Which is historically correct, precut patches or cut at muzzle?

[LRB]

Bare just won’t do well in a rifle, and my gut tells me it would only be done when there was no other choice.
We don’t have documentation to show civilians useing sewn on patches as was seen in the military.
To me that’s a null argument. Bob is in the military sees seen on balls. Later as a civilian he gives it a try, who is going to write it down. Jack sees Bob doing it and gives it a try, and so on
People will tell you pre cut is easier, or cutting at the muzzle is easier. Or shoots at range with one hunts with the other. Or shoots one gun with cut at the muzzle, and another with precut
And most of us shoot for years without ever writing it down.
I’m willing to bet the old times were as variable as us

Years back I read an account of the NDN attack on Boonesboro. It mentioned that a group of the women were in a cabin cutting patches for the men during the fight. Likely square patches cut with scissors. In my experience, cutting at the muzzle takes too much time if a second shot is needed in a hurry. Also, there is more waste of cloth cutting at the muzzle because you have to have extra to hang onto while you cut. JMHO.

 

[Trigger]

Like hammering the ball down?

What's going on now with these things..

 

[Trigger]

Maybe it's the hatt felt?

Lubricants? Try a patch lube maybe?

 

[Packrat]

In the early days of the Baker Rifle, they were issued Hammers to start the ball, I believe