Short starters/ball starters

[SgtErv]

Ive seen a fair number of folks on the forum that say they don't use short starters. There is also no historical reference that I know of indicating their use.

Historically, though, from my understanding most - if not all - rifle barrels were "coned."

So, for those who don't use them, what is your workaround? I would love to not have to use one, but in a .50 cal Rice barrel that requires .018 patch and .490 ball, I can't get away from it. Do most of that don't use them have coned barrels or are you just using a very thin patch or undersized ball, or both? If the latter, are you getting decent accuracy?

Thanks! This should be a lively discussion haha

 

[George]

Ive seen a fair number of folks on the forum that say they don't use short starters. There is also no historical reference that I know of indicating their use.

The earliest reference I have to their use is in 1808 in England.
_Scloppetaria: or Considerations on the nature and use of rifled barrel guns, with reference to their forming the basis of a permanent system of national defence, agreeable to the genius of the country_, by Capt. Henry Beaufroy, 1808

"As it always happens, that the greatest difficulty in loading, is in first forcing the ball into the barrel, most riflemen carry either a small mallet, or what is called a rammer, either of wood or brass, a little countersunk at the end so as to obviate the possibility of injuring the front sight, by its slipping off the convex sphere of the ball."

And the rammer:

Historically, though, from my understanding most - if not all - rifle barrels were "coned."

The only reference I've found to anything which could reasonably be called coning is from Portugal in late 17th century or very early 18th. Do you have any from mid to late 18th?

Spence

 

[Black Hand]

60 cal ball and pillow ticking patch (0.015-0.018) lubed with bear grease (62 cal Rice Barrel, not coned.). I can push the ball in enough to keep it in place then choke-up on the rammer to get it started before seating it fully. If my fingers are cold, I place the patch/ball on the muzzle, smack it with the handle of my knife then seat it with the rammer.

Even with the tight combination, I have little problem getting the ball started & seated with the rammer.

 

[George]

I use a short starter when shooting my small caliber rifles, but that's not usually in a historic setting. When I'm trying to do it the way the old boys did, I don't use one. I've found that I can press the ball into the muzzle far enough that it will stay in place with just my thumb. I then lay the blade of my belt knife on it and smack it with the heel of my hand to get it started, then press it level with the muzzle using the butt of the knife, and it will engage the bore. Once it is in the bore it's no problem to ram it with my wooden ramrod. I've done this for a long time, never had a single problem with it.

Spence

 

[George]

Historically, though, from my understanding most - if not all - rifle barrels were "coned."

I don't have a coned rifle, but I do have an original smooth rifle from late 18th century which is coned. It is coned much more than modern barrels, as I understand it. The gun is a 28 gauge, bore measures .55" to within about 1 1/2" of the muzzle, then it flares to full 20 gauge, .61". I shoot both ball and shot in the gun, and I've been surprised how that cone effects the loading. It is a big help in loading shot, you can just jump any wads into the muzzle and they will straighten up and go down easily when rammed, and that includes both commercial wads and such stuff as tow or cedar bark. Shot the same, easy to hit the bore, dump it in. When loading ball, though, and using the modern method of patched ball, the cone is a problem. If you lay the patch on the muzzle and put the ball on it, it's very difficult to get it lined up in the center. You really have to pay attention to make certain the ball stays adequately centered on the patch until you can push it down far enough to engage the bore to hold everything in place. If you cut at the muzzle it is also a problem, like trying to cut the patch while it's suspended in midair. It's much slower than loading a non-coned barrel, in my hands. However, if you are using loose wadding such as tow, or if you are using cut wadding of any type but bare ball, no patch, then it if very quick and easy to load.

Based on my experience with this one gun...for what little that is worth... I concluded that this gun was not made to be used with patched ball. I'm always looking for evidence to proove my theory. :haha:

Spence

 

[Flintlock_bob]

If you have trouble starting a ball and you figure out how to make a short starter to make it easier I don't think it would be "historically incorrect".

If people living back in those days had the same problem loading a ball I'll bet someone made a short starter. I doubt they said, "aint no one else doing it so it must not be correct". It's not like we are so much smarter that we came up with it in modern times.

And if they didn't need a starter because the barrels were coned then our modern non-coned rifles are "historically incorrect" so it doesn't matter if you use a starter LOL.

Just MHO, your mileage may vary

 

[Maven]

A couple of questions: (1) Is it really true that "most, if not all, rifle barrels were coned"? (2) Were tight patch & RB combinations commonly or most often used in the past? (3) Were most long arms rifled since a smoothbore was cheaper to produce and cost less to boot? (Specie/hard cash was not common either, and maybe not as necessary in a barter economy.)

Btw, the only long gun I own which I can thumb start the patch & RB is my 20ga. trade gun, and only if I use a .597" - .600" RB and a .014" thick patch. No way I can do that with my coned Isaac Haines (Chambers; R. Rice .54cal. bbl.).

 

[Black Hand]

If you have trouble starting a ball and you figure out how to make a short starter to make it easier I don't think it would be "historically incorrect".

Yet the historical record of artifacts, books, probate lists and other resources indeed show that short-starters were not used (except in few, very specific times/places).

If people living back in those days had the same problem loading a ball I'll bet someone made a short starter. I doubt they said, "aint no one else doing it so it must not be correct". It's not like we are so much smarter that we came up with it in modern times.

See above. Why carry something that was already part of the gun? The rammer will start and seat the ball and an extra specialized doo-dad was/is unnecessary. Frankly speaking, many modern shooters of muzzleloaders carry too much useless manure because they feel the need to have something specialized to do a job (e.g. A patch knife - Is there something wrong with the knife in your pocket, bag or belt?).

And if they didn't need a starter because the barrels were coned then our modern non-coned rifles are "historically incorrect" so it doesn't matter if you use a starter

I think it would be inaccurate to say all/most of the guns were coned.

 

[Black Hand]

A couple of questions: (1) Is it really true that "most, if not all, rifle barrels were coned"? (2) Were tight patch & RB combinations commonly or most often used in the past? (3) Were most long arms rifled since a smoothbore was cheaper to produce and cost less to boot? (Specie/hard cash was not common either, and maybe not as necessary in a barter economy.)

1) Evidence seems to indicate most/all rifles were not coned.
2) They were not concerned with the pin-point accuracy that some shooters desire today. Looser combinations were likely the norm (easier to load) as food and enemies were large targets.
3) Rifles were far less common early than most would want to believe. A common gun was most likely a smoothbore.

 

[Zonie]

With all of this talk about historical writings justifying or invalidating the use of a short starter, I wonder.

Personally, I think the original owners used much thinner patches or smaller balls than we use.
Either of these would permit thumb starting, making the use of a short starter unnecessary.

As coned barrels were brought up I'll add, I have yet to see any writings that describe coning or tapering the bore at the muzzle being used by any gun maker in any of the original guns rifled barrels.

 

[hanshi]

While I can't do it now (arthritis) I use to press the prb in and do it all with the ramrod. Not that difficult if your hands are in good condition.

 

[Spikebuck]

I think back to the last few minutes of the Williamsburg Gunsmith video showing Wallace Gusler shooting the new rifle he just built entirely from scratch...and made a mold for. He fairly easily pushes the spit-patched ball into end of the barrel flush with the muzzle, then uses his rammer to push it down, and not with much difficulty. I also noticed that for the distance it showed him shooting, the group was probably not anything anyone today would brag too much about..."minute of deer" is what I would call it.

I think it's probably fair to think that in a video about making a rifle from scratch, Mr. Gusler also made a "period appropriate" ball mold and ball and used a patch that would be PC. I could be wrong as I don't have historical documents to refer to, but I agree with Zonie that the patch/ball combinations were probably looser than many use today. And as Black Hand said, they were probably more concerned with enough accuracy to kill game or other dangers to them than punching paper perfectly. :2

 

[SgtErv]

This is a fascinating discussion...

1. I believe I'm guilty of a false equivalency with assuming that the coning of barrels was what obviated the use of short starters. Ive not examined enough original muzzeloaders to know. I'll readily own that mistake haha.

2. I really didn't think of using other items in lieu of a short starter for the same purpose, like a knife handle. Not sure why I didn't, considering I have done it before, albeit only once.

Neat find on the early 19th century starter, Spence!

The main question after reading through this discussion left, I think, is whether they used a ball/patch combo as tight as we did. It's quite possible that they did not. If one can achieve decent accuracy at hunting ranges in the forests, might not need to bother with something difficult to load. More than likely it was the luck of whatever bit of rag a person had; some weaves and thicknesses might be preferred, but one would use what worked. Unless some fabric was used specifally for patches (unlikely imo), said rag would have been washed and well worn.

This is a super interesting discussion. Really trying to refine my impression over this winter through reading/talking, so this is much appreciated

 

[bpd303]

What I remember from hunting with my grandfather in the late '50s, him with his .36 Ohio flintlock which he had as a young man, he was born in 1884.

He had a belt knife that was scary sharp and had a "knob" on the pommel a little smaller than the bore. He would dump his powder from the measure, lick a strip of cloth and rub it on the grease hole in the stock, set the cloth and ball at the muzzle and start the ball with the knife handle and cut the cloth then ram the ball home with his ramrod.

His accuracy was squirrel head every time, never remember him shooting paper targets.

Btw: he could load his rifle in about the same time it took me to put a cartridge in my Crack Shot .22 rifle. :grin:

 

[BrownBear]

Once upon a time I got out in the hills without a short starter. It was a hunt for snowshoe hare with lots of shooting, and the ball/patch combo for my 32 was pretty tight. In desperation I reversed my knife and smacked the ball with the butt of the hilt to get it down flush with the muzzle.

Then I cut the patch, sheathed the knife, choked up real tight on my rod (about half an inch showing below my hand) and gave the ball a shove. From then on it was normal seating.

Worked so well it's close to becoming a habit. More often than not I do it in all calibers without a thought of the short starter sitting right there in my bag. Next up may be eliminating the short starter altogether.

Makes real good sense to me since I'm cutting my patches at the muzzle, and the knife is already right there in my hand.

 

[Cruzatte]

Ive seen a fair number of folks on the forum that say they don't use short starters. There is also no historical reference that I know of indicating their use.

Historically, though, from my understanding most - if not all - rifle barrels were "coned."

So, for those who don't use them, what is your workaround? I would love to not have to use one, but in a .50 cal Rice barrel that requires .018 patch and .490 ball, I can't get away from it. Do most of that don't use them have coned barrels or are you just using a very thin patch or undersized ball, or both? If the latter, are you getting decent accuracy?

Thanks! This should be a lively discussion haha

I don't use a short starter. I ordered a tool from a fellow named Joe Wood and coned the barrel on my rifle myself. It is a .54 Colerain swamped C weight barrel and is 44" long with a 1:66 twist (I think. Although the Colerain website says 1:56. I've had this rifle for over 15 years now. Things could have changed over at Colerain) The load i use is 70 gr. 3fg, a .530" ball, and .010" linen patching (from left over material from my last shirt) Lube is Stumpy's Moose Milk, which is allowed to dry. I thumb start the ball and patch, and trim the patch on the muzzle. Then push it home on top of the powder charge, using a hickory ramrod. That's it. So yeah, I'd say I'm getting good accuracy....providing I can hold my rifle steady! :grin:

 

[coloradoclyde]

I too once found myself without a ball starter.....found out my tiny CVA brass cylindrical flask made a good ball starter when inverted and using the spout to push the ball down the barrel....

 

[coloradoclyde]

The 19th century manual of land warfare, describes....

Bell Mouth
A widening of the muzzle of a muzzleloader, it made the gun easier to load and reduced cracks around the muzzle by reducing pressure on the tube's thinnest part.

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Thank you for providing the engraving of the mallet/rammer. That is fascinating.

SgtErv,

A while back, forum member Elnathan provided us with the following period quote. So far it appears one of the earliest Civilian American quotes on loading a Rifle Gun.

"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”¦."
Audubon Journals, Vol. 2, (1972 reprint), page 492.

We don't know for sure what material the knife handle was made from in the quote above, but more than likely it was wood.

More coming on period muzzle crowing, etc. in the next post.

Gus

 

[tenngun]

A couple of questions: (1) Is it really true that "most, if not all, rifle barrels were coned"? (2) Were tight patch & RB combinations commonly or most often used in the past? (3) Were most long arms rifled since a smoothbore was cheaper to produce and cost less to boot? (Specie/hard cash was not common either, and maybe not as necessary in a barter economy.)

1) Evidence seems to indicate most/all rifles were not coned.
2) They were not concerned with the pin-point accuracy that some shooters desire today. Looser combinations were likely the norm (easier to load) as food and enemies were large targets.
3) Rifles were far less common early than most would want to believe. A common gun was most likely a smoothbore.

We haves kicked this around before and I have a different
point of view, but BH point on this is very good. We will go out and play at smallest group today. Different lubes and ball/ patch combos are tried over different powder charges and grain size. A two inch group at 50 yards won't win you a ribbon. And we might be ashamed of 4 inch at the same range.while a ten inch group puts red coats in the ground and meat on the table.i think they would laugh at us trying a .526 vs a.530vs.535 today, or 70 grains vs 75 or 65, or worse 68. I shoot a ball that looks good and I think they would laugh at people trying to get +-1 grain in a ~230 grain ball.