Have I lost the plot?

[robinghewitt]

On another list I dared suggest that the fat end of the ram rod should go down the pipe first and I'me getting chewed :shocked2:

Here's some replies, I am "Snotty" :grin:

"Snotty"...I believe you are incorrect. I have spoken to fellows who also have Baker and Brunswick rifles and rods and the mushroom end is to fit the palm of the hand to ease loading. Mushroom end also has a hole through the shaft to facilitate the tool which will give leverage to the act of turning the ball puller. The business end had a brass fitting (missing on mine) which threaded onto the small end and this was used to shove the ball down the barrel. I know that the mushroom end was never designed to go down the barrel. This is a learning place for all of the members. Thanks...Dave

---------------------------

You are correct Dave, the mushroom head is definitely not for going down the barrel. Any that do are not to British WD specs & have been modified.

Interestingly something that seems to fuel the belief that the large end goes down the bore is the production of some good quality repro Baker Rifles being made, these have the head too small. I gather that they copied an original Baker. I have seen several Bakers, mainly in the U.S., which do have this same small mushroom head & they usually have had the sword bar removed as well. It is the opinion of the expert on these, De Witt Bailey, that these rods have been modified along with the other alterations. In my opinion they were probably streamlined for carriage in a carbine bucket as all the mods, removal of sword bar, sling rings & small ramrod head, all facilitate this use. It is also speculated that they were just de-militarised, so as to lessen the odds of them ending up in quasi-military hands. Adrian.

 

[musketman]

Yea, but I bet it's really hard for them to hold the thin end of the rammer in the center of the ball as they push it down the barrel... :grin:

The thin end is threaded, but I can't see someone threading on and off an attachment every time they needed to load, especially during the heat of a battle...

 

[AZ-Robert]

Is it considered safe practice in the UK to palm the end of the rod? Or is gripping the rod, with thumb along its length, the accepted standard? That "mushroom" would have to be pretty darn wide before it made any difference in the comfort level of metal against flesh on my palm.

My 2d: this fails the commonsense test. Test it by handing the rod to someone not schooled in the (supposedly) correct way to palm the rod and watch what they do with it.

And, to pick nits:

Mushroom end also has a hole through the shaft to facilitate the tool which will give leverage to the act of turning the ball puller.

This can be entirely true and still completely unrelated to which end is used for seating the ball.

The business end had a brass fitting (missing on mine) which threaded onto the small end and this was used to shove the ball down the barrel.

Really? Or was it just the cleaning jag / worm?

I know that the mushroom end was never designed to go down the barrel.

How, exactly, do you know this? (as opposed to having been told that often enough that you've accepted it as truth. For example, many people know that gadget in the stock of the Mauser is for locking the rifle into a gun rack when that is not really true)

 

[Mike Brooks]

Back to this again are we????? :shake: We had some discusion about this very subject when I posted pictures of the 1776 rifle I built. THE BIG END DOES NOT GO DOWN THE BARREL FIRST! :haha: In fact, the mushroom end won't even fit inside the bore so it CAN NOT GO DOWN THE BORE FIRST!
The small threaded end has a brass collar threaded on to it that stays in place at all times. This brass colloar has two functions. First, it won't allow the ram rod to be drawn out past the swivel collar as it is larger in diameter than the ram rod and won't pass thru the swivel collar, Second, it protects the bore from being buggered up by the steel ram rod.....ANY QUESTIONS? :rotf:

 

[mbw907]

Yes, Can I please have that rifle? It is beautiful. :bow:

 

[AZ-Robert]

In fact, the mushroom end won't even fit inside the bore so it CAN NOT GO DOWN THE BORE FIRST!

:shocked2: And there you have it! :hatsoff:

 

[robinghewitt]

Ezekiel Baker says his ram rod goes in head first.

Ram rod heads are flat on shotguns but cupped on rifles to fit the load.

Revolver ram rods are similarly cupped and they sure aren't reversible.

I can't believe anyone would load a rifle with the narrow end, it will only jam between ball and bore gouging great lumps out of the rifling.

Whatever :shake:

Squire Robin

 

[Mike Brooks]

Robin, The mushroom end on these things are something near an inch in diameter, at least on the 1776 rifle, no way they are going to fit down the bore. I'm assuming the Baker rifle has an identical set up. The above pictured rifle's parts came from TRS, the molds were taken directly from an original gun.
In use it makes no sense at all to draw out the rod, swivel it around 180 degrees, pull the rod back thru the collar, swivel it another 180 degrees...(at this time you finally have the mushroom end near the muzzle) ram home the ball (if the mushroom end actually fit inside the bore) and then reverse the sequence to stow the rood back in the stock.
If you use the small ind with the brass collar to load with you eliminate several steps and don't have to whip that clunky old iron rod all over the place. You simply draw the rammer out untill the brass collar hits the swivel sleeve, swivel the rod over the bore (which is about 1" of movement) then ram home the ball. Then draw the rod , swivel it 1" to line it up with the pipes then stow it away.
The brass collar is actually theaded all the way thru, and longer than the threaded portion of the rod. It makes a natural centering device as it is "holow" where it sits atop the ball. It doesn't deform the ball any more or less than the mushroom end would if you could get it down the bore. The brass collar is larger in diameter than the rod by specific design, somewher between 3/8" to 1/2"....I can't remember exactly, so it won't allow the iron rod to be able to touch the bore, or be drwawn thru the swivel collar, thus the ram rod can't be seperated and lost from the rifle.
If I still had the gun I'd do a step by step picture essay of the loading proceedure, but the gun has been turned into grocery money and the owner probably isn't going to let me have it back anytime soon. :winking:
I wasn't trying to be harsh in my first response, just having a little fun. You may load your Baker rifle any way you like. :thumbsup:

 

[robinghewitt]

I think we're taking at cross purposes :hatsoff:

I will happily concede that captive rods may well be different to normal :thumbsup:

 

[rmonday2]

:shocked2: schewwww........Im glad thats over!
I was about to get u-skeared :rotf:

 

[mmahlock]

Squire,

I had the same question when someone brought up loading somewhere else so I started to dig. Here is what I found. Riflemen and Light Infantry were trained to load using the small end of their ramrod and Line Infantry were trained to reverse their ramrods and use the large end. I confirmed this by the "The Manual Exercise, As ordered by his Majesty, In 1764. Together with Plans and Explanations Of the Method generally Practis'd At Review and Field-Days, &c." and the "Regulations for the Exercise of Riflemen and Light Infantry dated 1798". I also found this rather odd given E. Baker's instance that when loading a rifle deformation of the ball must be avoided since it impacts the flight of the ball. But there you have it. I've also found that the ramrod of the Baker Rifle is supposed to have a collar on the small end that is tapped to take the cleaning tools and ball puller. Bailey includes a picture on page 113. He also describes the ramrod head "mushroom" for each model of rifle as 11/16 in. in diameter which is clearly too large to fit down the bore.

BTW I've tried loading with the "mushroom" on the ball and it is very painful on the had to push on the tapped small end. Loading with the small end on the ball and pushing on the "mushroom" is much easier. I've never recoved a ball loaded the correct way or done any study on the effect on accuracy but is an interesting quesiton. :hatsoff:

 

[robinghewitt]

Hang on a mo', I take it all back, I am completely wrong :shocked2:

I just tried the rod in the Baker and it doesn't fit :redface:

It must go in small end first :thumbsup:

 

[ResearchPress]

"The Manual Exercise, As ordered by his Majesty, In 1764. Together with Plans and Explanations Of the Method generally Practis'd At Review and Field-Days, &c." and the "Regulations for the Exercise of Riflemen and Light Infantry dated 1798".

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't the above pre-date the Baker?

Both Captain Barber's "Instructions for the Formation and Exercise of Volunteer Sharp Shooters" (for the Duke of Cumberland's Corps of Sharp-Shooters, 1804) and "Regulations for the Exercise of Riflemen and Light Infantry and Instructions for their Conduct in the Field" (Printed for the War Office, 1814) say that while gripping the butt between the heels and barrel between the bent knees:

"The ramrod is drawn quite out by the right hand, the left quits the rifle and grasps the ramrod the breadth of a hand from the bottom, which is sunk one inch into the barrel.

"The cartridge will be forced down with both hands, the left then seizes the rifle about six inches from the muzzle, the soldier stands upright again, draws out the ramrod with the right hand, and puts the end into the pipe.

"The ramrod is returned by the right hand, which then seizes the rifle below the left."



David

 

[Mike Brooks]

Hang on a mo', I take it all back, I am completely wrong :shocked2:

I just tried the rod in the Baker and it doesn't fit :redface:

It must go in small end first :thumbsup:

:applause: Robin, one day you'll learn I'm ALWAYS right! :haha:
Any other mysteries of the world you need solved? :winking:
By the way, that is one nice Baker, too bad we aren't neihbors...... :hmm:

 

[robinghewitt]

I looked at the rod and noticed that it didn't have a dent in the end which immediately made me suspicious so I had to try it :thumbsup:

The crack in the stock has been repaired, hope to get it back early next week and I've requested a 20 gauge mould from that nice Mr Tanner.

A shotgun forum I'm on has organised a rifle shoot next Saturday and booked a few lanes on the Short Siberia range at Bisley so I get to play at 100 and 200 yards. Everyone else will have modern type rifles, boring, maybe I'll make a few converts to the true path.

20 gauge, .615, in to a .625 tube is going to be tight, best take my short starter and a mallet :grin:

 

[Mike Brooks]

I'd try a .600 if you can find one.

 

[robinghewitt]

I tried a .58 in my .60 and quickly changed it for a .59

I wanted to try a .615 which is as Baker intended :hmm:

OTOH, you are always right :hatsoff:

 

[mmahlock]

David, thanks for pointing out that I screwed up. I washed my hands the other moring and just couldn't do a thing with them. The Rifle regulations that I was trying to identify was published in 1814 and it corresponds to earlier versions. The Line regulations I identified is the most relevant to the war of 1812 that I could find and what I intended to convey was that the Line were trained to pull and reverse their ramrods whereas the Rifle and Light Infantry were trained to pull and ram without reversing their ramrods. :shake: :redface:
:thumbsup:

I supose the big question is why the Line reversed their ramrods? :hmm: Given the closeness of the organization, time required, and potential for getting tangled up with neighbors it would seam that not reversing the ramrod would have been a much more sensable method. The only explaination I can come up with is that originally when the wooden ramrods on the Muskets were fitted with metal tips they had to be on the exposed end of the ramrod and therefore had to be reversed to be used. After conversion to metal ramrods inertia took over and the procedure was never changed.

Go Figure.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I tried a .58 in my .60 and quickly changed it for a .59

I wanted to try a .615 which is as Baker intended :hmm:

OTOH, you are always right :hatsoff:

Well, well soon see when you try to cram that ball down the barrel :grin: .....what thickness of patch do you think it will take?
What patch did Baker recommend with that size of ball? :hmm: And, what did they lube with? Always eager to learn something! :haha: Should be alot of fun to shoot. Nothing like sending a 20 bore rifle ball down range. :thumbsup:

Are you going to make a brass collar thingy for your rod so you can load it properly? Shouldn't be hard to make....

 

[robinghewitt]

What patch did Baker recommend with that size of ball? :hmm: And, what did they lube with? Always eager to learn something! :haha:

I've left his blooming book at the other house

Think it was a choice of leather, calico or soft rag, greased both sides in case you put it in upside down. If he does mention what grease to use I haven't found that part yet :thumbsup: