powder horn base plug

[Brasilikilt]

I simply did an image search on Google for "treadle lathe" and after a bit of looking, got the pic which best represents the style of lathe which was used in the 18th century.
I imagine that a horn maker wouldn't need a lathe quite that big

 

[riarcher]

Again, I'm not thinking "Store bought/traded for", I'm thinking a poor guy just trying to carve out a living with barely enough money for the farm, and crude family living expenses. I doubt this guy would buy much of anything he or his family could make (or make due without). I feel projects like this wouldbe planned for days of "can't work the field" weather/seasons or as oppertunities presented them selves. The days before radio, TV, Computers, automobile, electric heat, microwave ovens and etc. found folks pretty much shut-in during winter's mos.
Matter of fact; I remember simular situations with the family around the mid 1950's. We didn't buy what we could make. Remember when women sewed, darnd sox? Men would get together to butcher pigs, beef, hand dig a well, hand dig a cellar AFTER the house was built and such? Many in the family raised their own chickens for meat and eggs. Just don't see much of that happening anymore, or at least I don't around here.
And in the earlier days,, I can vision the average joe doing his own horn with whatever he had available and few probably had the lath as you show in the barn when he'd be concerned about affording crop seed more.
(Just my thoughts on the subject)

 

Actually, the polished horns are too shiny to be histrically correct.

And you know this how?

You're not suggesting that it was impossible to polish a horn in the 18th century or that people refused to do so are you?

Sometimes we have a "vision" of what life was like "back then", but it's not always accurate.

 

I'm sure the gentlemen of the day carried very precisely made and well decorated/polished horns along with their fancy rifles. I'm sure those "showpiece" horns existed, possibly in abundance.

But I would tend to think the common longhunter, woodsman, or trapper/mountainman would have a much more plain, "rough looking" horn of a more utilitarian nature.

I agree with both statements. I also tend to think that the average, store-bought horn, that most people had, was not as "rustic" as we'd like to think. It was probably mass produced in Europe and sold at every store and post.

Not all frontier folk ate from wooden bowls and drank from horn cups. They had access to stores and the mass produced goods sold there.

As for a polished horn; mine is becoming more polished with use. The rubbing from my hands and clothing is doing a fine job, so the more a horn was used in the field, the more polished it might become - not the other way around.

It appears that we can carry any style of horn we like and be "correct".

No hard feelings... Just an opinion...

Me too.

 

[Legionair]

:thumbsup: :hatsoff:

Legion

 

[Swampman]

I like used and rough looking. I don't think that necessarily translates into poor workmanship.

 

[beverlyh]

Horns were produced in larger quantities during the 1700's in "factories". There are records of people who's job was "Horn Roasters" a process for softening the horn to fit lathe turned base plugs.

 

[Norskie]

One very good reason to round a horn is this: a rounded horn holds more. Visualize the geometry.

 

[dlemaster]

The only thing I would add to this discussion is that I own 4 original horns, one of which may date to the 18th century. They all have one thing in common, the bases are perfectly round. Two of these horns are diffinitely hand made by less than professional hands, judging from the style and quality of workmanship. Only one, a Lancaster style screw tip horn, was made professionally. The plain style horns all have smooth finished pine plugs while the Lancaster horn has a turned
walnut plug.
I am not a horner by any means but I have made several powder horns. I have made them both with the round plug and an carved plug to fit the natural shape of the horn. I can say without a doubt it is faster for me to fit the round plug than a natural shaped plug. Someone elses experience may be different.

Regards, Dave

 

[Harddog]

One very good reason to round a horn is this: a rounded horn holds more. Visualize the geometry.

Huh??? Explain this one to me will you?

Randy Hedden

 

[Black Hand]

One very good reason to round a horn is this: a rounded horn holds more. Visualize the geometry.

I respectfully disagree. The difference in shape seems to merely re-distribute the volume. Oval or round shouldn't make a difference.

It is just easier to fit a plug into a round end that to custom-fit one to an irregular shape.

 

[riarcher]

Well, perhaps I'm not PC, but I make my horns with fitted (not round) plugs and I don't really find it that difficult. Definately no more so than a flat horn,,,, possibly easier.
Anyways, I connceed. Fitted plugs are not PC.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

One very good reason to round a horn is this: a rounded horn holds more. Visualize the geometry.

Huh??? Explain this one to me will you?

Randy Hedden

Simple, visualize a totally flattened horn. It won't hold anything at all. Now expand it to its' maximum volume and you'll find it is round. For a given circumference a perfect circle has a greater area than an oval. Stuff a plastic sandwitch bag with all the popcorn you can get into it and ,guess what, it's darn near round! :grin:

 

[Legionair]

I understand your thinking... but unless "flattening" a horn completely flat (insides touching), interior volume is not going to be affected.

Tie some string in a circle. Calculate its square inches. If you pull it into an oval, the interior distance around the string is the same.

Same with water displacement. If it holds a pint while round, it will hold a pint when ovaled...UNLESS it is streched. You might get a few grains extra that way, but not much.

Legion

 

[catskin]

Gentlemen, it may be easy enough to figure out, go into the kitchen and take a plastic cup, fill it with water to the top, and squeeze it to create and oval - watch the water level.

:shocked2:

 

[AZ-Robert]

Tie some string in a circle. Calculate its square inches. If you pull it into an oval, the interior distance around the string is the same.

True, but be careful not to mix apples and pears. The perimeter won't change, but the area encompassed will change. That said, the amount of change is probably not enough to outweigh other factors like which look you like best, which is easier to make, etc.

I have Dana's shade looking over my shoulder as I type the rest of this , but for those so inclined...

- the perimeter of a circle is 2 * pi * radius; its area is pi * square of radius;

- the permeter of an oval is (ready?) pi * (1.5 * (major axis + minor axis) - (square root of (major axis * minor axis))); its area is pi * major axis * minor axis

Cutting to the chase, a circle about 2" across has a perimeter of exactly 6" and has an area of about 2.8646 square inches (rounded).

Squeeze that circle so that it is only 1.75" across (and forcing it to bulge slightly on the other axis) and it still has a perimeter of 6" but now has an area of only 2.838 square inches (rounded).

Not enough of a difference to fret over :grin:

 

[riarcher]

Laymans terms;
12 oz Bud can.
Pop the top and drink.
Throw can down.
Stomp on the center without crushing ends.
Puke 12 oz back into can.
OOOOPS! don't fit. :blah: :rotf: :v

 

[AZ-Robert]

But in this case, that is probably only because of the chunks! :v

 

[riarcher]

:thumbsup:

 

[Norskie]

Figgered I'd start a round of debate with that one. Thats how we gets educamated.
:grin:
Moose