This is all very true friends.
I remember this same conversation on several forums, and it always tends to end the same.
Many people tend to think they have discovered something new. There is little that is new inside of traditional stuff and has not been thought of before. I would imagine anything we can think of has been done at some point.
I would think, that as rifles became increasingly common, those with SBs would watch the loading procedure and try the same thing. I know I did, way before i read anything on internet forums. But i'm an experimenter. Most innovations started with some sort of example that sparked an idea. Remind me to tell you about loading blocks sometime..
The Caveat is not using a modern "example"
Not everything was documented. Its quite possible that people found no value in patching a SB and as such lost interest. We must bear in mind, that with a few exceptions, Most people regarded FLs as a tool and did not revolve their lives around talking about them. They did what worked for them and forgot about it.
I have seemed to notice a bit of difference with a patched ball, but not enough to use it in common day to day shooting. I admit i do little competition stuff, so really not been too motivated, and since, have gone to buckshot pretty much.
Documents are funny stuff. Don't fall into that pit. Not many documents about wrapping the handle of a hammer with grip tape either, but we know it was commonly done before rubber handles.
This said... What do you all think about the theory of "roughing" the ball for accuracy ? That is making dimples on it like a golf ball. This i have NOT tried. (Did Golf balls of 1700s have dimples ?)
((Update))
Apparently not....
http://www.scottishgolfhistory.org/origin-of-golf-terms/golf-ball-feathery-gutty-haskell/
Which lends back to the question ? Roughing a ball for accuracy or distance ?
