIFLE.
HIS SHOOTING.
HIS BUSINESS.
I will post what I do, but if someone else does something different this does not make me wrong.
I belong to a Gunmaker's Guild. EVERY maker does things differently to a greater or lesser extent to achieve the same end. We all learn from each other constantly.
Forums like this serve a similar function. If people want they can find and try many different methods to the same end to see what might work best for them.

Dan

Sorry but to me, Gary's post above clearly states 18th and early 19th century and excludes military rifles. So Bailey's book, while a good one, does not address his statement nor do 20 & 21st century bench rest practices. Yes, I agree that people are free to do as they please regarding shooting in today's world and options such as short starters, priming horns, bullet blocks, patch knives, size of power charges, type of powder, lubes, coning, etc etc that all have proponents and detractors. There are many different approaches and insofar as a ball is sent down range, they all work. Each individual must choose the level of practicality, shooting accuracy and historical accuracy that they are comfortable with or striving to achieve. A one hole group at 150 yards and a 100% documentable 18th century presentation are both very commendable goals - perhaps not to be reached, perhaps mutually exclusive - but commendable goals. Another goal, say harvesting a ten point buck, may not involve either pin point long range accuracy or completely historically accurate gear but is still sought by many. Much controversy on the Forum could be avoided if all of us would keep in mind that what works well for one poster may be counterproductive for another and that to belittle one persons' goal is to question the same energy, enthusiasm and effort that we put into our own goals.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Is it possible that they used the butt of their knives to seat the ball (ala Hershel House) then used the ramrod from there? This would seem both conceivable and practical assuming patches were being cut at the muzzle and a knife was in hand.

Could be. You bring up a very valid point. Sorry I overlooked this post earlier.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[jerrywh]

I agree with most of what you say. Tell me-- how much does a .50 cal. ball drop in 50 yds with a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps. Also, what would be the energy at 500 yds. Not very logical to thing that he hit the General at 500 yds.
At 300 yds the ball drops almost 11feet. And the muzzle energy is only 151 ft. lbs. Nobody even publishes balistics for prbs at 500 yds. A 50 cal won't kill a horse at that range. In a 5mph wind the ball will drift about 4 feet at 300 yds.
So in conclusion, at 300 yds it is likely but at 500 yds it is near impossible.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I was just using it to make a point as some were implying that the 18th/19th century rifleman wasn't as concerned about accuracy.

I no more believe shooting 500 yards with a RB ML is practicle than you do.

What we do know is that it was a great long distance shot that could only be achieved by by someone intiment with their own and their rifles capabilities. And not the only feat of remarkable accuracy from that age.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[StewartLeach]

Just to be contrary, get back to the original subject, and away from they did or didn't discussions, I'll suggest another approach, selecting or tuning the patch material.

I've found that patch thicknesses stated on various packages of pre-cut rounds are at best nominal. Further, there are dimensional differences in different barrels of the same make and caliber.

I've had good success finding combinations that are accurate and start with one stout thump on the starter by trying different thicknesses of patch material bought at the fabric store. I take along my micrometer, search out various all cotton fabrics, and measure with the thimble turned down tight. Look at various twills and light denims. All cotton pillow ticking should always be considered.

After identifying three or four that range from thinnish to thickish, I drive the clerk nuts by purchasing one-third of a yard of each. Yep, that's only 12 inches. At home I wash them to remove the sizing and air dry.

A range session identifies which meets the accuracy and loadability tests. Sometimes I find a fabric that would be great if it were just a little thicker/denser. The rest of that piece goes back in the washer and dryer on the hot settings and is tested again.

Thus far two fabrics have worked out really well. One is WallyMart pillow ticking, two different stripe colors, red and blue. The red has been washed and dried hot, blue is just washed cold. The other is a heavy twill called "bottomweights" from JoAnn Fabrics, cold washed only. Great accuracy in a 40 cal Getz barrel with .380 balls from a Lee mold, and at the other end of my battery, a Green Mountain 58 cal and Hornady balls.

White Fox

 

[hanshi]

I don't like pounding a ball down the bore, either. I use a short starter due to hand damage but avoid loads that are too tight for me to basically push down rather than pound down. If a load can't be easily started and seated in the woods with a wood rod then I have little use for that load.

As I stated before it wasn't difficult - I was much younger then - to do it all with just the wood rod, though I sometimes did use the knife handle to get it flush. A load is simply too loose - in unaltered barrels - if it loads easily without a short starter or at least a knife handle. Now some like really tight loads but I don't. It has to be "woods easy" but not real easy which is too easy.

 

[Pigslayer]

I am having a hard time starting the ball down the barrel with a short starter. It seems to be an extremely tight fit using the recommended pillow ticking and the .490 swagged ball from Hornady. I have to beat the short starter with the palm of my right hand to get it started. Once started it seats with little trouble with the ram rod. Any suggestions would be appreciated! I am using a mixture of Ballistol and water to lube the patches. Have a bruised palm!

Pguy

Pguy :idunno: :idunno: :idunno:

I have a .50 cal. Issac Haines with a Getz swamped barrel. I used to use a .010 patch with a .440 ball & got 2" - 3 shot groups @ 50 yds.. I have since gone to .018 pillow ticking with the same size ball and am getting 1" - 3 shot groups most of the time. I found that when I went to the .018 patch that I have to do as you do in striking the short starter fairly hard when starting the ball. After that the ball loads reasonably easy. Oh, I'm using "Old Zip Patch Grease" (mutton tallow) from Dixie Gun Works. I threw the "Bore Butter" in the trash.
The accuracy obtained is well worth the pain in my palm! :thumbsup:

 

[jerrywh]

The reason I am so pickey about the details of past events is because I am a historian. When the truth about history is distorted no matter if it is intentional or accidental it is very detrimantal to the future. I never read anything but true fact or actual daily journals of first hand events. Inevitably things get twisted by any other source. I have been studying western indian wars for the last ten years and the Oregon trail.
Reallity is much different than most people percieve. The result of the distortions is that the future generations will never know the truth.

 

[jdkerstetter]

You've made your point. I share your love of histoy and the desire that it be retold accurately.

My area of primary interest is early American history on the frontier and ships of sail from the age of Nelson through the War of 1812. Most of what I read is also first hand accounts and books by authors who draw from them.

As I have already pointed out, the fact is that first hand accounts of Murphy's shot(s) vary a great degree....300 to 500 yards....and we will never at truely know how far it was. That I chose the longer of those distances to make a point is neither here nor there.

The point is, as it pertains to this thread, is that many of our forefathers were concerned with and capable of feats of incredible accuracy and were intimate with their weapons. After all, their very lives depended on it.

Perhaps another post, in another catagory, on Timothy Murphy's historical feat?

Enjoy, J.D.