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

[Banjoman]

Found it! My mind hasn’t completely left me either. @Notchy Bob had posted it in a different thread. I believe it was reported to have been taken around 1890. The man furthest left has pre-cut patches on a string. I believe the man third from left does as well.

There’s a lot of interesting stuff in that picture.

 

[Snooterpup]

Found it! My mind hasn’t completely left me either. @Notchy Bob had posted it in a different thread. I believe it was reported to have been taken around 1890. The man furthest left has pre-cut patches on a string. I believe the man third from left does as well.

Looks like the gent on the far left has his trusty Thompson/Center Hawken. Looks like they just might be historically correct after all!

 

[waksupi]

I would bet a lot of thin buckskin was used, most likely cut at the muzzle. I used some flank brain tanned hide for patches. Worked great, I reused the patches a dozen plus times each, until I eventually lost them.
The Indians were known to use blanket patches in their trade guns, which I think would require cutting at the muzzle. A friend tried that, and found the accuracy was amazingly good, using a .54 ball in a 20 bore.
I doesn't really matter how you cut them. As long as you have full patch contact between ball and bore, regardless of how you cut them or what shape the are, they work.

 

[Mike in FL]

Were loading blocks not found among the mountain men's possibles?

 

[The Miner '49er]

I believe there is a reference to the women cutting rifle patches during the seige of Ft Boonesborough. Maybe someone can provide that documentation.

@Capt. Jas. My wife is a DAR member and a direct descendant of the Phelps family who lived in the fort and helped defend it during the siege. She has several books on Boonesborough and the siege. While there are references to the women melting pewter dishes, digging lead from the fort's timber, etc. to cast balls to continue the battle, we can't find any mention of patches. She is contacting a friend in Ky, a lady who has authored books about the fort and the siege to see if this lady can shed any light on the patch issue. My gut is that the defenders didn't use any, they weren't squirrel hunting where precision accuracy was paramount. Hopefully we'll get an answer.

 

[tenngun]

I would bet a lot of thin buckskin was used, most likely cut at the muzzle. I used some flank brain tanned hide for patches. Worked great, I reused the patches a dozen plus times each, until I eventually lost them.
The Indians were known to use blanket patches in their trade guns, which I think would require cutting at the muzzle. A friend tried that, and found the accuracy was amazingly good, using a .54 ball in a 20 bore.
I doesn't really matter how you cut them. As long as you have full patch contact between ball and bore, regardless of how you cut them or what shape the are, they work.

I think the blanket used by Indians was wads.

 

[tenngun]

Were loading blocks not found among the mountain men's possibles?

We don’t know. Like short starters they just show up with out a date as to when. We know they were in use by the 1850s, but have no evidence of them in colonial and early federal times.
It’s a board with holes in it, and caveman had the technology to make them. However we have no evidence of them in any sort of reference until boom they are suddenly there after the 1850s

 

[springfield art]

BOTH.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I'm sure both were used as well as nests of tow to hold the ball. All manner of organic materials were used if that material would hold the ball on the powder.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Looks like the gent on the far left has his trusty Thompson/Center Hawken. Looks like they just might be historically correct after all!

There's quite a few later percussion era plainsman's rifles and squirrelsman's pieces from that era that do mimick the later Thompsons etc. pretty well actually. What they do NOT emulate is a Hawken despite the name!

 

[Grenadier1758]

I've made the same observation looking at the display of rifles at the Hawken Classic. There were several Sam Hawken and Gemmer "squirrel" rifles that have similar brass hardware and single wedge architecture. It's almost enough to believe that Thompson Center used a Hawken Squirrel rifle of the smaller calibers as the model for their "Hawken". They just raised the caliber, slightly shortened the barrel and modified the stock architecture for manufacturing efficiency (lower cost) and marketed the rifle for hunting deer and larger game. Other than observation I have no basis for my speculation. Any T/C documentation is long gone.

 

[The Miner '49er]

@Capt. Jas. brought up an interesting question about patches during the week-long battle at Ft. Boonesborough. Unfortunately, the lady we contacted didn't have any information. She referred us to another author who so far hasn't replied. Capt. Jas, if you run across the reference, please post it.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

@Capt. Jas. brought up an interesting question about patches during the week-long battle at Ft. Boonesborough. Unfortunately, the lady we contacted didn't have any information. She referred us to another author who so far hasn't replied. Capt. Jas, if you run across the reference, please post it.

⁸

I dont know when that will be as I haven't been in my Phelps genealogical papers for years. If I do come by it I will let you know.

 

[Mike in FL]

Does perfect matter ?
Consider whether a 80% solution being pre-cut patches does the job just as well, or is the 100% "perfectly fit patch" making any difference ?

Sort of, to me, 'cause I am OCD. In some ways, but other things not very much. Like with a sandwich. I can't have the mustard touching the bread. I have to put it between the meat and lettuce. Nor can I eat a sandwich by biting off different size bites. Actually I eat sandwiches with a knife, cutting off bite size pieces. Same with a hot dog. To not do that makes me feel like things are off center, or tilted, or the part not yet consumed might develop round corners. Sometimes I see someone eating something from his/her hand, like a hamburger, and they take a fairly large bight and then without chewing or swallowing they take a second or even a third, cramming more in than they could get with just one bight. That drives me insane. I mean I want to scream at them to take one bight and completely eat it and don't take another until the first is in his belly.
Guess what. My back, actually my spine is messed up to the point I can't walk. I've been on the couch for six days waiting on my surgery date and I have become really, really bored. I sleep and eat on this couch. So I do dumb stuff like explaining how I eat sandwiches. Let me know if anyone gives a rat's patoot.

 

[Coinneach]

Sort of, to me, 'cause I am OCD. In some ways, but other things not very much. Like with a sandwich. I can't have the mustard touching the bread. I have to put it between the meat and lettuce. Nor can I eat a sandwich by biting off different size bites. Actually I eat sandwiches with a knife, cutting off bite size pieces. Same with a hot dog. To not do that makes me feel like things are off center, or tilted, or the part not yet consumed might develop round corners. Sometimes I see someone eating something from his/her hand, like a hamburger, and they take a fairly large bight and then without chewing or swallowing they take a second or even a third, cramming more in than they could get with just one bight. That drives me insane. I mean I want to scream at them to take one bight and completely eat it and don't take another until the first is in his belly.
Guess what. My back, actually my spine is messed up to the point I can't walk. I've been on the couch for six days waiting on my surgery date and I have become really, really bored. I sleep and eat on this couch. So I do dumb stuff like explaining how I eat sandwiches. Let me know if anyone gives a rat's patoot.

Its OK just try to enjoy your life, we're all different just that some of us are more different than others.

 

[smoothshooter]

This question is concerning rifles only, not smooth bores. Which is more historically correct for the 18th and 19th centuries, precut patches or patches cut at the muzzle?

This is not intended to be about which is the most accurate, easiest to carry, etc. I would simply like to hear your opinions on which is most historically correct, whether documented or not. However, documentation would really be appreciated.

Based solely on pictures of shooting pouch contents and what I’ve seen in museums, I’m leaning more toward cut at the muzzle. What say ye?

Anything that was possible to do was done then, just as now. No hard and fast rules.
Precut patches are much more convenient, so my guess would be that’s what most of the old timers did unless they were only planning to need one or two shots.

 

[Banjoman]

.

 

[Juice Jaws]

Precut are described in Central Europe in seventeenth century when rifles were still on coltsfoot style stocks.
And show up in nineteenth century, I’m thinking Ned Roberts’s mentions them but don’t have his book now to check.
Balls in patches were known for military guns in early eighteenth century.
Pre cut patches were carried by Austrian riflemen during the napoleonic war, in triangular shapes.
The American butt trap came to be called patch box, suggesting pre cut patches. However Audobon describes grease in tha patch box when he tells of Boone loading his rifle
I use pre cut, but I will lay money the majority cut at the muzzle in America

How about the importance question -- the chicken or the egg ??????????????????///

 

[LME]

Precut are described in Central Europe in seventeenth century when rifles were still on coltsfoot style stocks.
And show up in nineteenth century, I’m thinking Ned Roberts’s mentions them but don’t have his book now to check.
Balls in patches were known for military guns in early eighteenth century.
Pre cut patches were carried by Austrian riflemen during the napoleonic war, in triangular shapes.
The American butt trap came to be called patch box, suggesting pre cut patches. However Audobon describes grease in tha patch box when he tells of Boone loading his rifle
I use pre cut, but I will lay money the majority cut at the muzzle in America

Being a lot of rifles had a grease pot in their stock it makes me believe thay used precut patches a lot. It would be hard to cut at the muzzle and grease a patch, I would think? I also know some used the paper, powder and ball method which eliminated the needs to cut or use a patch? In other words I don't know?

 

[Banjoman]

This question is concerning rifles only, not smooth bores. Which is more historically correct for the 18th and 19th centuries, precut patches or patches cut at the muzzle?

This is not intended to be about which is the most accurate, easiest to carry, etc. I would simply like to hear your opinions on which is most historically correct, whether documented or not. However, documentation would really be appreciated.

Based solely on pictures of shooting pouch contents and what I’ve seen in museums, I’m leaning more toward cut at the muzzle. What say ye?

But then again, why do we see so many patch boxes on 18th and 19th century guns? What were patch boxes for if not patches?