Help, I am in desperate need of ' context'

[Stantheman86]

Oh boy, now we're in it. I am a big fan of commonality. There was a loading block found with '1776" scribbled on it. EVIDENCE that loading blocks were used. I've also seen small "priming" horns. Did they actually hold "Priming" powder or were they just small horns for a day's shooting. Who knows?
I like the mountain man era and one thing I have found is a huge variety of rifles. Not a situation of Remington, or Winchester, or Ruger. Every firearm found seems to be a one of a kind item. YES there are some major makers that show up more often but the vast majority of firearms are these one of a kinds. Does that mean I support running off and making whatever you want and put it under a "one of a kind"? No, we ought to copy what was (IMHO) but there is a huge amount of unknowns. Try finding original pre-1800 pocket knives- not many.
So...back to your question. From my reading, it seems reloading was done MOST COMMONLY with the horn (not safe), same powder in the pan, and a "thumb" pressure to push in the ball- must have been a looser fit.

Every single idea or theory I've ever had about historical Muzzleloading has been disproven by some evidence or writing that was found.

People will tell you that something never existed, like a rifled .69 Musket conversion that was left in Flintlock because the shop in the 1850's or 60's didn't have hammers and just wanted to fulfill the contract and deliver usable Muskets to the US Govt. and get paid. Historians are like "this never occurred" and then one will be found in a collection. But we still don't know if it wasn't re-converted back to Flint and anyone that does know died 130 years ago.

Lots of written history is flawed and much exaggeration occurs. We still don't know that Revolutionary War "sharpshooters" picked off British Officers at 600 yards with iron sight flintlock long rifles. Lots of these accounts are Fish Stories and a 200 yard shot becomes 3 country miles when the guy who was there writes home about it.

Most period people might not bother to write about short starters because it's mundane and they'd rather write about fighting off 70 Indians with a Tomahawk and hitting one at 500 paces with a pistol.

If books and movies are in any way historically accurate, not a one of the Last of the Mohicans armed with rifles was shown using a short starter and I've never seen one used in a movie, even ones that strive for accuracy. Hawkeye even talks about using silk to get an extra 40 yards out of his rifle but never once is a Short Starter shown.

 

[Artificer]

This may be the earliest and most complete description of loading and firing a flintlock, yet there is no mention of a short or straight starter.

Forum Member Elnathan provided the following quote.

James Audubon, c1810, describing his host preparing to go raccoon hunting:

"… He blows through his rifle to ascertain that it is clear, examines his flint, and thrusts a feather into the touch-hole. To a leathern bag swung at his side is attached a powder-horn; his sheath-knife is there also; below hangs a narrow strip of homespun linen. He takes from his bag a bullet, pulls with his teeth the wooden stopper from his powder-horn, lays the ball in one hand, and with the other pours the powder upon it until it is just overtopped. Raising the horn to his mouth, he again closes it with the stopper, and restores it to its place. He introduces the powder into the tube; springs the box of his gun, greases the "patch" over with some melted tallow, or damps it; then places it on the honey-combed muzzle of his piece. The bullet is placed on the patch over the bore, and pressed with the handle of the knife, which now trims the edge of the linen. The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded. The rifle leaps as it were into the hunters arms, the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed. “Now I’m ready,” cries the woodsman….

Journals, Vol. 2, (1972 reprint), page 492.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

OH, the above description of "The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded" has been "translated" to mean both hands are used on the ramrod while pushing down a short way each time for a total of three times to get the ball all the way down the bore.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

Howsomever
We know separate Powder measures were used at the time. Well made, or random like a pipe bowl. The absence of a powder measure and the hand throw charge by Boone here doesn’t negate using a measure.
I wonder how many who would never use a starter in an historic setting do measure a charge instead of hand throwing it Justin Wilson style.

 

[Celticstoneman]

This may be the earliest and most complete description of loading and firing a flintlock, yet there is no mention of a short or straight starter.

Forum Member Elnathan provided the following quote.

James Audubon, c1810, describing his host preparing to go raccoon hunting:

"… He blows through his rifle to ascertain that it is clear, examines his flint, and thrusts a feather into the touch-hole. To a leathern bag swung at his side is attached a powder-horn; his sheath-knife is there also; below hangs a narrow strip of homespun linen. He takes from his bag a bullet, pulls with his teeth the wooden stopper from his powder-horn, lays the ball in one hand, and with the other pours the powder upon it until it is just overtopped. Raising the horn to his mouth, he again closes it with the stopper, and restores it to its place. He introduces the powder into the tube; springs the box of his gun, greases the "patch" over with some melted tallow, or damps it; then places it on the honey-combed muzzle of his piece. The bullet is placed on the patch over the bore, and pressed with the handle of the knife, which now trims the edge of the linen. The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded. The rifle leaps as it were into the hunters arms, the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed. “Now I’m ready,” cries the woodsman….

Journals, Vol. 2, (1972 reprint), page 492.

Gus

Well, OK then!

 

[Grenadier1758]

For a test, I used my 0.715" ball as the test and in my flat palm poured 2fg black powder to more or less cover the ball. The powder was then weighed and came to 90 grains. I did the same test 5 times and the charges ranged from 85 grains to 110 grains depending on how flat I held my palm. Slightly cupped was less, flat was more. The variation was much greater than when I use a volume measure, but of little adverse effect on target. Of course, with my smooth bore shooting skill, that's not saying much.

 

[Artificer]

For a test, I used my 0.715" ball as the test and in my flat palm poured 2fg black powder to more or less cover the ball. The powder was then weighed and came to 90 grains. I did the same test 5 times and the charges ranged from 85 grains to 110 grains depending on how flat I held my palm. Slightly cupped was less, flat was more. The variation was much greater than when I use a volume measure, but of little adverse effect on target. Of course, with my smooth bore shooting skill, that's not saying much.

Nice experimental archeology!

As an example, the standard British Powder Charge during the FIW was 165 grains in the paper cartridges. Now some of that was put in the priming pan, but at least 140 or more grains went down the barrel. Of course that historic powder did not have the strength of modern powder, so there is no reason to use that heavy of a powder charge today.

Gus

 

[Red Owl]

Several thoughts, etc. Patriot Nathan Hale got into trouble hunting squirrels on Sunday. It would have been around 1766 "ish"- ten years before the Revolution. I think he held the Connecticut record of 176 in a day for many years.
I agree on the coned barrels. Another point- the balls back then had sprues, not perfectly round like today's balls.
Turkeys- how many of you have moved in quietly enough to be right below a roosted turkey- so that you could have shot it with a shotgun? Everyone says it's "unsporting" because that's what everyone else says. I think the "un-sportsmanship" aspect would be a scoped rifle at a greater range on a roosted turkey in open country.

 

[Artificer]

One has to be careful when talking about "coned" barrels in the period. The modern coning tools are not what was used in the period.

What some of them did, however, was file the individual rifling grooves near the muzzle to a rounded shape edge to allow the patch to start easier. The rifling lands were chamfered a bit to ensure there was no burs or sharp edges, but nothing like the coning tools we have today.

Gus

 

[Brokennock]

Turkeys- how many of you have moved in quietly enough to be right below a roosted turkey

Many times, but, not to shoot them off the roost. Have done it a few times not realizing I was right under them and had the c$@p startled out of me when the took off from the roost.
Unfortunately we do have people here who do sneak up on birds who are gobbling on roost and either shoot them roosted as soon as it is legal light or as soon as the bird flies down.

 

[Ferret Master]

I had a Great Uncle that lived in southwest VA that was a gun builder and mill proprietor and he used thick leather from the necks of wild hogs sometimes bulls to make loading blocks. His short starter was made from a deer horn and a walnut hull. He used a large coned touch hole and used same powder for load and pan. He built from about 1853 to 1880 with a break to serve the south during the civil war. No written record of his accoutrements but have held them in hand.

 

[Notchy Bob]

I was pondering that quote by John James Audubon, in post #62 (thank you, Gus!). I have seen this before, and it is a remarkable document. This thread has drifted away from the original topic, but the Audubon quote, specifically the last sentence in it, may well bring us back: "... the feather is drawn from the touch hole, the powder fills the pan..."

Nothing is said about manually priming the pan. We know the shooter did not use his "big" horn because earlier in the quote it is explicitly stated that "... He again closes it with the stopper." The pan was primed with powder flowing or dribbling out the touch hole when the feather quill was withdrawn. The rifle primed itself.

I have seen self-priming flintlocks mentioned at least a couple of times in the period literature, and John Palliser specifically wrote that a self-priming flintlock firearm was the best for running buffalo. In that case you just close the pan, dump a handful of powder into the barrel, spit a ball into the muzzle, slap the breech to settle everything, and you're ready for the next shot. I think self-priming flintlocks were a lot more common than we may be willing to accept, and a lot of those old guns with very large touch holes were not burned out or worn out, but were large (by our standards) by intention. In fact, I have a hypothesis that this is the reason flintlock trade guns held on for so long in the far north... A gun that primes itself saves a step in loading, and no percussion gun is going to do that. I recently read an article in a back issue (circa 1912) of The Transactions of the Kansas State Historical Society, in which the author described a buffalo hunt in Texas in or around 1846. Percussion caps were readily available then, and I think the hunters outfitted themselves in Leavenworth. Yet, all of them carried flintlocks.

There is no question that you get better performance from a flintlock rifle with a smaller touch hole, but I believe the old timers had their own ideas and priorities.

So, did they prime from the main horn, or a priming horn? We have artwork and at least one artifact to suggest both techniques were used. However, there is a pretty good chance that a great many of the old hunters did as Col. Boone did, in Audubon's description. The feather which serves as a touchhole plug is removed, and the pan primes itself.

"Now, I'm ready," cries the woodsman...

Notchy Bob

 

[Brokennock]

It would be good if someone would make that Audubon quote a locked sticky somewhere. Maybe in the general reenacting section?

 

[Celticstoneman]

It would be good if someone would make that Audubon quote a locked sticky somewhere. Maybe in the general reenacting section?

Brokennock,
what in the name of all that is holy is a "locked sticky " ??????
John

 

[Artificer]

I was pondering that quote by John James Audubon, in post #62 (thank you, Gus!). I have seen this before, and it is a remarkable document. This thread has drifted away from the original topic, but the Audubon quote, specifically the last sentence in it, may well bring us back: "... the feather is drawn from the touch hole, the powder fills the pan..."

Nothing is said about manually priming the pan. We know the shooter did not use his "big" horn because earlier in the quote it is explicitly stated that "... He again closes it with the stopper." The pan was primed with powder flowing or dribbling out the touch hole when the feather quill was withdrawn. The rifle primed itself.

I have seen self-priming flintlocks mentioned at least a couple of times in the period literature, and John Palliser specifically wrote that a self-priming flintlock firearm was the best for running buffalo. In that case you just close the pan, dump a handful of powder into the barrel, spit a ball into the muzzle, slap the breech to settle everything, and you're ready for the next shot. I think self-priming flintlocks were a lot more common than we may be willing to accept, and a lot of those old guns with very large touch holes were not burned out or worn out, but were large (by our standards) by intention. In fact, I have a hypothesis that this is the reason flintlock trade guns held on for so long in the far north... A gun that primes itself saves a step in loading, and no percussion gun is going to do that. I recently read an article in a back issue (circa 1912) of The Transactions of the Kansas State Historical Society, in which the author described a buffalo hunt in Texas in or around 1846. Percussion caps were readily available then, and I think the hunters outfitted themselves in Leavenworth. Yet, all of them carried flintlocks.

There is no question that you get better performance from a flintlock rifle with a smaller touch hole, but I believe the old timers had their own ideas and priorities.

So, did they prime from the main horn, or a priming horn? We have artwork and at least one artifact to suggest both techniques were used. However, there is a pretty good chance that a great many of the old hunters did as Col. Boone did, in Audubon's description. The feather which serves as a touchhole plug is removed, and the pan primes itself.

"Now, I'm ready," cries the woodsman...

Notchy Bob

Excellent point, Bob, on the rifle in the Audubon Quote being self priming.

I didn't know about the self priming flintlock use for hunting buffalo in 1846, as that is well beyond or just before the time periods I've studied in decades. (Well, that sounds strange even to me. Grin.) Let's say in the early to mid 1970's, I began with the Western Mountain Man days, but went backwards in time in the late 1970's to the FIW through War of 1812 period. I spent most of the 1980's doing UnCivil War, then got back into the 18th century in the late 1990's and stayed there. (Well, that might be a bit less confusing.....maybe not.)

I'm not sure if "self priming" flintlocks were mostly intentional or if it was from the eventual burning out of vent holes in the Iron Barrels and then just dealing with what they had and then they found the best ways to use them that way?

Hamilton in Colonial Frontier Guns, shows what is to me an extremely interesting flintlock trade gun lock. In it's working lifetime, the bottom of the pan was burnt out, then repaired with braze, then was burnt through the repair brazing again before the lock was stripped of parts and discarded. Is that more evidence of at least larger vent holes in flintlock trade guns when first made? Did they intentionally make the vent holes larger so they were "more surefire," especially in the hands of their primary market, I.E. less technologically advanced customers in the America's and Africa? I don't know.

A while back on this forum when we were discussing vent hole liners, Spence10 provided pictures of original barrels from the late 1700's to the 18th century that you could barely see the vent hole repairs with screwed in "plugs" that were drilled with what looked like "normal size" vent holes.

Did the Iron of the barrels have anything to do with it, especially in the lower priced guns? If there was an inclusion in the Iron barrel one couldn't see from the inside or outside of the barrel and that inclusion was in or near the spot the original vent hole was drilled, it would seem to me that vent hole would burn out much faster because of the inclusion.

I fully admit I have no answers and am not even sure I'm asking all the right questions.

Gus

 

[Brokennock]

Brokennock,
what in the name of all that is holy is a "locked sticky " ??????
John

"Sticky," may have been the wrong term here, different forums.s call them different things. Think of a sticky/post it note.

See how there are several posts at the top of this subforum that show a pin and a lock to the right.
They are pinned to this place so they are easy to find and refer back to. They are locked so that people don't continue to post on the topic diluting the information that made the topic valuable.

The Audubon quote and the letter from Christian Oerter would be nice to have so conveniently placed.

 

[excess650]

TC liners are .070" will dribble fffg.

I have checked some originals that have not had restoration work and one that has. None appeared to have had the vent relined, one was just slightly larger, and the others slightly smaller than .075".

 

[Artificer]

TC liners are .070" will dribble fffg.

I have checked some originals that have not had restoration work and one that has. None appeared to have had the vent relined, one was just slightly larger, and the others slightly smaller than .075".

Rifles or Smoothbores? What time periods?

Gus

 

[excess650]

Rifles or Smoothbores? What time periods?

Gus

"Rifles", rifled or not, pre-1820

 

[Artificer]

"Rifles", rifled or not, pre-1820

Thank you.

Gus