Leather Patched Ball

[Tim Pauloski]

Having played around with different patch material for years when It comes to leather patching I can only find a single reference, that being John G. W. Dillin's book. I have read other internet posts over the years claiming multiple 18th century written sources without naming them. Can anyone list some of the books/sources or even chapter and verse?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

In the movie, "the gunsmith of Williamsburg" I think he uses leather patch material. I also read it in my 1973 issue of an all muzzleloader guns and ammo magazine.

 

[George]

Here are a few, some early 19th century;

A handbook for riflemen: by William Duane, 1812
"The rifleman must be made acquainted with the nature of sights, and the aim of the rifle; how to load with loose ball, to force it dextrously into the barrel, so that it shall lie close upon the powder without bruising the grains; he must be taught how to use the plaister, which is a piece of greased flannel, fustian, or soft leather, to facilitate the passage of the ball into the barrel, and clean it."

Scloppetaria: by Capt. Henry Beaufroy, 1808:
"By the patch is understood the small piece of greased leather, &c. which is put round the ball before driving it down, to fill up the interstices of the grooves, which would, without this precaution, occasion too great a windage."

An early Portuguese book, Espingarda Perfeyta, The Perfect Gun, Cesar Fiosconi & Jordam Guserio, 1718:
"These were loaded by putting the bullet in a little piece of leather of a thin glove, folded only once, dipped in oil, and thus it was pushed down to the bottom in such a manner that the bullet may not lose its roundness:"

An Essay on Shooting, by Wm. Cleator, 1789:
"In Germany they sometimes charge them in the following manner: a piece of thin leather or fustian is cut of a circular shape, and so large as to cover a little more than one half of the ball; this piece is then greased on one side, and being placed over the muzzle, the ball is laid upon it, and both thrust down together;"

Spence

 

[Tim Pauloski]

Thanks so much. I am kind of the local club button Nazi and historian but I was always unable to find books on this subject to verify my testing and my loading practices. There are always those who rightfully demand verification before trying to emulate those who came before and now I will be able to pass this on to my fellow Alaskan shooters. Being so far from America we don't always have access to information. Thanks again to all!

 

[Tim Pauloski]

I had one of the early videos now gone but, for the life of me can't remember.

 

[Artificer]

Well, I thought I remembered a cursory mention of leather for patch material, one sometimes reads in some accounts after they first mention using linen for patching. I thought it may have been in the quote below that forum member Elnathan so generously provided, but it is not.

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.

A GREAT place to look for period information on period guns, manufacture, usage, etc., etc, is in "An Essay on Shooting," by William Cleator but published by Tho. Cadell in 1789. For this inquiry, it is best to look in Chapter X of that book, “Of Rifle Barrels,”on page 123.

Page 131 is the page we are looking for:

“Besides the method of loading, by driving down the ball with an Iron Rammer, there are several others which we shall mention. In Germany they sometimes charge them in the following manner; a piece of thin leather or fustian is cut of a circular shape, and is so large as to cover a little more than one half the ball; this piece is then greased on one side, and being placed over the muzzle, the ball is laid upon it, and both thrust down together; by this means the leather or fustian enters in the rifles, and the bullet being firmly embraced by it, acquires the proper rotary motion in its passage through the barrel. If this method be equally effectual, it is certainly more easy and expeditious than the method already described. “

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q...ATM14DQBA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Even though the above book is a Vast Treasure Trove of information, it must be pointed out the Author seems to only have been reporting on the loading method and not actually how he has done it or seen it done. The author does not mention how rifle barrels are loaded in America, but seeing as how the ARW had only been over for about 8 years when the book was written and 9 years when it was published, perhaps that is the reason why?

Personally, I am almost entirely skeptical to the point my BS meter wildly goes off most of the time when I read of leather being used in America for patching material. There is an exception I can think of, but that is going to have to wait for the next post.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Spence, GREAT quotes! As usual, your normal and exemplary generosity of sharing them with the forum is very much appreciated.:hatsoff:

I did not mean to copy what you posted, but had to take so much time in typing the text from the google book, you beat me to the punch in posting it.

Gus

 

[Turtle Creek]

I would imagine in some frontier areas that skinning/dressing a hide and having left over material would make for decent patching.
Lots easier than trying to acquire cloth in remote areas.
Never thought about that though...interesting.

 

[Artificer]

The author does not mention how rifle barrels are loaded in America, but seeing as how the ARW had only been over for about 8 years when the book was written and 9 years when it was published, perhaps that is the reason why?

Gus

Gee, when I make that big of a mistake on arithmetic, when in fact the book came out only 6 years after the ARW, going to have to get some rest before writing a post explaining why I am so skeptical of using leather for patches here in America. :redface:

Gus

 

[dyemaker]

Well, the Baker rifle used a leather patch. multiple referrences... Link

 

[Artificer]

OK, after having made a contradictory statement about my extreme skepticism on leather being used in America for patching material, except in very unusual exceptions, I know I should explain. So here goes:

From many original accounts, we know that 18th century American gunsmiths provided a mold for each rifle they completed and provided it to the customer “en suite” or as part of the “package deal” of making and selling the rifle. In the original Gunsmith’s Estate inventories, sometimes the person doing the inventories knew enough about guns and gunmaking that they mention the cherries the gunsmith had for making the molds. (Many of the inventories do not nearly mention every gunmaking tool as the person doing the inventory did not know what the purpose of each tool was.)

OK, so the Gunsmith had, made by hand or even sometimes purchased “Mold Cherries” made by hand by others to cut different size molds for the rifles he made by the “Balls to the Pound” approximate sizing the customer wanted. I emphasize approximate because there was no such thing as extremely accurate measuring tools in existence for virtually all of the 18th and early 19th century gunsmiths. A customer ordered or bought a rifle he wanted in a size of so many balls per pound. He did not care if the that meant a bore size that varied as much as say .505” to .525” because he received the proper fitting mold and had no way to measure the rifle’s bore size anyway. Because they did not have precision measuring instruments, they made the molds first and then made the barrel to fit the balls from those molds. This procedure applied, no matter if they made the barrel entirely themselves or began with a rough bored barrel from a boring mill either from Europe or by the early to mid 18th century when some boring mills were begun in America.

The above procedures were very different from modern times when we order a barrel in a particular caliber that has been made and reamed to a precision size and measure it with a precision dial caliper or precision inside micrometer. Then we order a bullet mold that was cut with a precision sized cutter and casts a ball that measures only .002” to usually no more than .010” less than the bore size and then go get patching material we measure at the fabric store with precision dial calipers. IOW with modern precision measuring instruments, we fit the ball and patch to the bore. This is the opposite of what they did in the 18th and early 19th centuries before precision measuring instruments; where they finish reamed the barrel to fit the ball cast by the molds they made and had on hand.

Before his untimely passing, Gary Brumfield (who spent many years in and was the Master of the Gun Shop at Colonial Williamsburg) spoke to how precisely they could finely ream barrel bores with entirely hand made/forged square barrel finish reamers. Gary noted those finish reamers could ream a bore size to within .001” to .002” (one to two thousandths of an inch) of any size they chose by using paper or sometimes wood shims on one or two of the four cutting edges on the square reamers to very finely increase the size hole they reamed in the bore to match the ball size with some spare room for the patch.

Though I am not a fully trained machinist, I spent enough time in machine shops and around real machinists during my career as a National Match Armorer for the Marine Corps, that I found the information pretty remarkable when I first learned it decades ago. However, then I remembered that on some NM pistols, we hand filed some parts to tolerances within a few .0001’s” (ten thousandths of an inch) because we had precision micrometers to do it. I’m sure my Paternal Grandfather, who apprenticed as a machinist prior to WWI, would not have found the above information near as surprising as I did.

Of course and unfortunately, we do not know just how close to the ball size that 18th and early 19th century gunsmiths reamed the barrels to fit the ball from the mold and with room for the patch. To my knowledge and from research from others, there is no such thing as a surviving pristine 18th century American Long Rifle with the original mold that came with it, to measure and see how close the gunsmiths reamed the bores to the balls. The best informed speculation is that the gunsmiths reamed the bores to the size ball from the mold and linen cloth for patching that was available in their area at the time. Informed speculation is that the bores were reamed perhaps a little looser for the ball and linen patching material than we use today with modern short starters - for which there is almost no documentation in the period, but we may never know for sure. We do know that in almost every home on the frontier, flax and other materials were spun for cloth and though not every home had a loom, some folks would weave that into cloth for others.

However, a bore that was reamed to fit a ball cast from a mold and with linen patching material to give good accuracy would be different than when using even a thin leather patch, which would normally and almost certainly be thicker than linen patching material and NOT fit the bore as it was made to fit a linen patch.

Next I suggest we look at the leather available to Frontiersmen and even folks in some of the smaller settlements. When they tanned the hides themselves, it would have normally been a type of tanning that resulted in a leather similar to thick cloth as in brain tanned buckskin or true vegetable tanning. Ox, bull, cow, pig and deer hides would be too thick as tanned and would have had to have been laboriously hand “skived” or thinned to get the leather thin enough to fit the size ball from the molds supplied with the rifle. Also, these hides were way too valuable for other reasons to be thinned and used except perhaps in case of dire emergency. MAYBE they tanned thinner squirrel hides and thinned them for emergency use as patching material? However, that seems to be a lot more work and time consuming than using linen (or other cloth) they already spun and made into cloth. (There is documentation that early frontier families in Kentucky made cloth from thistles and even some animal hair until they got a crop of flax in to make linen cloth.)

Besides the possible emergency cases of hand skiving/thinning leather to make patching material with trade or butcher knives, because most frontiersmen would not have had the skiving knives that Saddlers and especially commercial tanners used (MUCH more available in the UK or Europe than America), there is another possibility of the use of leather for patching material. (Personally, I believe this is where the stories of using thin leather for patching with American Long Rifles came from.) There is documentation that sometimes they loaded one or two smaller sized balls along with the ball sized for the bore. This would not have required an “over shot card or wad,” if they put the patch material down a little ways, then the smaller shot and then the full size ball to seal the bore and hold the balls in place. They could also have used an over shot wad or felt, though. Some original pouches have been found with these smaller size shot in them. (Not sure, but maybe the Lyman pouch was found with two sized balls?) Anyway, with a thick leather patch, these smaller sized balls could have been loaded with thicker leather patches and come close to fitting as tight as the ball that was meant to be used in the bore with a linen patch. However, this still would have been an exceptional, if not an emergency use, when the correct size ball and linen patching was not available.

I fully admit this is not documented fact, but rather informed speculation. I am open to other possibilities, if documentation or other evidence is found.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Well, the Baker rifle used a leather patch. multiple referrences... Link

Yes indeed it was and it was backed by enough industry in the UK to make leather correctly sized to fit the bores of the rifle with the molds they provided. The rifle bores were also more carefully reamed to a standard size in quantity to do this with the molds provided for those rifles, before the age of interchangeable parts and precision instruments.

This type of "military standardization" was required so as to make the molds and leather patches fit the rifle bores, when such quantities of arms all had to work with the large quantities of rifles they had.

Earlier in the 18th century and documented to at least the French and Indian War and the War of Jenkin's Ear, the British Board of Ordnance supplied special sized paper to British units with which to make cartridges for the King's Muskets, AKA the Brown Bess. (They did not use just any kind of paper except in emergencies.) Though Musket balls did not fit the barrel bore sizes nearly as tight as rifle balls, this was the only way they could ensure the balls and paper cartridges would fit the King's Muskets, no matter where in the world the King's Troops were stationed.

BTW, I VERY much enjoyed reading one of the links you provided and plan on adding it and some of the rest to my digital library. The author stating they could expect to hit an enemy under 200 yards and was "dangerous" to enemies out to 300 yards is excellent period documentation of the accuracy of the Baker Rifle. Thank you.

Gus

 

[LaBonte]

Ox, bull, cow, pig and deer hides would be too thick as tanned and would have had to have been laboriously hand “skived” or thinned to get the leather thin enough to fit the size ball from the molds supplied with the rifle.

Gus I'm going to have to respectfully disagree in part with this statement as regards to deer hide -
I have had over the last 50 years of using deer hide, especially the smaller hides and the leg areas in particular, that is quite thin enough as tanned to be used as patch material and with brain tan there is often plenty of "squish" factor.
In order to make sure I just went and measured the thickness of several thin pieces and got measurements from .10" to .035", with most in the .018" to .024", about the thickness of the pillow ticking I normally use (I have seldom ever measured even cloth, since I doubt Dan Boone or Jim Bridger and the like carried a micrometer with them - every time I see folks discussing measuring patch material I get this image of some one like Bridger walking up to a trader's tent with mike in hand :hmm: - and no I do NOT think measuring is wrong for those who so choose to but my personal parameters are to do things as much like the frontiersman of the 1800-1859 era would have done - I just trial and error different materials that would been available back when and match and use what works best in that particular gun.)
Even thicker pieces of brain tan measuring in the .050" or so thickness will squish quite easily, especially when lubed, down to half that thickness. Over the last few years I have used quite a bit of leather for patching and it has worked fine in my 54 caliber rifles and smooth bores when using ball sizes of .526" or .530". Properly lubed with grease/oil of some sort they work just fine....I have also used a fair amount as wads in the smoothie by just using a "wad" of the buckskin and not a cut piece as wads normally are made.

While deerskins were valuable to some such as the long hunters the "regular" back woodsman, who IMO would have been more likely to use buckskin patches, would have had plenty of scrap left over from hides used to make moccasins and other gear. But even with the commercial hide hunters there would be the small hides and others not really fit for sale that could be used, plus again there would be scrap from hides used to make mocs, etc. At least in the east ground hog, squirrel, possum, etc could/would also likely be used and in fact these hides don't have to be tanned, just greased and softened which is much less work than tanning, and the same could be done with thin buckskin.
As always it is a matter of who, when, and where....

 

[Artificer]

Ox, bull, cow, pig and deer hides would be too thick as tanned and would have had to have been laboriously hand “skived” or thinned to get the leather thin enough to fit the size ball from the molds supplied with the rifle.

I measured the thickness of several thin pieces and got measurements from .10" to .035", with most in the .018" to .024", about the thickness of the pillow ticking I normally use. Even thicker pieces of brain tan measuring in the .050" or so thickness will squish quite easily, especially when lubed, down to half the thickness. Over the last few years I have used quite a bit of leather for patching and it has worked fine in my 54 caliber rifles and smooth bores when using ball sizes of .526" or .530". Properly lubed with grease/oil of some sort they work just fine....

Thank you for that information, I do not have anywhere close to the experience you have with brain tanned leather, though I have used some of it.

However, may I suggest you are helping me make my case? To use the brain tanned buckskin, you are using precision measuring instruments to measure your bore and the buckskin itself, plus you are taking advantage of modern industry to get molds that work in your bore size with the buckskin. Or am I wrongly assuming something? That way you can ensure even with the “squish factor” that the leather will fit your bore.

You made an excellent point about not having to tan some hides to use them for patching material. Still, would that not have been more unusual as untanned leather is only going to remain pliable for comparatively short while before it dries and hardens? Of course if they forced natural oils or grease or tallow into the hides, it would remain pliable longer and they did have those things available on the frontier. I do have to wonder if even oiled/greased untanned hides would smell enough to give away one’s position to animals or hostile humans that linen patches and tallow in the patch box or tin would not so readily give one away? (I do have experience at smelling hostile enemies before being close enough to see them or even when they are under cover and I am not nearly as good as a lot of the original NA’s and Frontiersmen were.)

Perhaps some rifles were bored so as to have a looser fit of the ball from the mold provided and linen patch material, so leather patches could be more commonly used? In a time period when a gunsmith could make a bore to fit whatever the customer wanted, this was quite possible.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

There are accounts that some rifles were thought or known to be much more accurate than other rifles in the 18th century. Perhaps a lot of that had to do with just how much "windage" or space of the bore around the ball from the mold provided with the rifle?

A looser fitting ball in some rifles would still have been "accurate enough" for hunting, especially back East with shorter ranges.
Gus

 

[LaBonte]

However, may I suggest you are helping me make my case? To use the brain tanned buckskin, you are using precision measuring instruments to measure your bore and the buckskin itself, plus you are taking advantage of modern industry to get molds that work in your bore size with the buckskin. Or am I wrongly assuming something? That way you can ensure even with the “squish factor” that the leather will fit your bore.

Yep you are assuming wrong. As I noted above I do not normally use a mic to measure patch material - my normal procedure again as noted is by feel along with trial and error. I only did it now to know for sure what the actual thickness is.

You made an excellent point about not having to tan some hides to use them for patching material. Still, would that not have been more unusual as untanned leather is only going to remain pliable for comparatively short while before it dries and hardens? Of course if they forced natural oils or grease or tallow into the hides, it would remain pliable longer and they did have those things available on the frontier. I do have to wonder if even oiled/greased untanned hides would smell enough to give away one’s position to animals or hostile humans that linen patches and tallow in the patch box or tin would not so readily give one away? (I do have experience at smelling hostile enemies before being close enough to see them or even when they are under cover and I am not nearly as good as a lot of the original NA’s and Frontiersmen were.)

A misconception - untanned hide aka rawhide has no more smell than tanned hide (less than brain tan that has been smoked which is what actually tans the hide) when kept from rotting, especially when greased/oiled which doesn't fry out anymore quickly than tanned hides - it only smells when left wet too long (generally not a problem with greased hides) or not prepared/dried properly and begins to rot. FWIW - I've not only examined hundreds of original pieces of rawhide repaired or made from gear and it only smells of the grease and or smoke that has been infused into from usage, plus I have pieces of my own gear with such repairs that I have used for 40+ years and no discordant odors -i.e. no more odor than my greased cloth patches or my hide clothes infused with the smoke odor. BTW - Moccasins in the past were often made from rawhide or greased rawhide and not just tanned hides, and they would smell no more than those made from tanned hides - since mocs are usually worn out there was often good reason not to take the extra effort to tan the hides.
I use tallow and/or bear grease to grease my rawhide gear and also use the same stuff for my cloth patches so there is no odor difference - IMO body odor would be the bigger difference.

And yep I know something about smelling the "enemy" - a friend with two tours in SE Asia told me how the week or so before going into "Indian" country he would eat nothing but the local fare with plenty of nuoc mam so his BO would not be discordant.

 

[Artificer]

Thanks for the explanations. I do appreciate it.

Most of my experience with untanned hides comes from Raccoon Hunting and leaving the skins to dry while untanned. However, we never tallowed, greased or oiled them. We just scraped as much fat off as we could and dried them on boards or wire racks - then sold them later to fur buyers. The smell of those things would travel a long way in the woods.

Gus

 

[Rifleman1776]

fellow Alaskan shooters. Being so far from America

:shocked2: Get yer haid outa the ice and buy a new calendar. And a newspaper while yer at it. :wink: :rotf:

 

[Wes/Tex]

Years ago I collected a whole notebook full of quotes from old sources about leather patches...when last seen, it was headed for Galveston Bay down Chocolate Bayou thanks to Hurricane Elisa! Some of the original sources went with them...it's so depressing to even think of it.
It's all I've used for some years now just because I'm contrary. What I've learned is that they compress better and fill windage better than cloth; do not smolder on the ground and can generally be reused if necessary unless cut by sharp rifling edges!

As for the Baker rifle balls, a number of original balls were found in stores some years back that had been put there about 1810+/-, there's some difference of opinion. Point is, patches are pig skin and was originally lubed with some sort of natural lard. They are attached to the balls with some unknown substance that is popular with mice. I would bet on the lard lube but it's another point of contention among the wise! :wink: :rotf:

 

[robinghewitt]

As for the Baker rifle balls, a number of original balls were found in stores some years back that had been put there about 1810+/-, there's some difference of opinion.

I bought one of those balls and it wasn't for the Baker which is 20 gauge.

I spent some months trying to persuade a Baker to stay on target at 100 yards with a leather patch, but my problem was Zeke's hemispherical rifling :shocked2:

In his remarks on the rifle, Baker says the soldiers should be instructed in lubing the patch but forgets to mention how it was done :idunno: