Help, I am in desperate need of ' context'

[Celticstoneman]

Hello all,
I recently purchased the book by Peter A Alexander " The Gunsmith of Greenville County" I'm not having a problem reading it ,my hangup's are starting on page 2. The author makes a statement that I'll paraphrase. The small priming horn filled with ffff powder was first used in 1930 because it is not historical.He also states that the 'short starter' has no historical context because none have ever been found
what am I to think of these two statements? They ,in my mind at least, are at odds with what I believe that I have read here on the forum. Just how far off track have I wandered?
John

 

[EC121]

It isn't gospel. Ignore the book and do what you want.

 

[Tasbay]

Well I understand the (F) grades never existed until cartridge guns came along and both pan and barrel were just loaded with same powder. Yes I could imagine short starters not being carried as well.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I don't think you have wandered too far off track simply because of the prevalence of use of those items today. We use them often in our shooting procedures.

The small horns often referred to as priming are hard to categorize. The small horns may have been a "day horn" holding just enough powder for a day's hunt. A couple of balls in the pocket and a horn with just enought for two to five shots would have been enough to go hunting.

There are uncommon references to a straight starter and what may be a variant of a tompion to loosely plug a barrel. Period documentation suggests a loose ball and patch combination that needed only the butt of the knife and ramrod to load. It wasn't until late in the 19th century that the tightened patch and ball became more of a practice. Then in the 1930's as shooting targets for accuracy as practiced by the fledgling NMLRA that short starters came into vogue.

We have to remember that by the time Peter Alexander was writing about the evidence of priming horns and short starters, these items were probably in use but not documented. I speculate that priming horns and short starters existed before 1930, but the use was poorly documented.

 

[mooman76]

There are those that believe if it wasn't written down, it never happened. They don't even consider that way back there were many that couldn't write or why bother writing something that was common knowledge. This is merely my opinion not based on fact. People do things to fix up their rifles the way they like. That was done way back, but who's to say someone else didn't also just because that rifle is unfound or doesn't exist and more.

 

[ohio ramrod]

Priming horns,short starters, and loading blocks all are constantly debated as to weather or not they were period correct.So don't feel lonesome about questioning their use. I just use them and let others debate them@

 

[sheriff john]

False muzzles aren't new fangled. I have a short starter/false muzzle combo given to me by an old friend (WWI Veteran) who said it was his grandfather's. Actually, it's not a true false muzzle but fits atop the muzzle to center the short starter. Both appear to be walnut with a brass band on the end of the short starter. I've had it for maybe 60 years.

 

[Sidney Smith]

I'd be willing to bet anything and everything we are using now was tried. Some of it got documented and most probably didn't. Just as in different regions, there are different accents, the same probably held true for muzzleloading accoutrements.

I personally don't care one bit that short starters or priming horns may or may not have been used in yesteryear, and documented. Who cares. Use what you think is right and documentary evidence be damned.

 

[Coot]

Hello all,
I recently purchased the book by Peter A Alexander " The Gunsmith of Greenville County" I'm not having a problem reading it ,my hangup's are starting on page 2. The author makes a statement that I'll paraphrase. The small priming horn filled with ffff powder was first used in 1930 because it is not historical.He also states that the 'short starter' has no historical context because none have ever been found
what am I to think of these two statements? They ,in my mind at least, are at odds with what I believe that I have read here on the forum. Just how far off track have I wandered?
John

There are some on the forum who have no interest in historical accuracy. They do/use whatever they want & if it works for them, they are happy. There are others who are sticklers for historical accuracy & try to experience how things used to be as accurately as their research & money allow. Many are in between (the Forum is a big tent). No one approach is right or wrong - each of us must choose how we want to play the game. "Documentation" is not just accounts written in period but includes dateable surviving examples, period artwork, excavations etc. Prior to the internet, it was much harder to do research and a number of older books (and modern campfires) contain a number of "old wives tales". There is a current topic here on the forum devoted to the strange ideas that so many of us have heard about black powder & muzzleloaders. Experts disagree on some details - Wallace Gussler does not believe in loading blocks but Mark Baker does - and they both know a lot more than I do.

 

[tenngun]

We have some historic examples of each. However we have lots of description of them not being used.
I used to use a loading block a lot, but In general I find it just clutter and not serving any good. So I’ve shelved them about twenty years ago.
If I’m at an event I never use a starter. Used or not they were unlikely to have been common. And I try hard to be historically correct. I’m not perfect so don’t point out my ‘dings’. Shooting a rifle I find a starter handy as I like to use my rod on the gun. It seems the most pressure is starting, it saves my rod from stupid. I shoot mostly smooth and it’s not needed there.
It’s your gun and your the shooter. Even in an historic context you can say ‘we can’t prove it but it makes my shooting easier’
Any one who dings you on it can be given a polite reply like ‘bugger off’ or some such.

 

[ML48]

There are some on the forum who have no interest in historical accuracy. They do/use whatever they want & if it works for them, they are happy. There are others who are sticklers for historical accuracy & try to experience how things used to be as accurately as their research & money allow. Many are in between (the Forum is a big tent). No one approach is right or wrong - each of us must choose how we want to play the game. "Documentation" is not just accounts written in period but includes dateable surviving examples, period artwork, excavations etc. Prior to the internet, it was much harder to do research and a number of older books (and modern campfires) contain a number of "old wives tales". There is a current topic here on the forum devoted to the strange ideas that so many of us have heard about black powder & muzzleloaders. Experts disagree on some details - Wallace Gussler does not believe in loading blocks but Mark Baker does - and they both know a lot more than I do.

There is just no way to experience how it used to be, unless you give up everything in the modern world today. And that is why reading about history of the past is so interesting. Unfortunately there are many, too many, falsities on the internet about any subject. Much investigation is still needed to uncover fact from fiction, and even that sometimes never comes to nothing more than opinion.

 

[Celticstoneman]

There is just no way to experience how it used to be, unless you give up everything in the modern world today. And that is why reading about history of the past is so interesting. Unfortunately there are many, too many, falsities on the internet about any subject. Much investigation is still needed to uncover fact from fiction, and even that sometimes never comes to nothing more than opinion.

ML48,
You and everyone who has replied have offered sound advice. Boiled down it seems that it is my experience so do what is or seems right for me.
After reading the replies and rereading the first chapters of the book I saw that ML48 pretty much nailed it when he suggested ' who the Heck really knows it all for sure ?' So I've just gotten my salt shaker handy ,calmed down a touch and started reading it again.
Thank you all.
John

 

[Brokennock]

It depends on the time period you are thinking about.
Pre 1800 there is no evidence for common use of either. There were ball starters known to be used, but they seem to have been for specialized rifles. There is no real evidence for or reference to them being used by the common rifle user in the mid to late 1700s. Some will say that, "just because no one wrote it down doesn't mean it didn't happen," okay, well, why do we have descriptions of men loading their rifles and not one of them mentions using a starter,,,, or a ball block/board for that matter. Many references to women loading rifles for the men manning the walls of forts,,,, no mention of using a starter or ball/bullet block/board. No mention of priming horns either. Not even in the context of, starter or board breaking, nor a priming horn running out of powder, or being dropped and broken or lost.
It is amazing to me the mental gymnastics some will do to try to justify the use of something we can't say was used in a certain period,,, rather than just say, "I know this may not be correct to my period, but, it serves my purposes." Which is fine as long as one is not trying to educate people about life and material culture within that period..

 

[oldwood]

If you bought P. Alex's book to learn to build a m/l gun , may I suggest you put it in your book case for future reference. It has much info on building jigs , dies , and fixtures. Not much of what was in use in the 18th century for gun stocking. May i suggest spending another $ 20 and shipping for Dixon's book , " The Art of Building the Ky . Rifle ". Just learn the simple tools , and methods the old timers used and use your knowledge of modern tooling to adapt the process. This stuff ain't complex science. One other thing to consider , A fellow doesn't need to ruin a $250 piece of wood , to learn on. Keep it simple , do it right. Once the basic gun is built , then you can learn to do the art work on it. To frequently , so called experts , try to make the process of building a rifle so tedious , many newbees give up.
And , all this emphasis on historical correctness of basic gadgets , ball starters , bullet blocks , patch knives , etc. , who gives a bowel gas cloud in a tee pee , if they're "correct". Make an authentic looking rifle , and the stuff to make it shoot straight. Lets go shootin'.............oldwood

 

[Historian]

As for the F grades of powder they were around and we'll documented in the 18th century. Well before the cartridge era. So that notion is definitely wrong. As for ball starters and priming horns who really cares. They used what they deemed necessary and did not bother to ask what was HC or PC. Most however primed with what they loaded with in the barrel. Shoot what works for you and have fun doing it. That's what really counts. Peace brother

 

[tenngun]

One caveat.
Priming horns in idea is old. Matchlock military shooters had hollow tubes filled with powder and ball and strung on a cross belt over one shoulder. Twelve was a popular number and so called apostles.
A flask was separate for priming. Such flask in Europe were often made of horn and were flat, with a flask like spout on one end. These were priming horns in the modern sense. They fell out of use with the coming of the paper cartridge attributed to Gustave Aldophson king of Sweden during the thirty years war.
Priming horns, as full sized powder horns, were used by cannon gun captains to prime the big guns. Also a ‘priming horn’.
Both were specialized applications

 

[necchi]

The small priming horn filled with ffff powder was first used in 1930 because it is not historical.He also states that the 'short starter' has no historical context because none have ever been found

Both statements are true.
Go to the "Historical documentation" section of the forum and read for yourself.

That said, it doesn't matter, it's 2021,, nobody now-a-days goes to a primitive rendezvous without a smartphone in his pouch and a bottle of water any-way's !!
How else ya gonna get that selfie of shooting on the line! (?)

 

[Artificer]

Hello all,
I recently purchased the book by Peter A Alexander " The Gunsmith of Greenville County" I'm not having a problem reading it ,my hangup's are starting on page 2. The author makes a statement that I'll paraphrase. The small priming horn filled with ffff powder was first used in 1930 because it is not historical.He also states that the 'short starter' has no historical context because none have ever been found
what am I to think of these two statements? They ,in my mind at least, are at odds with what I believe that I have read here on the forum. Just how far off track have I wandered?
John

And to further muddy the waters, British Soldiers were issued priming horns in the very early 1700's, but that was mostly as a way to get a musket to fire after it had misfired and not set off the main charge in the barrel. That way the soldier didn't have to tear open a fresh cartridge to get powder for a second try at the lock setting off the main charge. The improvements in the quality of locks in the P1730 Muskets caused this to be no longer be necessary.

However, during the FIW, one British Ranger Officer strongly suggested priming horns be issued AGAIN and this time to Rangers, but the idea never got off the ground.

Gus

 

[Sidney Smith]

I think the person who strives for complete historical correctness is, A. Going to never really know, and B. More than likely wind up frustrated and disillusioned, to the point they may decide they can't continue in the hobby. To the latter that's a very sad way to approach this wonderful experience.

IMO, the best way to enjoy muzzleloading is to do what you want, by using what you want, and not get caught up in trying to be so historically correct, when you will never be able to definitively prove you're being historically correct in the first place. Have fun, enjoy the sport, and feel what it may have been like to have lived way back when. That's about as close as we are going to get.

 

[ML48]

If you bought P. Alex's book to learn to build a m/l gun , may I suggest you put it in your book case for future reference. It has much info on building jigs , dies , and fixtures. Not much of what was in use in the 18th century for gun stocking. May i suggest spending another $ 20 and shipping for Dixon's book , " The Art of Building the Ky . Rifle ". Just learn the simple tools , and methods the old timers used and use your knowledge of modern tooling to adapt the process. This stuff ain't complex science. One other thing to consider , A fellow doesn't need to ruin a $250 piece of wood , to learn on. Keep it simple , do it right. Once the basic gun is built , then you can learn to do the art work on it. To frequently , so called experts , try to make the process of building a rifle so tedious , many newbees give up.
And , all this emphasis on historical correctness of basic gadgets , ball starters , bullet blocks , patch knives , etc. , who gives a bowel gas cloud in a tee pee , if they're "correct". Make an authentic looking rifle , and the stuff to make it shoot straight. Lets go shootin'.............oldwood

"oldwood" that was very well and sensibly said. No one, and I mean no one, knows for sure what was and what wasn't used or invented back then. I'm betting out of all the millions of farmers, ranchers, and typical working folks back then, there were short ball starters, bullet blocks, etc. that were never found, because it was just something, someone may have found useful to themselves, and never went any further. God only knows what they had or invented back then that we don't know about and will never know about. Like you said, keep it simple, and make the stuff to make it shoot straight.
Thanks