starting ball without short starter

[Don B]

IF ONE ASSUMES that 18th century riflemen didn’t use short starters or loading blocks, and cut their patches at the muzzle, how did they seat the ball into position to cut the patch? Were their barrels coned so they could thumb-start the ball over the patch? Or were their ball/patch combos loose enough in the barrel to allow a thumb-start? Or is there some other option?

Don

 

[nchawkeye]

They used the butt of their knife...

Disclaimer...Just a swag and NO, I don't have documentation...It's just what I do... :grin:

 

[mazo kid]

Since we are assuming here, this is my assumption....They could have used the knife handle (or blade) to seat the ball flush, hitting it with the palm of their hand and then used the ramrod to seat the ball in the breech. I coned 3 of my rifle barrels and it makes a world of difference in the ease of loading.

 

[rabbit03]

Hi Don, carefull on those assumptins!!

I would think all of the above and more actually. They might have had short starters, we know they did have coned muzzles at times, and I would imagine that the balls were close to bore sized perhaps but maybe not near enough to need a short starter though.

If it were me, and I have done this before, I would simply use the but of my knife to knock it in and then cut the patch. Bet that was done too more than once.

rabbit03

 

[Swampman]

I don't believe they cut their patch at the muzzle. I use precut patches, and my ramrod (to start) and load my rifle. I believe that's what they did.

 

[Blizzard of '93]

ditto Mark. surely they had at least a few precut patches, loading blocks were predominitaly in use also.

 

[shortstring]

To me it stands to reason that things weren't all that different than they are now. Probably some cut at the muzzle, others precut, some were tight while others were loose. The same person might have used one load for hunting & another for "shootin the mark" Just as today when you can find all sorts of loading rituals.

Paul

 

[Swampman]

I've never understood using 2 loads. I just use the most accurate load for everything.

 

[fallaloosa]

ditto Mark. surely they had at least a few precut patches, loading blocks were predominitaly in use also.

actually,there is no documentation to support the use of loading blocks in the 18th century. There was one that turned up supposedly from the period but it was determined to be a fake. Think about it, these guys traveled as lightly as possible when out hunting or during warfare. Why would they want something as cumbersome as a loading block hanging off them? Loading blocks are a 20th century invention cause someone thought they would be cool and make a "speedloader". Short starters were not used either. The most likely scenario to starting a ball was a slightly undersized ball thumb pressed into the muzzle. Others may disagree and if you can document either short starters or loading blocks, please do and I'll stand corrected. :v

 

[roundball]

Actually, a couple years ago on this Forum somebody posted documentation and a museum photo of a short starter from the Revolutionery War era

 

[rabbit03]

I agree with you Mark about the most accurate loads however I could also see a use for a not as accurate/easier to load patched ball in a hunting scenario also. Keep in mind though that I shoot in matches that require a very tight fitting ball but when hunting I could sacrifice a bit of pinpoint accuracy I suppose (although I don't) and opt for a smaller ball, one that you don't have to beat in like we do at the matches.

But I could certainly see an easier loading ball, one that would not be as accurate as we shoot at these shoots. :thumbsup:

rabbit03

 

[Swampman]

I don't find the tight fitting combos any more accurate. Struggling to load the gun gives me the shakes after 4 or 5 shots.

 

[rabbit03]

Not us, we just use a big mallet to knock them in!

If you were shooting in Brady with us then you would see first hand how much more accurate your rifle would be with a tight fitting patched ball.

No kidding

rabbit03

 

[Swampman]

I shot in matches for years.

 

[Ohio Rusty]

They used a tad smaller ball and a thicker patch, and I base that on what I know from original patch material. Material in the 18th century, like homespun, would vary in thickness anywhere from 15 thou's to 19 thou's in thickness. Three original patches that were measured for me measured 16 thou's, 16 thou's and 17 thou's. That is alot thicker than the 10 thou's factory made material we buy today. If they needed to load fast, a smaller ball and thicker patch would seal the bore and easily start without the aid of a short starter or butt of a knife. The thicker patch had more give so it could compress easily. A big ball and a thick patrch almost requires a mallet toi get that load started, and we know they didn't carry mallets.
Ohio Rusty >

 

[redwing]

Many of the "Original Bags" with contents in tack still exist. The ones that I have seen almost always have some thick patches, and Wasp or Hornet nest for wadding. The balls are under sized and a wad of Tow was included in bags for cleaning.

I think they more often used a wad of Hornets nest for an over powder wad or fire wall and pushed the loose ball and patch down with the thumb. Hornets nest or wasp nest will not burn when fired from a M/L.

They did not fire the rifles off hand as a rule. They found a rest or used the ram rod Etc. In a number of books written during the fur trade it is mentioned that any shot over 40Yds. they used a rest. This gave them an edge over the NDNs who took a rest for every shot.

I think they just didn't need short starters to load the rifle. This after all was what gave the American rifle its edge over the smooth bore. This rifle did not need a hammer or steel rod to load it as other rifles of that time did. It could be loaded in the same fast manner as a smooth gun with a much greater range.

When used in warfare it was fired maybe 2 times and the shooter would fall back. This was due to the fast fouling of the bore. This would also indicate they were using under sized loads. I doubt Morgans men who each fired 2 shots at Cowpens stood up and cut patches at the muzzle.

The tight loads and patches were a later 19th century thing. It came along with target shooting not frontier survival.

And by the way Rabbit is right. If you shoot at Brady, Texas you had better learn how to stuff over sized Teflon down a tight bore. Well as he said it works. :thumbsup:

 

[Swampman]

That doesn't sound like fun to me. Like I said I shot paper for years. I'd rather lose a match than load like that.

 

[Stophel]

Ah, the perennial "Short starter/loading block" argument....

So far, it seems all the documentation and research leads up to this: There are absolutely ZERO references to loading blocks from the 18th century, and there are plenty of period accounts of rifles and loading procedures. The "1757 A.N" loading block has a LOT of questions surrounding it... Loading blocks seem to have appeared around the middle of the 19th century. Same with short starters.

I have seen period references to cutting patches at the muzzle, however I believe standard procedure was to use pre cut patches. If I remember correctly, I think I read an account on how they would carry a bunch of pre cut patches strung on a thread at the corner of the patch, and they just jerked one off when they needed it. Another system that seemed to have a minor following was the use of patches tied/sewn around the ball, ready to go. I want to try this out, but haven't gotten around to it yet. There seem to be a FEW German rifles that have the patchbox cavity bored with several holes sized to hold the prepatched round balls, and the "Deschler rifle" (the super cool cherry stocked gun from the Northampton county region with the same type of box as "gun #42") has these holes in the patchbox cavity.

If I can't push the ball into the muzzle with my thumb, or at the most, with the butt of my knife, it is too tight. Smaller balls, thicker patches. :wink:

 

I use the same load for hunting and target and plinkin'. It is a tight load of .575 RB and a .020 cotton duck patch. I cone my muzzles to fascilitate easier loading. Works for me.

Do what you got ta do. Just like the old timers did. If your going to listen to somebody else...listen to someone who WINS matches. Rabbit03 knows his business.

 

[bwhoffman]

My pistol, which loads like a rifle(same proceedure)
uses a .492 roundball(miked out of the mold), a .015 olive oil patch (home precut and miked) and WILL NOT start by thumb. I use a short start.

last months 25 yd aggregate score was a 98xxxxx, I will continue to use the short start.

everyone has their own method. there is no right or wrong, its all what works for YOU.
It is not about who can pee highest on the side of the barn.
Share your experiences, gleen from others, if something works for you, great. It doesnt make it gospel perse'. Doesnt make it wrong either.
as you can tell, I dont burn bridges, I build them.