• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

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

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.
 
Maybe it's the hatt felt?

Lubricants? Try a patch lube maybe?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20241002_083258_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20241002_083258_Chrome.jpg
    780.7 KB
  • 17278712837472328543749649322559.jpg
    17278712837472328543749649322559.jpg
    129.6 KB
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.
@LRB, if you can find that article, or the source, please post it. Thanks.
 
In the early days of the Baker Rifle, they were issued Hammers to start the ball, I believe
We might call it a short starter today. Watching its use on the cap and ball channel it was like that.
Cases pistols in the eighteenth century were fitted with a loading hammer that looked like a hammer style ball starter
 
I assume precut patches were used as how would you grease the patch using the grease hole in the stock of a rifle ?? You could use a roll of material but everytime you would try to use it, th roll of cloth would unroll and you would have to roll it all back up again until the next shot. Precut patches would be much simpler..
Ohio Rusty ><>
 
I worked in museums for 40 years and in that time looked at thousands of collection items. There were quite a few loading blocks in firearm/military collections, although many if not most were incorrectly identified or classified as "unknown.". Every one of those blocks seemed well used, and at least one that I recall, which was still in a pouch, had lien wrapped balls in it. I believe the use of a loading block was common. I use one hunting because it's convenient and easy, not necessarily because it is faster.
After a year of testing, I’m convinced that a loading block is faster and requires less movement in the woods. This is especially true for squirrel hunting.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top