Author Topic: Short Starter  (Read 11009 times)

Offline rudyc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Short Starter
« on: November 24, 2011, 02:44:44 AM »
Hello,

Looking to make another short starter and am looking for ideas. Anyone want to show some?

rudyc
"It's a good day for something"

Offline Poor Bull

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 93
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #1 on: November 24, 2011, 05:52:45 AM »
These are a few that I have made.  Nothing fancy but, they work.  Curly maple, elk horn and hickory ramrod pieces.
If you climb in the saddle, be ready for the ride.

Powder River Let'er Buck

Offline Collector

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #2 on: November 24, 2011, 08:59:12 AM »
Short(er) starter, with an (optional) extension that was made from a scrap/unfinished maple furniture knob/pull, found in a junk shop and a broken pool cue.  Not HC, but functional.





 

Offline LehighBrad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2011, 03:29:36 PM »
Hmmmm....short starters or coned barrel.....I'll keep my coned barrel. You can carry the starters. ;)
To pierce the stag with a rifle ball ~ Is to heed the woodland hunters call.

Online hanshi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2230
  • My passion is longrifles!
    • martialartsusa.com
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2011, 08:00:02 PM »


Two home made short starters and an antler palm saver for the ramrod.  Always afraid to try and corn( ;D) my muzzle.
!Jozai Senjo! "always present on the battlefield"
Young guys should hang out with old guys; old guys know stuff.

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8335
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2011, 08:30:07 PM »



I make no apologies for using a short starter...it's how I load.  Daryl and I have access to moose antler, which is very heavy and dense.  The very best starters use the crown at the base, either incorporating a piece of the skull itself, or as is in the case of a shed, the rounded crown.  Some time with a file or rasp or a few minutes on a disc sander reduces the crown to a useable size.  I protect the end of the hickory rod with either a cut off cartridge case or a rod tip, cross pinned with a 1/16" steel pin.  The antler is drilled with a shallow hole that is a loose fit for the pushing end of the ramrod, and this serves to both protect my hand during seating of the patched ball, and gives me a uniform seating pressure without banging away on the seated ball.  I also set a brass stud into the antler boss to start the ball into the muzzle without deforming it.  I'm not sure this is necessary, since I never used to use one of these short studs, and got wonderful accuracy.  Without the starting stud, I simply grip the starter by the rod in my fist, antler boss down, and with one smack, start the ball into the muzzle.  Then, reversing the starter, I place the brass end of the rod on the ball and with another whack, send it down the bore the length of the rod.  Now, it's a simple matter to push the ball the rest of the way down the bore with the loading rod.  At the end of the trip, I place the cavity over the ramrod, and seat the ball with firm pressure.
I've tried other materials for starter knobs, but moose antler is the best I've found.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 08:31:06 PM by D. Taylor Sapergia »
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Northern I Corps Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2011, 10:37:53 PM »
I made this for the Swivel Breech but really don't use it unless doing the Dutch Schoultz method.
Its Curly Maple and antler.



I have a flat one with a very short brass spud to seat a ball for cutting the patch flush at the muzzle.
For me the longer ones just take up too much space. 

Dan
"American Girls and American Guys
Will always stand up and salute  Will always recognize
When we see Old Glory Flying   There's a lot of men dead   So we can sleep in peace at night   When we lay down our head"
Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

Offline D. Taylor Sapergia

  • Member 3
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8335
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2011, 09:22:16 AM »
I know there's lots of you who think the "short starter" is an abomination since there is no evidence of it from the 18th C.  In truth, I use one, I think, because I started muzzle loading shooting with one, having read Ned Robert's wonderful book on Cap Lock Rifles.  His history stems from his Uncle Alvero who gave him a battlefield rifle from the Civil War, and he learned to shoot with percussion rifles in a time when folks were using "in-line starters" and false muzzles.  So naturally, he was a proponent of the short starter.
For me it's simple.  I demand optimal accuracy from my muzzleloading guns, and that can only be achieved by using a very tight combination of pure lead, a substantial cotton patch, and a good lube.  Once this combo is in the bore, it slides down easily...it's bore sized and cannot be bigger than that.  The thick patch carries enough lubricant to dissolve the fowling left be the previous shot, and push it all the way to the charge.  It does not require a hammer - just a short starter.  There is no point, to me, to shoot my guns just to hear the bang, and see a cloud of white smoke, and revel in nostalgia.  Obviously, this is not the only point of view as some still insist on loads that require as little effort as possible to push them into and down the bore, and wipe after each shot so that they can do it again.  If that's what turns you on...fly at it.  I think I am perhaps a lot more competitive than that.  I like to "shoot small".  The short starter is the simple thing that lets me do that.
I applaud those who are minimalists and follow tradition to the letter.  I use a priming horn too.  And 4Fg GOEX in my pan.  I can load my empty rifle and fire accurately in 15 seconds.  But my first shot is the killer.
D. Taylor Sapergia
www.sapergia.blogspot.com

Art is not an object.  It is the excitement inspired by the object.

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1981
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2011, 05:17:58 PM »
I know there's lots of you who think the "short starter" is an abomination since there is no evidence of it from the 18th C.  In truth, I use one, I think, because I started muzzle loading shooting with one, having read Ned Robert's wonderful book on Cap Lock Rifles.  His history stems from his Uncle Alvero who gave him a battlefield rifle from the Civil War, and he learned to shoot with percussion rifles in a time when folks were using "in-line starters" and false muzzles.  So naturally, he was a proponent of the short starter.
For me it's simple.  I demand optimal accuracy from my muzzleloading guns, and that can only be achieved by using a very tight combination of pure lead, a substantial cotton patch, and a good lube.  Once this combo is in the bore, it slides down easily...it's bore sized and cannot be bigger than that.  The thick patch carries enough lubricant to dissolve the fowling left be the previous shot, and push it all the way to the charge.  It does not require a hammer - just a short starter.  There is no point, to me, to shoot my guns just to hear the bang, and see a cloud of white smoke, and revel in nostalgia.  Obviously, this is not the only point of view as some still insist on loads that require as little effort as possible to push them into and down the bore, and wipe after each shot so that they can do it again.  If that's what turns you on...fly at it.  I think I am perhaps a lot more competitive than that.  I like to "shoot small".  The short starter is the simple thing that lets me do that.
I applaud those who are minimalists and follow tradition to the letter.  I use a priming horn too.  And 4Fg GOEX in my pan.  I can load my empty rifle and fire accurately in 15 seconds.  But my first shot is the killer.



Good post Taylor. I grew into the hobby years ago around some pretty hardcore competition shooters. They were/are all products of the revivalist, target shooting muzzle loading style as you describe and I can settle comfortably in that group OR a group of historical perfectionists. I hunted yesterday with a starter and a priming horn. I am sure I will not go to $#*! for it.  ;D  On the other side of the coin I am an avid historian who likes the i's dotted and t's crossed when it's called for and when doing a public impression, instruction or going all out "correct" on my own those items stay home.   In my opinion there is nothing wrong with either way as it's a big sandbox out there. The internet problems usually arise when one view tries to justify or ram their method down the throats of the other mindset. Most times I really think that one group is only trying to express themselves exactly the way you did above while the other group is only trying to ensure that novices with a desire to be historically correct do not assume certain things just because it's prevalent.   Although there is a common tie, there is a vast gulf in much of the ideology of the two interests.

James

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Northern I Corps Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2011, 06:27:55 PM »
I wonder about the "no starters (or priming horns or bullet boards) in the 18th century" thing.
So here are some things for us to consider. Almost all undocumented supposition of course. But worthy of thought. Unless the mind is so indoctrinated with official re-enactor dogma that its impossible to go there.

A starter would last for decades and a starter could end up being used with a later rifle. So a 1770s starter could end up with a 1800-1830 rifle/pouch.
If we look at the number of 19th century rifles with turned muzzles and then consider the number of guide starters that survive we realize that while the RIFLE (or at least the barrel) survives, the fitted starter has not, these were generally brass or steel btw. A friend came across a high quality, SIGNED, starter as a show last year laying on a table. The owner told him he had just sold the rifle minutes before but the buyer had no interest in the starter. So its STILL happening.  A related example, it used to be that people would buy SA Colts etc and then toss the gun leather in a box. Now the LEATHER is a collectors item and a man I know used to buy the holsters and belts from collectors for peanuts. Now guns with their original outfits are worth a considerable premium but they have virtually ALL been separated by collectors who collected handguns not belts and holsters.
The fitted "guide" starter is necessary for shooting a picket bullet but not for a RB. Chances are that when the rifle was used for hunting the starter was left home as excess weight. Its possible that when the rifle was inherited that the new owner had no interest in the troublesome picket or the starter. Or the rifle was recut and the picket mould and tools were not upgraded and these tools were eventually abandoned or traded to the gunsmith.
Grandpas FL rifle (perhaps now bored for shot) was retired to the closet or wall and a grandson took the starter and perhaps the horn and pouch to use with his percussion rifle.
Priming horns are a no-no too with some. "Can't document them".  
But if the rifle were converted to percussion this horn is going to be set aside or given to the kids to play with and then lost. Hunting pouches that were used by some later family member would not have the priming horn unless the rifle it was used with was also flint.
There are no detailed descriptions of how rifles were loaded in the 19th century, at least not enough to have any real idea of what was common or uncommon practice.
Cooke's hunting pouch (1761-1842) has a priming horn, a bullet board and a starter with it. When did he start using the bullet board? In 1775 or 1810? We have no way of knowing. Same for the priming horn.
But I bet it was while he was young.

I use a starter if necessary I don't use it if I don't feel I need it. I use one with the 16 bore (its aluminum BTW), don't use one with the 54 or 50 except in certain circumstances.  So I am neither opponent or proponent really. I just think the "no starters in the 18th century" is a very shaky statement given our level of knowledge.
People just did not detail common things that well.
People who "re-enact" at the "museum quality level" discourage a lot of people I suspect. Based on personal experience and PMs I have received. I suspect that even if documentation were found for priming horns, bullet boards and starters in 1770 that many of them would refuse to accept it based on comments I have read on other subjects.
The priming horn especially is so practical and so old (apparently back to the matchlock) that saying that they were never used with the flintlock rifle is just silly.
I have read on an other site that the German Mercenaries in America used a bullet board as a patch cutter. Lay patching over the hole, press a ball in and then cut off the excess, press the ball out and repeat.  If true this dates a form of "bullet board" to mid 18th century. Now a starter is not needed with a "board" with maybe only one hole it to cut patches but using it to load a rifle is not much of a stretch if the board is already in use. Make a board with more holes and keep patched balls in it. Even if the patch had to be wet with spit before loading, pop the ball and patch from the board, wet the patch while pouring powder beats pouring powder then fishing for the patch and ball in a pouch and/or patch box.
When was this patch lube first used? I wonder if this is "documented" anywhere.

Anyway this is just some ideas on the various "never had them in the 18th century" rifle accessories.
Were these items unknown or so common they were not mentioned?

Here is a question for those versed in such things.
If a member of the "Continental line" (or Red Coats) and in a "shooting match" against the Red Coats (or Continental Line) and you suffer a flash in the pan how do you reprime? I have never studied 18th century military drill so I don't know.
Is it written down some where? If its not documented then they just waited for the inevitable bayonet charge or the "run away! run away!" command right?
Just curious.
Dan
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 06:28:23 PM by Dphariss »
"American Girls and American Guys
Will always stand up and salute  Will always recognize
When we see Old Glory Flying   There's a lot of men dead   So we can sleep in peace at night   When we lay down our head"
Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1981
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2011, 07:22:47 PM »
Much logic in your post Dan and some real possibilities. Good for discussion but as stated, much is supposition.
This is usually where internet arguments begin. The "no starters" wrongly use the dogmatic "there were none" instead of "current research does not reveal". The other side of the fence is loaded with supposition and no documentation in what appears as an attempt to convince the opposing mindset. The "no starters" are naturally in a historical mindset. In truth the POSSIBILITY of such items cannot be denied when discussing but it is "silly" to assume the woulda, coulda, shoulda to be implemented in historical interpretation.

So in other words, "the mind, so indoctrinated with official re-enactor dogma" cannot "go there" because they assume, by the way it is presented that others are trying to convince them that it is OK to allow such things in educational interpretation based on supposition. The firm stance is perhaps more solid on the internet because of all the false information that seems to reproduce itself, thus confusing the masses. Most, in face to face conversation would agree of the POSSIBILITY with no problem.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Northern I Corps Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #11 on: November 27, 2011, 09:32:14 PM »
Much logic in your post Dan and some real possibilities. Good for discussion but as stated, much is supposition.
This is usually where internet arguments begin. The "no starters" wrongly use the dogmatic "there were none" instead of "current research does not reveal". The other side of the fence is loaded with supposition and no documentation in what appears as an attempt to convince the opposing mindset. The "no starters" are naturally in a historical mindset. In truth the POSSIBILITY of such items cannot be denied when discussing but it is "silly" to assume the woulda, coulda, shoulda to be implemented in historical interpretation.

So in other words, "the mind, so indoctrinated with official re-enactor dogma" cannot "go there" because they assume, by the way it is presented that others are trying to convince them that it is OK to allow such things in educational interpretation based on supposition. The firm stance is perhaps more solid on the internet because of all the false information that seems to reproduce itself, thus confusing the masses. Most, in face to face conversation would agree of the POSSIBILITY with no problem.

I have had re-enactors attempt to refute statements from the mid-18th century by stating that they knew more what the writer was thinking or trying to say than the writer in the 1760s did. Must be through use of a Ouija Board... But of course the 18th century writer was putting forth ideas the moderns did not want in "their" 18th century.

The "well this is what he REALLY meant" attitude is laughable but it crops up with surprising frequency. But people use it to justify what THEY want. As a result it's apparently critical to many re-enactors in maintaining their persona since many might have to change their other self and apparently this would make some uncomfortable.

How about the "new improved haversack" (or whatever) that was described and patterned in a 1775 VA Gazette (or other Colonial Newspaper)  but the re-enactors thought it was not HC because they had not seen one in any museum collection that was made at the time. So "nobody used them" is the dogma.  ::)
In reading on one re-enactor site its possible to find a lot of really ridiculous statements that are considered fact by the posters that are COMPLETE SUPPOSITION. But the supposition agrees with what THEY want THEIR 18th century to look like so its "approved" supposition, I guess. 
For example if we were to believe some of the things I have read we would have to assume that discharged soldiers would throw away their "issue" knapsack (or whatever) immediately on discharge and then roll his personal belongings in his blanket for the trip home since this expert re-enactor could find no documentation for civilians ever using such a thing. I'm not making this up...

I have seen some pretty virulent statements made regarding other peoples careful research because it refuted the "dogma". A great many people simply will not accept that which disagrees with their ideas of what the past is supposed to be. This closed mindedness then actually makes it more difficult to find anything that approaches the real 18th century. Who knows what they have ignored, discounted or overlooked in THEIR research? Do they "cherry pick" their facts?
Frankly we know almost nothing about everyday life or the minutia of the time.
For example.
When I was 18 we all "knew" the Rev-War era rifles were 54 caliber or even larger. But this is completely false.
The surviving WRITINGS of the time refute this. In reality they were likely 44 to 50 caliber as a norm. But some re-enactor (one of the ones who will actually admit there were significant numbers of rifles in Colonial America) with a 58 caliber early Kentucky will resist the idea that the rifle he has is in all likelyhood NOT HISTORICALLY CORRECT except at the very outer fringes of 18th century rifle making in America.  After all HE has one so it must be right. Well it is HC of course (can't prove its not) but its not TYPICAL either. Something else that is important it seems. Conformity.
Then we have those who wail that some "personas" are over represented at re-enactments. But then I guess most people don't want to be a pig farmer.

I also often to wonder how many items that people use as historical documentation for the items they use with their "persona"  were faked in 1876 or 1965 or 1985. I personally know people made fakes by the pickup load (apparently in some cases) and sold them. So people should be careful about the "corn boilers", for example, they copy.... Museums were buying fake Rev-War and F&I horns for display in the early 20th century....
The fakes need not be HC they simply need to be what some "expert" EXPECTS HC to be and they are now "documentation".
I understand the need for documentation if trying the teach people about the 18th century. But cherry picking information or ignoring what was written in the past to maintain a particular vision of the past is neither "research" or "documentation".
Dan
"American Girls and American Guys
Will always stand up and salute  Will always recognize
When we see Old Glory Flying   There's a lot of men dead   So we can sleep in peace at night   When we lay down our head"
Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

Offline Horner75

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 265
  • A.K.A. _ Rick Froehlich
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #12 on: November 27, 2011, 11:19:26 PM »
Anywaaaay! ....... Rudy, I think you see some nice examples of ball starters posted here!

Rick
"Receiving something handmade from a friend...is getting a piece of that friends life".

Offline Sir Michael

  • Starting Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2011, 12:35:20 AM »
For what it's worth here is some information on short starters that I've come across.

1800
The British Army included a "loading mallet" in the equipment issued to riflemen of the new Experimental Corps of Riflemen which became the 95th Regt. and subsequently the Rifle Brigade.  (There is no surviving information regarding its design or use.)

1811
Using information collected from the Army's of Europe the following book was published:

Practical Instructions for Military Officers, Comprehending a Concise System of Military Geometry, field Fortification, and Tactics of Riflemen and Light Infantry

This book includes the following references to a "loading mallet"

... to this belt a case is fitted for the handle of the mallet, which must hang down the right thigh.

Loading Instructions

Loading from Cartridge

V. Load!  One Compound Motion
Turn up the right hand and shake the powder into the barrel, pressing the cartridge with the thumb and finger, to force out the powder; instantly bring the paper to the mouth and with the teeth separate it from the ball and, patch, which place upon the muzzle, the stitched side up, and instantly slide the left hand to the muzzle and place the fore finger upon the ball; at the same time, with the right hand, grasp the mallet, draw it partly out, and seize the handle.

VI. Drive Ball!  One Compound Motion
Bring up the mallet, flipping the finger from the ball, and with one or two strokes drive the ball into the muzzle; with a quick motion, place the end of the handle upon the ball and grasp it with the thumb and finger of the left hand, and with a few smart strokes upon the mallet with the right hand, drive the ball down the full length of the handle; instantly return the mallet to its sheath and seize the ramrod with the thumb and finger of the same hand, the thumb up.

Loading Loose Ball and Powder

V. Load! One Compound Motion
Pour the powder into the barrel, drop the measure and grasp the rifle with the left hand a little below the right; disengage the right hand, carry it down to the pouch, take out a ball and patch and carry them to the muzzle, place the patch upon the muzzle and the ball upon the patch, flip up the left hand and place the fore finger upon the ball, the other fingers round the muzzle, and with the right seize the mallet as in loading with cartridge.

VI Drive Ball - As explained in Loading with Cartridge

1840

U.S. Patent, #1565
Loading Muzzle
Alvan Clark
April 24, 1840

This patent was for what can be best described as a removable conned muzzle adapter for the barrel muzzle.

As justification for the creation of the patent the following was provided by the inventor.

thus more effectually saving the patch from injury, facilitating the loading, enabling the shooter to load as tight as desirable, and at the same time to dispense with the use of the mallet and stick in loading; and also preserving the barrel from injury and wear.

From this information I conclude several things.  

1 - Mallets and short sticks were used before 1800 by shooters of rifles desiring maximum range and accuracy.

2 - Before 1800 there were loading mallets with handles that could serve as a loading stick to eliminate the requirement for a separate stick.

3 - The 1800 combination loading mallet and stick was used exactly the same way we today use a "short starter".

A Rose by any other Name ...
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 12:47:48 AM by Sir Michael »

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Northern I Corps Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2011, 03:05:23 AM »
Mallets and often rods that look suspiciously like starters turn up in duelling pistol cases. Some times a "starter" type loading rod (or even 2) AND a cleaning rod as well.

Sorry about the previous rant but its upsetting when the "expert re-enactors" treat you like a poor deluded 1/2 wit  for quoting period writings that disagree with their beliefs.  I.E. they don't wanna hear it.

Dan
"American Girls and American Guys
Will always stand up and salute  Will always recognize
When we see Old Glory Flying   There's a lot of men dead   So we can sleep in peace at night   When we lay down our head"
Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

Offline Dan Fruth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
    • D Fruth Flintlocker
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2011, 04:44:04 AM »
This is just a possibility, but could both options have happened? I can't imagine those who could load on a dead run using a short starter. I also wonder about the logic of using a short starter when shooting "half balls" as Boone did during his time in "residence" with the Shawnee. BUT...Those shots that we all have heard about...The 200-300 yard amazing shots that hit the mark..I can't imagine this happening without using the tightest patched ball, and that would require a short starter of some kind. I might be all wrong here, but it seems that whatever works is what is important.

Offline Roger Fisher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6805
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2011, 10:06:48 PM »
Hmmmm....short starters or coned barrel.....I'll keep my coned barrel. You can carry the starters. ;)
Uhhuh, I'll carry the starter til I get old! ;D

Daryl

  • Guest
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #17 on: November 29, 2011, 06:56:34 PM »


I like 'em - and use them for much the same reason as Taylor.

 I suspect if someone was "on the run", the 'enemy would be close and they'd not be using a patch either.  Therefore a starter wasn't needed. Patchless balls were also loaded at a gallop on horseback - and sometimes a rod wasn't used either.  They did things we would deem to be downright dangerous today - some of them (back then) got away with it, for a while, some just plain survived that venture.

This is also documented - at least in writings of the period. Were they telling the truth or spinning a tale?


Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Northern I Corps Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2011, 05:24:11 AM »
This is just a possibility, but could both options have happened? I can't imagine those who could load on a dead run using a short starter. I also wonder about the logic of using a short starter when shooting "half balls" as Boone did during his time in "residence" with the Shawnee. BUT...Those shots that we all have heard about...The 200-300 yard amazing shots that hit the mark..I can't imagine this happening without using the tightest patched ball, and that would require a short starter of some kind. I might be all wrong here, but it seems that whatever works is what is important.

I don't think ANYONE can load a PATCHED ball while running.
So the starter and even the rod is not much use in this context.
But if running long range accuracy is not really a factor.
Running from the enemy they are likely close enough that a bare ball is likely good enough if the runner wants to risk stopping.

Starter use otherwise is personal preference.

Dan
"American Girls and American Guys
Will always stand up and salute  Will always recognize
When we see Old Glory Flying   There's a lot of men dead   So we can sleep in peace at night   When we lay down our head"
Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

mbokie5

  • Guest
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2011, 04:55:57 PM »
I made this for the Swivel Breech but really don't use it unless doing the Dutch Schoultz method.
Its Curly Maple and antler.



I have a flat one with a very short brass spud to seat a ball for cutting the patch flush at the muzzle.
For me the longer ones just take up too much space. 

Dan

Dan, do you use the little white nub to install the ball below the muzzle? May be a dumb question, but my assuming is often wrong.

Reason I ask is that I'm working on Dutch' method.

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Northern I Corps Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2011, 10:00:48 PM »


I should have posted this photo to I  guess

Dan
« Last Edit: November 30, 2011, 10:01:11 PM by Dphariss »
"American Girls and American Guys
Will always stand up and salute  Will always recognize
When we see Old Glory Flying   There's a lot of men dead   So we can sleep in peace at night   When we lay down our head"
Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

Offline flintriflesmith

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1510
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2011, 12:15:25 AM »
For what it's worth here is some information on short starters that I've come across.
...
From this information I conclude several things.  

1 - Mallets and short sticks were used before 1800 by shooters of rifles desiring maximum range and accuracy.
...
I'm very curious what part of the documentation you posted mentioned that the British military used the loading mallets (and smashed the front of the ball) because they desired maximum range and accuracy. Try as I might I couldn' see range or accuracy mentioned and yet it is what you "conclude" from reading those references.
Gary
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

woodwright

  • Guest
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2011, 03:36:28 AM »
See page 146 of An essay on shooting published in 1789, available on Google Books. The author talks about using a mallet to load a ball larger than the bore. He goes on to talk about how the Germans sometimes use leather or fustain as a patch. The whole book is very interesting and talks about many of the things that have been discussed on this forum.

Woodwright

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Northern I Corps Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2011, 06:11:18 PM »
The Baker Infantry Rifle  had 2 different ball sizes issued 22 and 20 to the pound. One for easy loading and the other for precision shooting. Ball choice depending on the tactical situation.

They apparently issued one mallet to two rifles since the riflemen were trained to work as 2 man teams or multiples of 2.
Its described by Bailey in "British Military Flintlock Rifles".
One description indicates that at least some mallets had a hole near the end of the handle for a cord to pass through so the handle was not used as a starter it would seem, at least in the case Bailey cited.

The 20 to the pound size was apparently referred to as the "forced ball" and initially was not always used in a cartridge. The 22 to the pound was used in a cartridge and was for use only when a "brisk fire is to be kept up" but this could vary with the unit I suppose.
Eventually wartime service resulted in all ammunition being in cartridges since there were too many reports of injury due to explosions of horns and flasks.

Dan
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 06:12:23 PM by Dphariss »
"American Girls and American Guys
Will always stand up and salute  Will always recognize
When we see Old Glory Flying   There's a lot of men dead   So we can sleep in peace at night   When we lay down our head"
Toby Keith "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue"

Offline Pete G.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
Re: Short Starter
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2011, 06:43:27 PM »
Then we have those who wail that some "personas" are over represented at re-enactments. But then I guess most people don't want to be a pig farmer.


Dan, you're starting to sound like a crusty Ol' Crumuddgen....I Like it....