starting ball without short starter

[thewho66]

I dont know how far bad it goes but I do know that for the british bake rifle they used pre patched balls useing leather as the patch.

John

 

[Tumblernotch]

"It is not about who can pee highest on the side of the barn."

HeHeHe! Sure you're not from WV?

I agree. But there are some on here who can't see it that way.
:thumbsup:

 

[bwhoffman]

To clarify what I stated in my former post...

I shoot with folks, some of whom are thrilled to no end if they can get the majority of their shots onto the paper! I seek tight groups and repeatability, but thats me. I dont look down on those whose results, mindset or experience is less than me. They are having the time of their lives and often learn from others as have I.

we use all types and methods of patches, some short start, some dont, lubes from store bought to tightly guarded recipes, ect. We all came to this hobby/sport to have fun, friends and make smoke. its all about, in part, what are our individual expectations and what is whitin each individual's means.
I shoot modern times made guns but do desire at some point to acquire and older original. Time and opprotunity will tell.

I am no better than the next guy on the line or down the trail. Can I be better, more period correct or do things different? YES!
I do what I do because it suits me, works for me and is within my budget and expectations.

 

[rabbit03]

Good post Brett.

I can imagine the folks back then doing all kinds of things to get accuracy, make it faster loading, precut patches on a string etc. I think your right, whatever works for you and what your doing is the key. And just because someone does it one way or they read about one way to do it doesn't make it gospel and the way everyone did it.

Those folks back then were no different than us and they did the same things we are doing now, wasp nest, tow, tight patched balls, loose patched balls, no patches and on and on, so what is correct in this regard is really out the window since in my opinion they were just like us and tried everything.

Good shooting too :thumbsup:

By the way, I thought it was the electric fence they were peeing on! :shocked2:

rabbit03

 

[Swampman]

A one hole group at 50 yards is good enough for me.

I once out shot 40+ rifleman with a smoothbore trade gun. I got second place. The first place shooter was also shooting a smoothbore.

It ain't always high tech that wins the match.

 

[rabbit03]

What was the distance for the smoothbore shooters?

I know the smoothbores are very accurate out to 25yds and maybe on out to 50 yds (sometime) but after that I think you can forget about accuracy with a roundball out of a smoothbore, NO? Of course it would also depend on who your shooting against too I would imagine.

rabbit03

 

[Claude Mathis]

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....
....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:

Without offering any historical evidence, here's a thought (rant, peeve, tangent, etc.)... :grin:

It's the 18th century. You need to load your gun fast and don't have time to mess with all the gadgets that some folks like to carry today. You don't have a shooting box full of "stuff" and you certainly don't have time to "hammer" the ball down the barrel.

You have to be able to pour powder, grab a patch and ball and seat it quickly. No short-starter, no cutting at the muzzle, no "match grade, taking all day on the firing line" loading. I personally do not try to squeeze modern firearm accuracy out of my flintlock. That would defeat my purpose for having one. Yes, I what it to be "accurate", but only to a practical degree (to be determined by the individual shooter).

I've seen guys wearing what looked like a Batman Utility Belt and their bag strap dripping with gadgets. Men, in general, like tools and gadgets and some bring this to their present-day muzzleloading. They want a specialized tool for each little job. That's fine for them, I'm just offering another perspective.

 

[Stophel]

As I understand it, Prussian Jaegertruppe were issued rifle balls with patches sewn around them even back in the 1740's. I'm not certain about the method of carrying powder. They wore cartridge boxes on their belts and I don't know if they used paper cartridges or maybe tin tubes with powder charges in them...

I have a (modern) picture of a Napoleonic era British rifleman loading a rifle with a ridiculous little mallet and short starter. I do NOT know the authenticity of this equipment. Someone familiar with British military paraphernalia might be able to tell you more about it. It seems to me to be a most impractical method for a combat rifleman...so much so to the point of absurdity. :youcrazy:

 

[faw3]

Hi rabbit, you'll remember I've put my moaning on here about I couldn't get any barrel maker to copy the org awken barrel out of Baird's first book, things done in .ooo1 " even the muzzle was a little open for a inch or so. But I'd think it's a question of how good does that shot have to be to start with, while I could still shoot but was spending years it seems in the hospital I got list after list of books to read that guys on here didn't out right send me. Seems like a bit before 1800 if you didnt ant a burned patch you spit on it,if you didnt have something else, but still HOW good does that shot have to be? his last flintlck with its slow lock my kid can push a 490 ball down with thin cloth he cut off something and 9 out of 10 times he can hit a beer can sitting down the road about 40 to 50 yards no big deal, no short starter no nothing. Now when I was shooting that 48" H+A it was a 433 ball and very tight patch and 5 shots in a dime size hole at 50 yds. Kind of load for what you need to do I gues I'm trying to say, like do you need to shoot 1/16th" at Brady you better get out all your loading stuff, a buff standing 40 or 50 yards away spit a 575 ball down that 58 and fire away I doubt you'll miss :rotf: just my 2 cents worth to this, I wonder if barrels back when werent more straight rifled to start with a lot to most seemed to have been coned of some kind.....Fred :hatsoff: :surrender:

 

[rabbit03]

Claud you must have missed the part where that Killdeer feller ol Daniel Day whatever his name was, used his hammer and short starter and teflon patching to kill that deer (looked more like an Elk or a Stag).

Better go back and see the movie again :blah: :blah: I am sure that was the way it was done!

rabbit03

 

[rabbit03]

It seems to me to be a most impractical method for a combat rifleman...so much so to the point of absurdity.

Weren't they the guys who were all standing in a single line facing the enemy on the field of battle also back then? That was kind of absurd too looking back.

Back when honor on the field of battle played an important part.

rabbit03

 

[Don B]

Stophel,

How to start balls pre-wrapped-and-tied-with-a-bow is really where I was headed when I asked about ways to start balls without short starters. I wasn't trying to re-ignite this perennial argument, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it went that way.

Whether or not they cut patches at the muzzle or used pre-cuts, if they used pre-packaged balls, they would need some way to seat the ball just below the level of the muzzle, and then cut off the bow, and hence my opening question. It appears that thumb starting loose loads is the consensus answer.

Don

 

[Stophel]

Like I said, I haven't tried this yet, but I want to. Looks like it would be a pretty quick and easy fumble-free way to load, although sewing/tying the patches on doesn't look like fun...

Just set it on the muzzle "bow up" and press 'er down with your thumb and ram it down. No fiddling with loose patches, no messing with loading blocks. :wink:

 

[Don B]

But you'd certainly have to trim the bow off at the muzzle, no? So you would still need some way to seat the ball below the muzzle and would still need a patch knife.

Don

 

[Stophel]

Nah, it'll blow out.

 

[Dphar]

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

To cut a patch at the muzzle the ball must be seated flush or only slightly past.
For best PRECISION. My 54 shoots best with a greased patch cut at the muzzle. For hunting and most matches its shoots good enough to win with a precut oiled patch. Same patch and ball. so the fit is the same and it can be loaded with the rod only.

I tried loading blocks and abandoned them in my childhood nearly need three hands to make them work. Unless cutting at the muzzle I load with the rod only except the .66 which I short start (flush) but I think it needs a slightly smaller ball and a thicker patch. I do not think a tight fit is needed to accuracy.
When we talk about loading a rifle historically we have to think of SURVIVAL. It was not something they did to get the absolute accuracy from the rifle. At 100 yards a rifle that shoots 4" groups will kill men or most animals bigger that a rabbit reliably.
But you might not have the extra time to mess around cutting patches, finding a starter etc etc. Set a patch on the muzzle put a ball on it and push it down with the rod.
Now if you are at a MATCH the rifle can be loaded differently. Two different worlds.
We live in the "match" world in almost every case. I have never hunted men with a muzzleloader and it would not be my first choice. The people of the 18th century had no option.
None of my rifles are "funneled" but it was not uncommon at least is the 19th century.
It is hard to load a pistol as you would a rifle. So the two loading techniques are really are not interchangeable.
Dan

 

[Dphar]

As I understand it, Prussian Jaegertruppe were issued rifle balls with patches sewn around them even back in the 1740's. I'm not certain about the method of carrying powder. They wore cartridge boxes on their belts and I don't know if they used paper cartridges or maybe tin tubes with powder charges in them...

I have a (modern) picture of a Napoleonic era British rifleman loading a rifle with a ridiculous little mallet and short starter. I do NOT know the authenticity of this equipment. Someone familiar with British military paraphernalia might be able to tell you more about it. It seems to me to be a most impractical method for a combat rifleman...so much so to the point of absurdity. :youcrazy:

Via "British Flintlock Military Rifles" by DeWitt Bailey the mallet was issued one to each pair of rifleman (they were trained to work in pairs when doing precision shooting. They also used 2 different ball sizes the smaller one with paper carridges (eventually all loads were done this way), one for precision and one for "tactical" fire at as faster rate.
This book might seem pretty irrelevant to those interested in the American Rifle but it has information anyone interested in American Firearms history should read. The chapter on the indian rifles is especially enlightening.


Dan

 

[nchawkeye]

Funny you should mention the difference between hunters and match shooters...I have noticed the same thing...The first match I shot in was in the early 80s, I'm a hunter first...During the match, I asked several there if they had hunted with their muzzleloaders, none had...They were some pretty good shots, as long as they used the 6 o'clock hold on the target at the range the target was set up at...

When I shoot in a match, I clean between each shot and cut at the muzzle...My first hunting shot is loaded the same way, the second shot is in the loading block and has a .015 patch instead of a .018 patch, it goes down a dirty bore...

There is a difference in hunting and target accuracy...

We don't really know what each individual man did...I have seen a loading block and short starter on display at the Guilford Battleground Courthouse display case...It is claimed to have been used at that time, we will actually never know...

If you study history and read a lot of books, you see a big difference in how battles and tactics were described...Even eye witness accounts vary greatly...

We see this even today, every time I go to a school and make a talk on the American Revolution someone makes a comment about my old "muskets" and how inaccurate and unreliable a flintlock was...

We all know different than that...

 

[Little Wattsy]

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.

FUNNY STORY....Just got a new (used) T/C .54 cal barrel. Put it on the stock and away I go to the range. (This is the 1st "bigger then .50 cal" for me) Got set up and stuck my ball into the barrel and it just droped right in to about a half inch. Just far enough and tight enough that I couldnt "shake it out" yet WAY to easy to be 'right". Checked my balls to make SURE about Cal size and was scratching my head when I decided to stuff it on down and shoot er out anyway. THATS when I realized that it was coned and that I had the right size after all. I am sure I looked like a retard for several minutes trying to understand what was happening..... :rotf:

 

[bwhoffman]

sounds like a tc "QLA" barrel! quick load assist.