Patch Knife?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If anyone knows of extant neck-knives worn about the neck exclusively, I'd be interested in documentation.

Requests like that fall into the same category as never saying "never", or "always", etc. I believe someone had to wear one at one, or a thousand, times in the history of our period. At ronny and woods walk shoots I use one. I originally made the sheath for this purpose only because it is, to me, a handy way to carry a small knife. I wasn't thinking about pc/hc just what would work for me. In my experience large knives are more showy than useful. Small knives are reached for many times in a day for a myriad of tasks, cutting at the muzzle is only one of them.
 
Rifleman1776 said:
If anyone knows of extant neck-knives worn about the neck exclusively, I'd be interested in documentation.

Requests like that fall into the same category as never saying "never", or "always", etc.
Not really.
The length of the thong would be indicative of its final location...
 
Rifleman1776 said:
I wasn't thinking about pc/hc just what would work for me.

Even when selecting for show, that has to be the bottom line. If something isn't useful to you as well, it's just a pretty geegaw you're strapping on to look purty.

I'm not in the show circuit, but usefulness is my first consideration even if I look to history for comparable examples. I'm in the throes of collecting parts for a small knife (6" overall), not because I think "patch" knives need to be small, but because I want it to drop INTO my bag (sheathed, of course). In our brush they just never work out on the outside of a bag, on a strap, and sometimes even on my belt.
 
A) I'm pretty sure that there is a period account of a fight between a white and an Indian from sometime in the 1790s that mentions a knife hung from a shooting bag. Unfortunately that is all that I remember - I saw it a very long time ago and while the date stuck in my mind the rest I have forgotten.

Having said that, there is a very practical reason not to do so - if the knife sheath is attached to the shooting bag then one has to be wearing the bag to keep the knife handy. Unless they were under threat of imminent attack I doubt pioneers wore their shooting bags while working around the farm, as they would get heavy and in the way, and they would have needed their knives regularly. (There is another account that mentions a man, who when getting set to go hunting, went to get "the butcher knife" from his wife. Apparently they had only one in the family. I expect he had a folder as well, but the account does indicate that not everyone had multiple sheath knives available.)
I use a razor knife at work all the time, and while it nominally lives in my tool pouch I often end up depositing the heavy pouch somewhere and slipping the knife into a pocket. I expect that a similar dynamic was in play for someone out mowing hay or hoeing weeds and needed a knife handy for odd jobs.


B) I believe that the Native neck knives and sheaths had religious significance and where usually dedicated scalping (function, not design) or war knives. I think that they used other knives (often folders) for mundane purposes.


C) Doddridge is writing with a specific purpose in mind: To inform those young frivolous whippersnappers of how his father's generation lived. Self-sufficiency and plain living are his theme, and he is going to play those up for all they are worth. His comments about awls probably should be taken more as a critique of a generation that couldn't mend their own shoes than an indication of how every frontiersman carried his awl per se.

So, yeah, read his descriptions of frontier living as an oblique explanation of why he disapproves of his granddaughter's desire for a set of soft dancing shoes. :wink:
 
Smokey Plainsman said:
Sounds good to me. I think I'll get a smaller one (3-4" blade) and attach it to my strap. Got my little custom .36 squirrel rifle about to be delivered, so just getting my shooting things ready. :)

I'd suggest trying cutting at the muzzle first before you invest time or money....
You may find out like I have "repeatedly" that you much prefer precut patches.... :2
 
Yes, each way has its "charm". Cutting at the muzzle requires that you carry a very sharp knife in addition to everything else that you have in your possibles bag. It is also a bit more "fiddly". But, the advantage is that it guarantees that the ball will be perfectly centered on the patch. Precut patches are a lot more simple to use but one has to be careful to get the ball centered on the patch. The general consensus is that for greatest accuracy, one needs to have the ball perfectly centered on the patch. That is the consensus and I have advocated such myself for years. However, does anyone have any documentation of experimentation that actually verifies this to be true? I am not taking the position that it is not true, I am just asking if there is sufficient empirical evidence that it is true? Do we know it to be true or do we just believe it to be true? I would love to see the results of a properly conducted scientific experiment that would answer this question.
Me?..... :idunno:
 
Billnpatti said:
...does anyone have any documentation of experimentation that actually verifies this to be true? I am not taking the position that it is not true, I am just asking if there is sufficient empirical evidence that it is true? Do we know it to be true or do we just believe it to be true? I would love to see the results of a properly conducted scientific experiment that would answer this question.


Yeah, I do. But darned if I can find it at the moment for a better citation. But long ago there was a guy who was all about shooting Tennessee long rifles, and he did a whole lot of shooting and testing. Heck, if my memory is really on top of it the book might even be called "Shooting the Tennessee Longrifle." As memory serves he was ultimately killed when one of them blew up on him. Anyone help my aging memory? Meanwhile I'll keep digging for that book.

Anyway, his book was the first I'd seen that talked about and tested centering patches for top accuracy. And he claimed it made a big difference.

As for fiddly, I find digging for precut patches, pulling them apart, and getting them lined up a lot more fiddly than cutting at the muzzle, so it's pretty much a standoff at the ole fiddling contest. :grin:
 
I find pre-cut patches and the use of ball boards much easier to use for hunting. No need for a patch knife or thong.
 
I like to use loading blocks, too. I made a bunch of .50 cal. blocks a few days ago and tested them out at the range. Love 'em! I put the patch material on the board and seat ball into the board. I then cut the material at the board the same as cutting at the muzzle. The ball is perfectly centered on the patch every time. I now need to make a bunch of .36's, .40's, .45's and .54's. Time for a bit of fun in the wood shop. Now where did I put that other maple board? :hmm:
 
Loading blocks/ball blocks, I have them from .32 to 56, they range from 5 holes to 10 holes in each caliber.

They are fun to make and end the useless clutter that was in the the bag.

When it is really cold, last thing I want to do is to cut at the muzzle and cut myself cutting patches at the muzzle.
 
BrownBear said:
Guys get their panties bunched up over loading blocks, but I see quite a few of them in Grant's photos.

If folks do not like what I do on my property, (loading blocks), they are not welcome through the gate.

Again, simple to me.
 
Thanks, gang.

I have just heard from several sources (including Dutch Schoultz) that cutting at the muzzle is the way to go for accuracy.

I plan to use the gun for squirrels sure, but also as my primary shooter and to plink and do target practice with.
 
Why do the High Master shooters at Phoenix and Friendship all use pre-cut patches then, if cutting at the muzzle is better?

The top shooters in the Texas Championships use pre-cut patches, wonder why???, they win...

Ask Dutch how many National Records he holds.

Please provide your insight and experience with both methods.
 
Richard Eames said:
I find pre-cut patches and the use of ball boards much easier to use for hunting. No need for a patch knife or thong.

Geez,I thoughtI was the only one wearing a thong out shootin! wait'll the wife reads THIS! :rotf:

If Dutch's thing was shootin for championships I may ahve been bettin on Dutch myself :idunno: He has put in the time. I only shoot against myself, (or I'd be buying brownbear coffe for a year! :haha: )
 
You have some good questions there. Pre-cut seems to have been the most common type of patching in the 18th c.,at least, if not even later on. I've read one personal account of the siege of Boonesboro that mentioned the women pre-cutting patches for the men while the fighting was going on. These with little doubt would have been square cut. I make mine round, but do not believe there would be any difference. Less waste with square patching. Loading blocks? I use one when hunting, but am not convinced they existed before the 19th c. No one has presented a loading block that can be documented to 18th c., and not even mentioned in print anywhere. Possible, but so far not provable as with patch knives. There is but little evidence of priming horns either. Maybe so, maybe not. Many small horns may have been for salt rather than powder. Many questions, but few provable answers.
 
Back
Top