Short Starters?!

[Deadeye]

I believe people of the frontier used common sence in most things they did, if their common sence said to use a short starter, they did.
Mine says to use one and I do. Probably depended a lot on what patching they had and what size ball their mold produced. Fabric shops were few and far between in those days. Logic says that at sometime someone had to use one.

 

[Claude Mathis]

It all comes down to what you want out of your shooting experience.

I understand that some get passable accuracy from a loose ball and thick patch, but if you are trying to attain Dutch's 50 point certificate, I think that you will find that a bigger ball is a better choice.

I think you've pretty much summed it up. It's what the person wants from their experience.

I choose to use a method that offers me what I think a real life situation on the frontier would be, as opposed to shooting at my local gun club. For that reason, I don't want a load that requires a short starter, range rod, or anything else that I don't see my persona carrying.

My goal isn't to seek the best accuracy from a bench, so if it isn't fast and easy in the field, it's not for me. I can kill a deer at a reasonable distance and reload fast enough to meet my criteria for a real life situation in the 18th century.

DISCLAIMER: I'm offering what I want from my "shooting experience". I'm not suggesting that anyone do this or change their methods. There is no right or wrong method.

 

[Richard Allen]

Texan's opening statement was "I'm not meaning to start a fight here, but I'm going to ask anyways... are short starters really historically accurate? I know there are examples of them existing."

If I interpreted that correctly, he wants to know if short starters were in use some time in the past. Of course they were. There is documented proof, including photos, of their use in the 1900s. But I haven't been able to find anyone that can provide documented evidence that short starters were in use prior to 1840, which is the period most of us appear to be most interested in.

Trying to justify using tools that are common today by saying our ancestors had sense enough to use short starters for starting tight balls doesn't prove they were in use. I believe the folks on the frontier from the 1600s through 1800 were very resourceful and and we would probably be amazed at the extent of their common knowledge if they had documented everything they did. Unfortunately they didn't.

I can neither prove not disprove that short starters were in use, but I am not willing to support the theory that they were in use unless I can produce documented evidence to support them. If anyone can provide documented evidence that proves short starters were in use in this country between 1600 and 1840, I will gladly support the use of short starters.

Having shot tight ball and patch combinations for several years, including some balls that were larger than the bore diameter of the rifle they were loaded into, I can document that those tighter combinations provided better accuracy for me.

I personally believe our ancestors used smaller balls and thicker greased patches that are usually used today.

Richard/Ga.

 

[Hoyt]

I use a traditional short starter...bout the only tool I never forget..my thumb.

 

I have a back issue of Muzzleblasts that has a photo of a loading block with an attatched short starter. The article claimed that these items dated to the 1760s or so. I just spent a few minutes looking for it to give you the issue date of the magazine but I can't find it now. I'm sure someone here remembers that one page article.

 

[mikelange]

I lay a corner of my patching material over the muzzle and a .490" ball (.50 caliber, obviously) over that. The butt of my patch knife pushes the ball/patch combo down flush with the end of the barrel; I turn my hand over and slice the excess cloth away, and the cloth and knife get put away. From that point on the ramrod does the rest. I can load, prime, and deliver an aimed shot in less than thirty seconds, assuming I'm not having powder fouling issues and that no one's shooting back at me -- neither of which a short starter would be of help with, anyhow. So, that's a piece of equipment for which I have no need.

 

[Claude Mathis]

I have a back issue of Muzzleblasts that has a photo of a loading block with an attatched short starter. The article claimed that these items dated to the 1760s or so. I just spent a few minutes looking for it to give you the issue date of the magazine but I can't find it now. I'm sure someone here remembers that one page article.

I think I know the one you mean and that photo has been posted here before.

I made a loading block a long time ago and made a "starter" to use with it. The only reason I did, is because it's hard to get the ball out of the block with out it. The starter is just long enough to push the ball down flush with the muzzle. Yes, you can use the ramrod, like Mark Baker demonstrates, but I chose the starter because I was into gadgets at the time.

Now that my muzzle coned, I push the ball flush with my thumb, then drive it home with the rod.

Here's mine.