Help, I am in desperate need of ' context'

[Artificer]

I've run the gamut from wearing modern clothes and shooting on a line with all the modern gadgets in a shooting box or hunting in modern hunting clothes with a ML to as authentic as possible in both reenacting and shooting. I am not disappointed at all when doing the latter, because I get more of a feel for how they did it during the times, which I enjoy very much.

As mentioned before, ML shooting is a big tent and it is all up to the person what he/she wants to do.

Gus

 

[SOLANCO]

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.

Exactly so. While I do not begrudge your preferences I will stick with mine.

 

[Brokennock]

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.

You can think that if you want. But you'd be wrong. There are plenty of people who thoroughly enjoy the research and process of trying to experience as closely as they can, the experiences of our forefathers.

The only disillusion is from all the critics who say it's impossible so why try, who make up b.s. excuses to encourage new people with the interest to accept items that have no support for use in the time period.

 

[Brokennock]

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

Really? Out of "millions," we get nothing? Please. Give us a break.
As I've said countless times before, if folks want to use a ball starter or whatever, use it, just don't fool yourself and others that it is correct to a time period that we have no evidence for.

 

[Notchy Bob]

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

John,

I think your question is a good one. I am not a reenactor, but I like the kit that I use to be as authentic as possible, and I enjoy reading first person accounts and studying history.

One thing I have learned about history is that if I want to know the truth about something, I first need to keep an open mind. I fully appreciate those dedicated souls who demand documentation for everything, but then I have encountered a few who discount the validity of additional documentation that runs counter to their preconceived notions. This is the very definition of confirmation bias, and it should be avoided. It's always good to get corroboration, though. My own preconceptions (and I have plenty of 'em) are frequently challenged, the more I read.

I am also interested in language, and would submit that the words used in a given place and period of time are "artifacts" just as surely as the guns, knives, and saddles from that time and place are. The point of this being that using the right terminology in research matters. For example, if you look for "tow worm" in the fur trade literature, you might not find it, and you would then conclude that tow worms didn't exist because there is no documentation. However, we know they did exist. It's just that these were called "wipers" or "gunworms" or possibly just "worms," and you do find those terms mentioned. This came up in another thread here recently, but to briefly reiterate, reference books from the early to mid 20th century describe and illustrate "straight starters," but not "short starters," which I believe is probably a modern term. For the record, though, I haven't seen either mentioned in the period literature.

So, is it period correct to prime from the main powder horn? Take a gander at this:

That is from an article in the February 1955 issue of GUNS magazine. Click that link and you should go directly to a digitized copy of that magazine. Here is a detail shot from the image:

I could not find the name of the artist or the title of the painting, but to me it looks like something done by Charles Deas (pronounced "daze"), who lived from 1818 to 1867, and was in the west from 1841 to about 1847. He is mentioned in Lt. J. Henry Carleton's The Prairie Logbooks, which documented Carleton's visits to the Pawnee villages in 1844 and 1845. Deas accompanied the command in the first expedition. So, I can't say for sure that Deas painted that image, and I've been unable thus far to track down the name of the artist, but there is the image to ponder.

If we assume Deas or one of his contemporaries painted it, we accept it as documentation of priming from the horn. However, what do we do about this?

This image shows the kit carried by David Cooke (1761-1842), and this collection, including Mr. Cooke's rifle, is written up on the Contemporary Makers Blogspot. There is a bullet board right squarely in the middle of the picture, and a priming horn above and left of it. I don't see a straight starter, so I guess we'll need to keep looking for one of those.

What does this image prove? If you are a believer, it shows that bullet boards and priming horns were in fact used, at least by David Cooke. If you are a doubter, you can say Cooke lived until 1842, and he may have only used those things later in life, or maybe his grandson made the bullet board and tossed it in grandpa's hunting pouch years later. It's hard to prove anything beyond a doubt.

Call me a believer. I believe the painting that shows a desperate frontiersman priming from the horn is accurate, and I think the bullet board and priming horn were both used by David Cooke with his firelock. There is no reason to believe that everybody did everything the same way back then, any more than they do now. People probably did both.

As far as educating the general and uninformed public about how things were done back in the day, I do think it is important to get things as correct as possible. I would respectfully disagree with those who say, "It doesn't matter." You'll need to keep your salt shaker handy, though, as we try to convince those pilgrims that mountain men were all chubby, gray-bearded fellows who packed in camp chairs and wall tents with no horses...

Notchy Bob

 

[springfield art]

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

I did read in either of the two muzzleloading magazines, that collectors/researchers who know something about such things, that no actual old hunting bag has ever been found with a short starter. I do think it's a more modern thing, just my personal agreement. I also don't think that way back in the 18th & 19th C., people had access to lots of different varieties of products; likely they couldn't find or get 4F even if they wanted to. Just IMHO. It's good that you're reading!

 

[springfield art]

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.

Some sunken smootbores fished up in archeology in the Great Lakes had GRASS as 'wadding'; no Cabela's back then to re-stock supplies!

 

[Artificer]

Christiansbrunn, the 9th September, 1773

Most valued Friend Martin Baer,

At your request I have prepared [completed/finished] a good rifle and sent it over to Mr. John Hopson together with 4 pounds of Powder. The rifle is decorated [inlaid] with silver wire and well made, as well as tested and she shoots right well. It has a double trigger, so that you can fire with the triggers either unset or set. Between the triggers there is a screw with which you can make it lighter or harder to fire. There is also a ball puller with which you can pull the ball out no matter how rusty she gets. She costs 8 pounds all together and with the powder @ 3 shillings per pound makes twelve shillings, for a total of L8.12.-. Because it is very good powder I have added two pounds more than you requested. I hope it will suit you well. You can write me a couple lines to let me know how you like it. Together with friendliest greetings I am your faithful

friend and servant,

Christian Oerter

Gunmaker

The above letter doesn't prove there was 4Fg powder in the 18th century, though it certainly proves some powder was considered so much better this gunsmith doubled the customer's powder order without asking him.

Hmmmm........do I also see an early account of "trust your gunsmith" on what to load in your rifle and buy the good stuff while you can?

Other sources do document there was 4Fg powder in the period, though it was not called that. Off the top of my head, I think it was called super fine rifle powder.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

John,

I think your question is a good one. I am not a reenactor, but I like the kit that I use to be as authentic as possible, and I enjoy reading first person accounts and studying history.

One thing I have learned about history is that if I want to know the truth about something, I first need to keep an open mind. I fully appreciate those dedicated souls who demand documentation for everything, but then I have encountered a few who discount the validity of additional documentation that runs counter to their preconceived notions. This is the very definition of confirmation bias, and it should be avoided. It's always good to get corroboration, though. My own preconceptions (and I have plenty of 'em) are frequently challenged, the more I read.

I am also interested in language, and would submit that the words used in a given place and period of time are "artifacts" just as surely as the guns, knives, and saddles from that time and place are. The point of this being that using the right terminology in research matters. For example, if you look for "tow worm" in the fur trade literature, you might not find it, and you would then conclude that tow worms didn't exist because there is no documentation. However, we know they did exist. It's just that these were called "wipers" or "gunworms" or possibly just "worms," and you do find those terms mentioned. This came up in another thread here recently, but to briefly reiterate, reference books from the early to mid 20th century describe and illustrate "straight starters," but not "short starters," which I believe is probably a modern term. For the record, though, I haven't seen either mentioned in the period literature.

So, is it period correct to prime from the main powder horn? Take a gander at this:

View attachment 88818

That is from an article in the February 1955 issue of GUNS magazine. Click that link and you should go directly to a digitized copy of that magazine. Here is a detail shot from the image:

View attachment 88819

I could not find the name of the artist or the title of the painting, but to me it looks like something done by Charles Deas (pronounced "daze"), who lived from 1818 to 1867, and was in the west from 1841 to about 1847. He is mentioned in Lt. J. Henry Carleton's The Prairie Logbooks, which documented Carleton's visits to the Pawnee villages in 1844 and 1845. Deas accompanied the command in the first expedition. So, I can't say for sure that Deas painted that image, and I've been unable thus far to track down the name of the artist, but there is the image to ponder.

If we assume Deas or one of his contemporaries painted it, we accept it as documentation of priming from the horn. However, what do we do about this?

View attachment 88820

This image shows the kit carried by David Cooke (1761-1842), and this collection, including Mr. Cooke's rifle, is written up on the Contemporary Makers Blogspot. There is a bullet board right squarely in the middle of the picture, and a priming horn above and left of it. I don't see a straight starter, so I guess we'll need to keep looking for one of those.

What does this image prove? If you are a believer, it shows that bullet boards and priming horns were in fact used, at least by David Cooke. If you are a doubter, you can say Cooke lived until 1842, and he may have only used those things later in life, or maybe his grandson made the bullet board and tossed it in grandpa's hunting pouch years later. It's hard to prove anything beyond a doubt.

Call me a believer. I believe the painting that shows a desperate frontiersman priming from the horn is accurate, and I think the bullet board and priming horn were both used by David Cooke with his firelock. There is no reason to believe that everybody did everything the same way back then, any more than they do now. People probably did both.

As far as educating the general and uninformed public about how things were done back in the day, I do think it is important to get things as correct as possible. I would respectfully disagree with those who say, "It doesn't matter." You'll need to keep your salt shaker handy, though, as we try to convince those pilgrims that mountain men were all chubby, gray-bearded fellows who packed in camp chairs and wall tents with no horses...

Notchy Bob

That bullet board has 12 holes by my count. Why would a hunter need that many bullets in his bullet board? My speculation it was for hunting squirrels as that's the only game I've ever heard of one could get that many shots fired on in a single day. Now by my speculation, this also means the bullet board dates to when both powder and lead became cheap enough to shoot squirrels that much. That would mean the early 19th century at the soonest and probably from around the 1820's onward.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

A little known fact is I invented short starters in 1974.
I had my first rifle and instructions given by the shop owner who sold it to me. It was an Allen and Thurber by Mowrey. The first time out I had a tough time starting the ball. I got home and cleaned the gun, and then set to make a little shaker, from a dowel and a flat piece of wood. Tried it out the next day, wow it was so much easier.
Almost two years later I found out there was a club of guys that shot ml. I was so excited to go. And when I could see that white smoke as I drove up I about danced.
I knew those boys were going to welcome me. And I thought they would see my ball whacker and think I was pretty bright kid. Well they welcomed me, and I learned a lot that day, including I was a bit late to get my patent for my ball whacker
I fell in love with ml with my fist shot. Saw some boys at that shoot in skins and became a buck skinner that day. Was saving my pennies to get stuff.
These guys also told me about the wealth of ml books one could buy.
The next shoot I was given a log cabin catalog and saw the library they had. Whoopy
Ever since then I have felt, when ever I here the short starter discussion that someone had to have been as smart as a seventeen year old kid a long time ago.
But
That ain’t proof
It ain’t even a good argument
But it do make me feel better
Ask me some time how I invented pipe tampers

 

[tenngun]

I did read in either of the two muzzleloading magazines, that collectors/researchers who know something about such things, that no actual old hunting bag has ever been found with a short starter. I do think it's a more modern thing, just my personal agreement. I also don't think that way back in the 18th & 19th C., people had access to lots of different varieties of products; likely they couldn't find or get 4F even if they wanted to. Just IMHO. It's good that you're reading!

Museum of the fur trade has one.
In the 1950s ‘the Great Guns’ was published and has a photo of a ‘Kentucky rifle’ and kit. Including a starter. This was some years before reinactoisms.
We can point out we don’t know when it was added to the kit. And it’s presence may not be of the same age as the rest of the bag, but it begs the question, why would some one who for years did not need one suddenly add it to his kit?

 

[Artificer]

I am also interested in language, and would submit that the words used in a given place and period of time are "artifacts" just as surely as the guns, knives, and saddles from that time and place are. The point of this being that using the right terminology in research matters. For example, if you look for "tow worm" in the fur trade literature, you might not find it, and you would then conclude that tow worms didn't exist because there is no documentation. However, we know they did exist. It's just that these were called "wipers" or "gunworms" or possibly just "worms," and you do find those terms mentioned. This came up in another thread here recently, but to briefly reiterate, reference books from the early to mid 20th century describe and illustrate "straight starters," but not "short starters," which I believe is probably a modern term. For the record, though, I haven't seen either mentioned in the period literature.

The Christian Oerter letter is the earliest use of the term "Ball Puller" I have run across. The common way to describe this tool for most of the 18th century well into the early 19th century was "Ball Screw."

They also used the words "tricker" and "trickers" very commonly instead of trigger or triggers (meaning double or set triggers).

Gus

Edited to add: Oops, forgot the above letter was translated from German in the period, so scratch this as an early reference to "Ball Puller." Sorry, my mistake.

 

[Sidney Smith]

You can think that if you want. But you'd be wrong. There are plenty of people who thoroughly enjoy the research and process of trying to experience as closely as they can, the experiences of our forefathers.

The only disillusion is from all the critics who say it's impossible so why try, who make up b.s. excuses to encourage new people with the interest to accept items that have no support for use in the time period.

I'd be wrong in your eyes maybe, and for what that's worth I don't care. A person can research until the cows come home, and maybe they'll get things close, but they will never be exact because there is absolutely no way to prove whether something was or was not used.

I find it absurd that some people think a new person to the sport should be concerned with getting things as historically correct as possible. If that's what they want then fine. Seems here though the instant a guy like me says don't concern yourself too much with that, there's a hard-core Dan'l Boone wannabe ready to jump down my throat. We've all got a right to our opinions.

Imo, this hobby is about getting in touch with yesteryear, without worrying whether some self anointed expert in historical correctness is going to show up and say, " no, can't use that short starter because there's no documented evidence it was used back the" etc, etc,etc. That's pure BS.

And if you enjoy dressing up like it's the 18th century, and getting every button and sash as 18th century as possible, great go for it. Just realize not everybody wants to pursue things in this hobby that way, nor does everyone care whether or not a loading block or short starter was used back then. You can't prove that those implements weren't used, any more than I can prove they were. It's up to the user. If that person gets enjoyment from using a short starter so what!

 

[ML48]

I'd be wrong in your eyes maybe, and for what that's worth I don't care. A person can research until the cows come home, and maybe they'll get things close, but they will never be exact because there is absolutely no way to prove whether something was or was not used.

I find it absurd that some people think a new person to the sport should be concerned with getting things as historically correct as possible. If that's what they want then fine. Seems here though the instant a guy like me says don't concern yourself too much with that, there's a hard-core Dan'l Boone wannabe ready to jump down my throat. We've all got a right to our opinions.

Imo, this hobby is about getting in touch with yesteryear, without worrying whether some self anointed expert in historical correctness is going to show up and say, " no, can't use that short starter because there's no documented evidence it was used back the" etc, etc,etc. That's pure BS.

And if you enjoy dressing up like it's the 18th century, and getting every button and sash as 18th century as possible, great go for it. Just realize not everybody wants to pursue things in this hobby that way, nor does everyone care whether or not a loading block or short starter was used back then. You can't prove that those implements weren't used, any more than I can prove they were. It's up to the user. If that person gets enjoyment from using a short starter so what!

You are awesome. That summed it up to the max.

 

[Celticstoneman]

Ten gun,
That is a great point and an even greater question.
John

 

[Wildrangeringreen]

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

Right, and it all depends on exactly where and when and who we're talking about. The Eastern European Militaries retained the notion of the "forced load" in their rifles much longer than everyone else. We also have notes from the Seven Years War where those with rifled pieces were often found to have a small mallet and were hammering oversized balls into the bore (which would have made them bullets (due to the elongation lol). Yet just a few decades later, you don't see much mention of anything like that being in common use. We also have anecdotes of people with smoothbores doing much the same when upmost accuracy was needed (my own tests with a close ball and bore fit yield pretty interesting accuracy, considering no consistent spin is put on the ball). Yet then again, we know that Military ammo was extremely undersized in order to allow more than a combat load to be fired without issue. With everything that we have found in the way of surviving notes and artifacts, the only thing that we know for sure was that everyone and their brother had their own spin on how to do things, and they tried pretty much everything imaginable when it came to making firearms work. That's why I laugh when people at shoots come up and try to exclude or admonish people for not having PC/HC guns/setups (within reason... a guy tryna pass off a poly-stocked knight inline and smokeless powder with plastic sabots as HC is suspect lol)... I know the demographic of ML'ers out there trends to be on the upper end of age, but none of those guys are old enough to have been there to see it, let alone have traveled around enough to say with 100% certainty that NO ONE had a gun like that (within reason) or had ammo or gear like that (even Perchlorate enhanced BP (pyrodex) was experimented with in the early 1800's, doesn't seem to have caught on... must not have had a good enough marketing dept lol).

 

[tenngun]

I'd be wrong in your eyes maybe, and for what that's worth I don't care. A person can research until the cows come home, and maybe they'll get things close, but they will never be exact because there is absolutely no way to prove whether something was or was not used.

I find it absurd that some people think a new person to the sport should be concerned with getting things as historically correct as possible. If that's what they want then fine. Seems here though the instant a guy like me says don't concern yourself too much with that, there's a hard-core Dan'l Boone wannabe ready to jump down my throat. We've all got a right to our opinions.

Imo, this hobby is about getting in touch with yesteryear, without worrying whether some self anointed expert in historical correctness is going to show up and say, " no, can't use that short starter because there's no documented evidence it was used back the" etc, etc,etc. That's pure BS.

And if you enjoy dressing up like it's the 18th century, and getting every button and sash as 18th century as possible, great go for it. Just realize not everybody wants to pursue things in this hobby that way, nor does everyone care whether or not a loading block or short starter was used back then. You can't prove that those implements weren't used, any more than I can prove they were. It's up to the user. If that person gets enjoyment from using a short starter so what!

I think it’s a little bit of reasoning.
None of us can be 100%. Even if you used completely hand done wool, the sheep breeds they had then are much changed from what we have now.
Bench copy? Meaning hand forged barrel from bog iron smelted in a clay and charcoal furnace? And how was that charcoal made mat I ask? Salt pork and beans for dinner? Well those pig breads don’t exist either, was the salt boiled out from a spring? Completely organically grown beans?
We are all going to fail at some point.
I have water pills in my treking kit, and a first aid kit. I often take summer sausage instead of pemmican
But it is fun and a never ending journey to get to correct as possible. Even then we might flub. All my blankets are wool, none are correct to eighteenth or early nineteenth century in looks
I THINK starters were earlier then we give them credit for, but as I can’t prove it I don’t use it if talking to the public. The ones I own are copied from the Museum of the Fur Trade one.
Blackpowder Maniac uses a neat trick on his patching. Where he partially cuts the strip. Then he starts the ball and pulls the strip away without having to cut.
Looks neat, getting my toit repaired , it’s a round one and when I get it out of the shop I’ll give it a try.
Did Maniac invent it? Did anyone try it before. Patching a ball is know at least to the early seventeenth century. Lots of rifleman over the years have shot lots of patches.
Would I be willing to do it yes.
If it works well would I continue? Yes
Would I tell any one it was historic no
And if I was at an historic event I may be hesitant to do it. I try ( not successfully) to keep historic in front of public.
At a range I try to keep historic in equipment and style, but should I have a some interest in my shooting I will explain the non historical things I am doing.
Being historic is not a requirement. Black powder TV does some great vids and has great equipment, he is a # 1 guy for me, but he is not historic, although he is all traditional
We’re a rainbow. I this is a hobby and should never be a chore

 

[Brokennock]

I'd be wrong in your eyes maybe, and for what that's worth I don't care. A person can research until the cows come home, and maybe they'll get things close, but they will never be exact because there is absolutely no way to prove whether something was or was not used.

I find it absurd that some people think a new person to the sport should be concerned with getting things as historically correct as possible. If that's what they want then fine. Seems here though the instant a guy like me says don't concern yourself too much with that, there's a hard-core Dan'l Boone wannabe ready to jump down my throat. We've all got a right to our opinions.

Imo, this hobby is about getting in touch with yesteryear, without worrying whether some self anointed expert in historical correctness is going to show up and say, " no, can't use that short starter because there's no documented evidence it was used back the" etc, etc,etc. That's pure BS.

And if you enjoy dressing up like it's the 18th century, and getting every button and sash as 18th century as possible, great go for it. Just realize not everybody wants to pursue things in this hobby that way, nor does everyone care whether or not a loading block or short starter was used back then. You can't prove that those implements weren't used, any more than I can prove they were. It's up to the user. If that person gets enjoyment from using a short starter so what!

Whoever said anything about getting it 100%? I believe in this instance, and every other similar discussion, I have said something to the effect of getting as close as one can.

Just realize not everybody wants to pursue things in this hobby that way, nor does everyone care whether or not a loading block or short starter was used back then.

Maybe you should start reading what people, myself included l, actually write, instead of reading it as what you expect us to be saying. I go out of my way to acknowledge that not everyone wants to go down the historical road. And to day that folks should use what they feel they need to use.

I find it absurd that some people think a new person to the sport should be concerned with getting things as historically correct as possible. If that's what they want then fine.

And yet here you are telling them you find it absurd and that someone who has stated they are interested in some level of historical correctness shouldn't be concerned with it.

 

[Brokennock]

Ever since then I have felt, when ever I here the short starter discussion that someone had to have been as smart as a seventeen year old kid a long time ago.
But
That ain’t proof
It ain’t even a good argument
But it do make me feel better
Ask me some time how I invented pipe tampers

Lol. That seems to be some people's reasoning for a lot of things.
In this case it assumes they used the same ridiculously tight loads pre-1800 that many do these days.

 

[tenngun]

That’s something that we don’t think about a lot these days
Guns came in bore size, not in caliber and 1/20,1/24, 1/32 and so in of a pound covers a lot of range
I bought some .575s to make paper cartridge for my TFC, and have a .595mold (recommendation by the maker) and a .600(shoots best). Pre cast 20 to a pound ball was sold on the frontier, I wonder what size they were.
I often wondered if .44 and .36 were chosen by colt because a .44 is half the weight of a .58 ball and a 36 half again. And why .58? It’s half the weight of a 12 bore
Was .54 a popular size in the west because it’s a real good size or because it’s two balls to an ounce?
Aim small miss small, and they shot games that required hiring an x, or small point of a v, even king George’s nose.
We want one hole at what ever range we chose. But I wonder how much they cared.
If you can make a head shot on a squirrel, you have some meat for your dumplings, but that’s only about the size of a nine ring. And a score of 45 with out an x won’t get you a ribbon at the club.
A .480 in a .50 will put venison in the pot. Load easy, but won’t win you the Nationals
And I don’t shoot in those shoots.