AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: jbigley on December 28, 2023, 06:30:31 PM
-
Recently, I have been reading that short starters weren’t used in the 18thC apparently because there is no documentation for their use. One author in particular has stated this, or words to that effect. (I could say a whole lot more about “documentation,” but that would be a whole different rant.)
So what’s the straight skinny? Starters or no starters?
Enlighten me.
Thanks—JB
-
This is an often asked question. I have never seen mention of a " short starter " in many many books on that time period. BUT I ran across a reference to a " bulger " as part of " the mounteniers equipment " when a bunch of trappers were riding out of one of the western rondezvous.. This " Bulger " was described then just as you would describe a " short starter ".
-
IIRC, the British Baker Rifle Regiments called them a "peg" which was made of iron, I think. As well, one soldier in 2 or 3 had a wooden mallet hammer with a long skinny
handle that would fit inside the barrel, for shoving the 'load' down 8 to 10 -" before the rifle's rod was employed.
-
Am I misrembering or wasn’t one of the older collectors/builders on record as noting that most the old rifle barrels he examined were coned in some form?
-
This is a question I’ve always been fascinated with. My best guess would have to be that the rifleman would maybe carefully load a tightly patched ball in a clean bore with the help of a short starter of one form or another and go forth with confidence of his first shot accomplishing the task at hand, harvesting game perhaps. In a situation where a follow up shot would be required or if the outing became a life and death scenario with hostiles the reloaded rifle would be bare balled? I just imagine being pinned against an ancient tree taking incoming from a raiding party, arrows and lead being hurled from multiple angles. The only sensible hope of survival would be to keep as much lead airborne in their direction as rapidly as one could physically be able to do. I have to think that loading one’s rifle was a task that was carefully carried out for “mission specific” situations. Hunting and friendly shooting matches would mean one method of loading and run and gun combat being something extremely different.
-
Am I misrembering or wasn’t one of the older collectors/builders on record as noting that most the old rifle barrels he examined were coned in some form?
I think what many people call coning, was more of a filing out of the lands AND grooves to aid loading tighter combinations. Cones, as done today, some measuring over
an inch in length, do not help with loading the combinations we like to use, in fact, makes it more difficult. This, we found out with a "coned" .40 cal. gun Leatherbelly bought here
from a member. He was unable to load a .400" ball and 10 ounce patch in the coned barrel, yet it was easy in my .40, with a .398" bore & could be done fairly easily without a short
starter.
The big book on Jaeger rifles with pictures of guns in wonderful condition, easily shows this filing at the muzzles. With a number of US made rifles, this filing is also evident, but others are
in such bad shape it is not easily visible in pictures.
-
Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB
-
So what is anyone's definition of conning? I have seen many originals that were " relieved " at the muzzle end and were called coned. I have seen some modern barrels that were " coned " but I would consider funneled.
-
Good point, SmyleeG - a 'cone' that is 1 1/2" deep, is more like a funnel.
The problem loading Leatherbelly's rifle with the long cone, was the long bearing gradual surface, which increased the friction and pressure needed to seat the ball.
That is the only way I can understand why it took a LOT more pressure to seat the patched ball, than into the short crown we make. I read a letter written by Corbin
(bullet swaging/forming/re-sizing die company), who showed a picture of a die with the same from of 'shoulder' that we put on our muzzles, this rounded shoulder is
the correct angles and finish for moving "metal". I tried this/these angles on a muzzleloading rifle's crown back in the 70's when I was interested in what Corbin's was
doing and found it works.
Had a lad at the Barnet rifle range (Burnaby B.C.) complain to me he couldn't load the combinations I was using in my identical rifle. .50 TC Hawken(s). The combination was
a .495" pure lead ball (telephone cable junction sheathing) and 10 ounce denim patch. I looked at his crown, and it was still the standard sharp cornered machined crown.
I use a pocket knife and cut the corners a bit, then a piece of emery from my possible's bag to smooth the crown. I then took one of his cast balls, piece of .022" denim and
loaded his rifle, just as easily as I loaded mine, using a starter and his 3/8" factory rod.
Here is one made by Dave Crysali, with a tool of his making.
(https://i.ibb.co/fFRLFzX/Dave-Crysalli-English-Rifle-11.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Rbndbkg)
Another, by Brian Barker.
(https://i.ibb.co/k5GQcSD/Brian-Barker-Muzzle.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zQmGf42)
A couple of my own.
(https://i.ibb.co/jzm2XFW/Crowns45and58001-zps2a7b2e16.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YXmMsGy)
-
Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB
How do any of the answers other than Daryl mentioning British riflemen of the Napoleonic era using a hammer and rod answer whether short starters were used in the 18th century US? And frankly, why would we care? We are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st century. And for the record, we can prove common usage for just about any item related to muzzleloader shooting except for short starters and bullet boards. Both of those items are about as rare as hens teeth.
-
Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB
How do any of the answers other than Daryl mentioning British riflemen of the Napoleonic era using a hammer and rod answer whether short starters were used in the 18th century US? And frankly, why would we care? We are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st century. And for the record, we can prove common usage for just about any item related to muzzleloader shooting except for short starters and bullet boards. Both of those items are about as rare as hens teeth.
Thanks Clark.
I’m interested in answers to my original question. Still haven’t gotten what I was looking for, but I appreciate all of the input, including yours. Lots of info regarding “pegs”, “cones” , etc. That’s what I meant by “good answers.”
For the record, I agree with your statement that we are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st C— albeit using 250 year old technology. From some of the posts it seems like many modern shooters do use short starters — also sometimes called bulgers or bozers. I’m not so sure that I agree that bullet boards (which I don’t use) and short starters are as rare as hens teeth. Plenty of pictures of both. Did they just spring into existence when the calendar changed from 1799 to 1800, or were they being used and were just so commonplace that they weren’t worth mentioning? And if they weren’t being used prior to the 19thC, why not? Or put another way, why did those items come into use in the 1800s and not before?
This may seem trivial or irrelevant to some, but I’d like to know. Enlighten me. —JB
-
Ned Roberts learned to shoot muzzle loaders from his uncle, a rifleman in the Civil War. His book talks about all the old timers he knew as a boy, so it's a direct linkage to what people did in the generation or two before his. He learned to shoot a southern muzzle loader from his uncle, who picked it up beside the dead southerner on the battlefield. He learned to shoot it in 1875. Also, in his prelude he thanks his friend Hacker Martin from Tennessee for the month he spent with him observing him making a [Southern Moutain] rifle.
To me, if he used a short starter, there was a tradition and oral history of them being used earlier. Many pieces of shooting equipment are discussed in detail, and Ned explains which were old and falling out of fashion, which were new things, and which he rarely hear of from old timers. His peers would have taken exception even if he had "made up" his parts about the straight starter, so he did not. I've never read anyone refuting that he said they used one, in the 90 years of his book. Remember, during the 1770s-1850s most descriptions of rifles were written by people that didn't know much about them, authors basically, not gun people. Someone like Samuel Clemons won't be accurate in their descriptions of equipment, they're writing for the general populace. The few tracts that were writeen by rifle men, are not usually very descriptive. Ned Roberts is an exception.
He says:
"Sometimes a straight starter is used, with which the ball is pushed some three inches down the bore, and then pushed home with the ramrod. The short starter consists of a wooden plug 3 or 4 inches long about 1/16 inch smaller than the bore of the rifle with a flattened knob on top...applying pressure to start the ball of bullet into the muzzle of the rifle, then striking the knob with the ball of the hand, the ball is forced down the bore..."
(The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle, Ned Roberts, 1940)
-
The original question asks about use of a starter in the 18th century. There is references to their (bulger) use in the first half of the 19th century. I think we can assume they were used before that reference date but how long before is a question. Back in the day just as now there were shooters using different methods to load so not every one would have used a bulger, straight starter or short starter.
-
When the old M-Loader barrel makers passed on many secrets died with them. I have examined many original m-loading barrels and there is definitely a "funneling" at the muzzle. Some historians thought this "funneling" might be ram rod wear but that does not appear to be the case. One of the most interesting quotes on this subject is from the famous Bill Large (now deceased). Bill was one of the founding Fathers of the NMLRA and one of the earliest 20th century barrel makers who helped pioneer the resurrection of the m-loading rifle. Bill Large barrels are coveted today. In a letter to John Baird who wrote "HAWKEN RIFLES, THE MOUNTAIN MANS CHOICE". Bill stated that he had re-bored and rifled 25 to 30 original Hawken barrels!!!!---- He also stated---"all were belled and showed signs of the funneling tool commonly used by most gunsmiths, as a request of the owner, to permit easy and fast reloading"""".
-
Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB
How do any of the answers other than Daryl mentioning British riflemen of the Napoleonic era using a hammer and rod answer whether short starters were used in the 18th century US? And frankly, why would we care? We are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st century. And for the record, we can prove common usage for just about any item related to muzzleloader shooting except for short starters and bullet boards. Both of those items are about as rare as hens teeth.
Thanks Clark.
I’m interested in answers to my original question. Still haven’t gotten what I was looking for, but I appreciate all of the input, including yours. Lots of info regarding “pegs”, “cones” , etc. That’s what I meant by “good answers.”
For the record, I agree with your statement that we are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st C— albeit using 250 year old technology. From some of the posts it seems like many modern shooters do use short starters — also sometimes called bulgers or bozers. I’m not so sure that I agree that bullet boards (which I don’t use) and short starters are as rare as hens teeth. Plenty of pictures of both. Did they just spring into existence when the calendar changed from 1799 to 1800, or were they being used and were just so commonplace that they weren’t worth mentioning? And if they weren’t being used prior to the 19thC, why not? Or put another way, why did those items come into use in the 1800s and not before?
This may seem trivial or irrelevant to some, but I’d like to know. Enlighten me. —JB
This subject comes up every few years here and it usually goes a few pages of back and forth before it’s finally settled that of known originals there are maybe 1 or 2 that can positively be proven to be pre 1840. Why, I have no clue. Short starters are a pretty good idea, they do make loading a breeze. But, on this side of the pond it seems to have been something that became popular in the percussion era at least from documentary evidence, including Ned Roberts writings.
-
I totally agree that the use of starters was likely a late 18th or early 19th century innovation.
-
I totally agree that the use of starters was likely a late 18th or early 19th century innovation.
Daryl, you are probably onto something. Started in Europe, eventually made its way across the pond to the cousins, where it started catching on at the end of flint era and was normal business within a decade of the percussion era.
-
By the 1850's I think it was, the gun club in San Francisco were pretty much all using guide bullet starters, according to the picture in Firearms of the American West.
Might have been post 1860, but I think it was earlier.
-
I think you will find that the Civil War altered the shooting landscape forever. But it didn’t happen all at once. At the very end of the Civil war many target shooters were still clinging to their muzzleloading guns, but had embraced aperture sights, sight tubes, and actual telescopic scopes.
As the 1880’s rolled around the muzzleloader shooters had all started shooting conical bullets mechanically started with a plunger type starter that fit over a rebated muzzle. These elongated bullets were paper patched, and usually shot from a heavy short gain twist barrel. It didn’t take long before all these separate components were rolled up in a metallic cartridge.
Hungry Horse
-
Thanks guys. Good answers all. Without stating an opinion/conclusion either way, I think I now have the skinny. Thanks again. — JB
-
I have not found any resources that prove a short starter, peg or any other such device was common in the 18th century colonial frontier. What the Germans or Swiss were doing in the 17th century is irrelevant. It never caught on here on this side of the “pond”. Why?
Because there were times when the “ two-legged game” shot back, or tomahawked you or just stabbed you over and over until you were dead. And the four legged game could run away faster than you could run after ‘em or they were big enough to defend themselves with tooth and claw.
Call it what you will, coning, filing, funneling, whatever. Speeds the loading process, protects the patching and sends real lead down range and hits the mark. It also makes shooting more enjoyable and I can shoot more. More ball down range = more fun. And it is more historically realistic if that be your cup of tea. (at least prior to the Boston Tea Party)
Shoot the way you like be it with short starter, hammer or nail, but don’t justify it by bending history to fit. I don’t want to carry a loading bench or some such picnic table in the woods just to load my rifle gun and you can be pretty dang certain neither did a rifleman in North America during “the bloody sevens” Nuff said.
-
One thing to consider. There is documentation that starters were used by SOME shooters before 1840. When it actually started on this side of the pond hasn't been discovered yet. When someone makes a claim that no one used them prior to a certain date I say prove it. This is an ongoing subject study and there might be more to learn before anyone can prove use or non use .
-
One thing perhaps to note, I loaded .400" balls with 10 ounce denim in a .398" bore, without a starter.
I also loaded .360" balls in my .36 and .32" balls in my .32 using the same 10 ounce and even the .0235" mattress that we can no longer acquire
without a short starter, just by choking up on the rod and pushing straight down into the bore. With the crowns shown above, the ball and patch
conform into the lands and grooves.
Just sayin'.
The starter just makes it faster. With larger bores, than perhaps .45 or .50, a starter is "mostly" necessary depending on the patch thickness.
-
A little off topic perhaps, but anytime I hear a discussion about this or that not being "historically correct" I bring this tidbit up......a documented Revolutionary War telescopic sight on a flintlock rifle.....
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=60660.msg607647#msg607647
And Smart Dog added this reference......
https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/charles-willson-peales-riffle-with-a-tellescope-to-it/#:~:text=However%20strange%2C%20there%20was%20one,portrait%20painter%20of%20the%20period
-
Lost my short starter las week while squirrel hunting. Loaded the gun just as Daryl says, so I could keep on hunting.
-
Coning:
(https://i.ibb.co/SN7KDTt/IMG-7418.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6YJ4chH)
From pg 42 John Baird’s “Hawken Rifles, The Mountain Man’s Choice”, 1968
I shot for maybe 30 years+ without a starter but started using one on my swivel breech. Its not really necessary except maybe for the English style rifle with a .662 ball and maybe hard cast. I can easily load a 50-54 with a 535 for eample, and a heavy ticking patch (which is no longer available).
The problem with determining the use of a starter historically is that there are so few surviving complete shot pouches/hunting bags etc. The horns are far more durable. So what we have is a tiny fraction of what might have been used in the 18th c. And only slightly better for the mid-late 19th. And often common items are not even mentioned.
THEN….
We have what I call the 3 classes of firearms ownership.
1. Gun owners, they usually know which end the bullet come out of.
2 Shooters. Who actually use firearms.
3. Riflemen. These are the ones who are more critical in their use and know how to place a shot and expect the rifle to perform.
Then we have rifling forms. Most, “probably” all St Louis Hawkens, for example, have a fairly “modern” rifling form. About equal lands and grooves. But then there is this Leman/Connestoga Rifle Works trade rifle with an 1840 dated low quality flintlock. I do not recall any “funneling” but I only saw this rifle once back about 1980. But it was not apparent or I would have noticed it.
It looks like they used a hacksaw blade for a groove cutter.
(https://i.ibb.co/jvSx83q/Muzzle.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
The problem with determining the use of a starter historically is that there are so few surviving complete shot pouches/hunting bags etc..... So what we have is a tiny fraction of what might have been used in the 18th c. And only slightly better for the mid-late 19th. And often common items are not even mentioned. (Emphasis is mine).
I think this is one of the best answers I've heard so far. Thanks Dan.
And once again, Thanks to all who responded to my question. --JB
-
The problem with determining the use of a starter historically is that there are so few surviving complete shot pouches/hunting bags etc..... So what we have is a tiny fraction of what might have been used in the 18th c. And only slightly better for the mid-late 19th. And often common items are not even mentioned. (Emphasis is mine).
I think this is one of the best answers I've heard so far. Thanks Dan.
And once again, Thanks to all who responded to my question. --JB
Yet the use of these items does indeed get mentioned in the early 19th century by an English source, per Daryl. It’s not that the common doesn’t get mentioned, it’s because the new and unusual always gets mentioned.
For example, early US riflemen were expected to perform as regular infantry when they weren’t employed as riflemen. Thus we have a written source that explains both a rifleman’s bag (with sewn on and greased patches inside) and separate horn, worn on slings on opposing shoulders, along with a separate cartridge box with standard style cartridges (no patch on ball) was worn on the belt. This was a break from the usual method and got recorded.
-
No matter when they came in, I would use the term, "Ball Starter".
-
Short starters? It's really of no significance to me whether "they" used a short starter or not back in the 1700 era! Folks so intrigued today about being authentic are using other things that were not used....back in the day; shooters/hunters back then rode horses if they had one and folks today are using modern transportation items called cars or trucks when they attend matches. I use a short starter and it's a big help because since I don't have anyone attempting to steal my scalp....I use a RB with a tight patch because I've found that gives me the best accuracy. I'm enjoying a fun sport of shooting these fine rifles and I'm not worried about using the same method of loading because D Boone may have used it or not! I suggest others do the same thing! ;D ;D ;D
-
Everyone has differing values and preferences when partaking in any hobby. Why is it "better" to NOT research and practice the way old Dan loaded his gun? Why is it better TO research and practice the way he loaded his gun? Because it is your preference and what you personally value (or devalue) in any given moment. There is no moral or ethical dilemma to overcome here. Here we focus on ball starters, somewhere else, ramrods or carving styles or gusseted linen breeches.
This hobby seems to be a progression of steps toward a personally chosen goal that is a moving target. We jump in or out wherever we choose. We don't have to click the button --Love it.
Ken
-
VERY well put.
-
"Mallets" for loading rifles are mentioned in a lot of late 18th century English sources on loading rifles, and clear discussions of their "handles" being used as rods show up regularly in discussions of rifles in the early 19th century in England, and there are some references in the early 19th century in the U.S. The gunnery section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica by 1780s and 1790s discussing loading a rifle with a mallet. Some of the earliest mallet discussions clearly indicate they were using a mallet to start an oversized ball, but later discussions discuss loading with patches.
Given we know English rifle shooting was influenced by American riflemen in the Revolution, it doesn't seem a stretch to assume some short starters were being used here at that time, but I haven't seen any American references to them from the 18th century. When this discussion comes up periodically, it seems like we settle on that they existed from at least the very early 1800s in mallet form in the Britain and may have been around earlier, but we can't say for sure when that is. It would be interesting to see what 18th century German sources say about loading rifles given the connection to American rifles.
This combination mallet and short starter is from the case of an English double barrel "smooth rifle" or "ball gun" from 1838, and the same style was in use earlier. How early exactly is unclear to me, but it would be interesting to go back and look and see what the earliest cased set with one is that we think is likely to be original:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53443885697_ecc44f9749_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53443885317_05ec8ab629_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53443884632_fb772d98a6_k.jpg)
This set was dated to 1815:
(https://bonhams.shorthandstories.com/under-the-hammer-amrs-may2022/assets/TV3tWho3Id/lot-385-2-crop-2-1920x1119.jpeg)
In 1800 James Sadler writing about his "New and Much Improved Rifle Gun" discussed the ball "wrapped in a greased cloth, and rammed down with great force by a mallet and rammer..."
"Practical Instructions for US Military Officers" published by E. Hoyt, Brigade Major and Inspector in the Militia of Massachusetts in 1811 clearly discusses using a mallet similar to the one above to start the ball and then drive it down into the bore further with the "handle."
https://books.google.com/books?id=0NcvAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
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.
The Mechanics Magazine in 1825 discussed loading rifles discussing tight loads and using a mallet or "punch":
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mechanics_Magazine/rboAAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mallet+rifle&pg=PA99&printsec=frontcover
Another English source which clearly indicates the use of a mallet with a short starter stick with cupped end like the example shown above:
(https://ia800906.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/10/items/helpsandhintsho00beregoog/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif.zip&file=helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_0008.tif&id=helpsandhintsho00beregoog&scale=2&rotate=0)
(https://ia800906.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/10/items/helpsandhintsho00beregoog/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif.zip&file=helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_0240.tif&id=helpsandhintsho00beregoog&scale=4&rotate=0)
(https://ia800906.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/10/items/helpsandhintsho00beregoog/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif.zip&file=helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_0241.tif&id=helpsandhintsho00beregoog&scale=4&rotate=0)
(https://ia800906.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/10/items/helpsandhintsho00beregoog/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif.zip&file=helpsandhintsho00beregoog_tif/helpsandhintsho00beregoog_0242.tif&id=helpsandhintsho00beregoog&scale=4&rotate=0)
-
Thank you Seth for that bit of history. 👍
-
Yeah - that was great and the starter (mallet) you pictured, looks very similar to the one I use in my .69 and 20 bore.
-
So 1811 was the first known American mention of a mallet?
Seems to be inline with the timeline Daryl mentioned up thread.
-
My "timeline" was just a guess.
-
1811 is the first American source I've seen, but keep in mind that a lot of English books would have been read here too among the well to do. "Scloppetaria: or Considerations on the Nature and Use of Rifled Barrel Guns..." from 1808 also mentions the mallets and has this important sentence which may explain why we don't see clear indications of short starter use: "As it always happens, that the greatest difficulty in loading, is in first forcing the ball into the barrel, most riflemen carry either a small mallet, or what is called a rammer, either of wood or brass, a little countersunk at the end so as to obviate the possibility of injuring the front sight, by its slipping off the convex sphere of the ball." If in common parlance a short starter rod was being called a "rammer" as was a regular full-length ramrod, we'd have a hard time telling when people were talking about ramrods vs. starters. The 1811 American source when talking about rammers is referring to the ramrod. The images for Scloppetaria show a mallet like the one a showed before and a "drawer pull" style "rammer" that is very similar to the starter I currently use for my smaller caliber rifle.
The James Sadler source I mentioned above from 1800 also mentioned use of "mallet and rammer" that I originally took to mean mallet and ramrod, but it sounds like that is a short starter but in some instances they mention the "rammer" and mallet being used to drive the ball "by repeated blows home to the powder," so that would imply a full length ramrod. Both mallets and rammers are also mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the late 18th century, and the wording there sounds like they were using the mallet to hit the "rammer" to start the ball. "An Essay on Shooting" from 1789 describes the normal way of loading a rifle for the English as an oversized ball driven into the bore using a mallet and iron rammer whereas the Germans are noted as using greased patches. The latter is noted as easier and more efficient. Other sources writing later about German riflemen such as Winthrop in "Our Rifles" indicated they had historically also loaded oversized balls and carried a mallet and "short metal rod" for loading the oversized balls and then drove them home with a metal ramrod and used the wooden ramrods under the barrels only for cleaning.
I didn't have much down time over the weekend, but if I get snowed in tomorrow I may dig into this further. It would be interesting to see how early of a source we can find on loading rifles and see what different sources say. Some of the one's I've read clearly just parrot or paraphrase earlier sources. The Essay on Shooting's section is word for word in some of the sportman's dictionary publications a decade or more later for example.
American newspapers already use rifle as a common term without explanation in the 1750s as shown by this example form 1756:
(https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?user=12785668&id=590964850&clippingId=138299970&width=820&height=1204&crop=1923_1688_914_1343&rotation=0)
-
So it appears as though there were SOME shooters using some device like a short starter, peg, ball starter, bulger or mallet back in 1789. Could we then assume that its use was SOME time before that by at least some but not ALL rifle shooters? The answer to the original question would then be yes the use of a starter was made by some . Word salad ! 🤔😁
-
It is clear some English riflemen were using mallets in 1780 and before (Encyclopaedia Britannica from that year) and likely had been all along since they keep mentioning that as the normal way of loading a rifle. Keep in mind rifles weren't common at all in England until the late 18th century. By around 1800 there are discussions of the English using mallets that also worked as short starters. So what were the Americans doing? Should we presume they were following traditional Continental European methods for rifles since that is the origin of our rifle traditions? There are scant references later to using knives to start a ball (Audubon's writing mentions this), but I haven't seen much in American sources providing any detail on loading, probably because it was not something remarkable to them that needed documenting.
This source from 1761 again mentions the Germans using a mallet and both oversized balls and patched balls and might be the source for the other later writings on the matter given the nearly identical phrasing. That of course presumes this source itself isn't repeating another earlier publication which it very well may be. They notably don't specify how the patched round balls were being loaded:
(https://ia600507.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/16/items/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2.zip&file=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_0002.jp2&id=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1&scale=8&rotate=0)
(https://ia600507.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/16/items/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2.zip&file=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_0379.jp2&id=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1&scale=8&rotate=0)
(https://ia600507.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/16/items/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2.zip&file=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_0380.jp2&id=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1&scale=8&rotate=0)
(https://ia600507.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/16/items/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2.zip&file=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_jp2/bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1_0387.jp2&id=bim_eighteenth-century_mathematical-tracts-of-t_robins-benjamin_1761_1&scale=8&rotate=0)
-
All my books are still in storage, so I have to go by memory as best I can. A couple points:
1) A distinction must be made between patched and unpatched ball in 18th century accounts. Mallets and short starters WERE used for starting oversized, unpatched balls - IIRC, there is a French military source from early in the 18th century that describes the loading sequence for a rifled carbine using an oversized ball started with a ramrod and an iron pin. This was later plagiarized by an English source. It may also be the source for Robins' treatise that Seth just posted.
2) The Baker rifles and their associated mallets get brought up very single time, but it is not certain that the mallets were used for routine loading. I believe that DeWitt Bailey notes that they were not issued on an individual basis but only to every second man, which suggests that they were intended to keep badly fouled rifles shooting in emergencies rather than for routine loading. Of course, what the quartermaster intends and how they were actually used may have been quite different...
3) The earliest use of a mallet for starting a patched ball that I am aware of comes not from Britain nor America but from Austria, with the 1796 model military Jaeger with its odd detached ramrod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy2Dh9dMQNg
4) Despite numerous assertions to the contrary, "they" did write down how to load a rifle: I am aware of at least two accounts of loading patched balls in a civilian context from the relevant period, one from mid-18th century Germany which discusses how to hold the ramrod to avoid breaking it when starting the ball (contained in Wolf's Steinschloss Jaegerbuschen) and Audubon's account of Kentuckian loading procedure around 1810, in which the the patch is cut at the muzzle and the ball started with the knife handle. In addition, quite a number of mundane details about daily life are mentioned in passing in the Draper manuscripts, Shane interviews, Isaac Weld's description how these strange (to him) weapons were used in the 1790s, probate inventories, etc. There is really quite a lot of evidence for how firearms were used along the frontier, including debreeching barrels to unload a bad charge, wiping between shots when squirrel hunting, de-hexing the gun if you happen to shoot at a wolf and miss (Amerindian belief, that one) - you just have to look for it.
5) Modern barrels aren't very good representations of 18th century barrels. Original barrels, by virtue of the manufacturing process, would necessarily feature a slight degree of choking due to wear on the boring and rifling blades and compression of the materials used to hold them against the metal, and we know that different patterns of choking and funneling were deliberately introduced in fowling pieces. Baird's figures for the Hawken rifle he examined (posted by Dan Phariss above) suggests that rifle barrels may have been treated the same way at times - to the best of my knowledge no one has ever researched the question. Ergo, we should probably be extremely cautious about extrapolating too freely from our own experiences with replicas - what is necessary for good accuracy with a modern barrel may not be necessary, or even desirable, with originals.
I think that it is pretty clear that while mallets and short starters were around throughout the 18th century, the use of them for patched balls was a European innovation of the last part of the 18th century and didn't spread to the US until the 19th century. There seems to be a correlation between the use of a mallet and military use, perhaps due to the need to get mass-produced balls down fouled rifle barrels in the field - I suspect that the fact that this innovation occurs alongside the introduction of much larger conscription-based armies and new operational concepts blurring the distinction between the strategic and tactical spheres is not a coincidence (that is, the shift between 18th century "kabinettskreig" and Napoleonic-era warfare). As an aside, based on this I would suggest that the idea that looser-fitting balls were used along the frontier due to the frequency of armed conflict is probably wrong, which in turn raises some interesting questions about how firearms were actually used tactically along the frontier and how both Whites and Indians viewed warfare culturally, but that is kind of a big topic in itself.
-
Interesting video. I was surprised by his accuracy, with what appeared to be a fairly loose combination. I know this lad can shoot and his results were likely the best that rifle
can produce. Notice, no mention of having to "SWAB" the bore. I assume all shooting was from a dirty bore. I missed what lube was used, if it was stated.
Now that I think back to what I was able to produce, accuracy wise, with an 8 groove Musketoon having a slightly shorter sight radius than he had I can understand his group sizes.
Same with the Remington Zouave, however it's rifling was not period correct. Both guns shot considerably better than his, but then, I also used tighter combinations & powder charges
the guns liked, not was was declared the issue load. I am sure his would shoot better, given appropriate load combinations, in spite of the rather fast rifling twist.
-
I think that it is pretty clear that while mallets and short starters were around throughout the 18th century, the use of them for patched balls was a European innovation of the last part of the 18th century and didn't spread to the US until the 19th century. There seems to be a correlation between the use of a mallet and military use, perhaps due to the need to get mass-produced balls down fouled rifle barrels in the field - I suspect that the fact that this innovation occurs alongside the introduction of much larger conscription-based armies and new operational concepts blurring the distinction between the strategic and tactical spheres is not a coincidence (that is, the shift between 18th century "kabinettskreig" and Napoleonic-era warfare). As an aside, based on this I would suggest that the idea that looser-fitting balls were used along the frontier due to the frequency of armed conflict is probably wrong, which in turn raises some interesting questions about how firearms were actually used tactically along the frontier and how both Whites and Indians viewed warfare culturally, but that is kind of a big topic in itself.
It still doesn't seem pretty clear to me. I'm not sold that Americans were or were not using mallets and/or short starters of some form in the 18th century. To me that still remains to be proven one way or the other. I can totally see why some have taken the side of them not being in use until we have proof they were though. I haven't read as many first hand accounts from riflemen of that period. I wonder if any of them talk more extensively about rifle use. It seems that we don't have much in the way of information on American loading techniques; however, if mallets and short starters were already in use for rifles using oversized balls, why wouldn't some shooters have found them useful when loading tight patched balls as well? We know the German/Swiss riflemen were using both oversized and patched balls, so they would have had experience with mallets and short starters. Our early rifle-makers were largely Germanic immigrants, so they would have brought over German practices and at least some of that would have been passed those on to the riflemen themselves. We obviously don't know at this point if maybe instead riflemen were just using knives or other objects (many belt axes would make nice mallest) to start tight loads since we haven't seen documentation for their practices and have almost nothing in the way of 18th century riflemen accoutrements aside from horns. However, when the mallets/short starters get mentioned in early 19th century sources as more was being written and published such as that 1811 militia manual, they don't appear to be talking about them as some new innovation.
-
It still doesn't seem pretty clear to me. I'm not sold that Americans were or were not using mallets and/or short starters of some form in the 18th century. To me that still remains to be proven one way or the other. I can totally see why some have taken the side of them not being in use until we have proof they were though. I haven't read as many first hand accounts from riflemen of that period. I wonder if any of them talk more extensively about rifle use. It seems that we don't have much in the way of information on American loading techniques; however, if mallets and short starters were already in use for rifles using oversized balls, why wouldn't some shooters have found them useful when loading tight patched balls as well? We know the German/Swiss riflemen were using both oversized and patched balls, so they would have had experience with mallets and short starters. Our early rifle-makers were largely Germanic immigrants, so they would have brought over German practices and at least some of that would have been passed those on to the riflemen themselves. We obviously don't know at this point if maybe instead riflemen were just using knives or other objects (many belt axes would make nice mallest) to start tight loads since we haven't seen documentation for their practices and have almost nothing in the way of 18th century riflemen accoutrements aside from horns. However, when the mallets/short starters get mentioned in early 19th century sources as more was being written and published such as that 1811 militia manual, they don't appear to be talking about them as some new innovation.
Maybe I'm missing something, but DO we know that German riflemen were using oversized balls after, say, 1700? I've never investigated closely, but for awhile now I've thought that they probably stopped doing that sometime in the 17th, if not the 16th century, and the practice only gets mentioned thereafter because that one French source claimed the French military was still doing it and a lot more people read French than German...If they were still using oversized balls, I'd expect to see iron ramrods a lot more often, as even after being started with a hammer bore-tight balls doesn't seem likely to just slide down.
If you are looking for first-hand accounts of riflemen, the Draper manuscripts, pension applications for Revolutionary War service, later captivity narratives, and miscellaneous autobiographies are your best bets, I think - you will be looking for something along the lines of "When I went to load, I discovered my mallet gone..." or some other off-hand reference, not a detailed description of how to load a rifle.
-
If they were still using oversized balls, I'd expect to see iron ramrods a lot more often, as even after being started with a hammer bore-tight balls doesn't seem likely to just slide down.
One of the 18th century English sources I looked at specified that the wooden rod under the barrel was used for cleaning only and that a separate iron rod was carried for loading. A lot of us still use range rods when target shooting, and from that experience of walking around with a rifle, range rod, horn, etc., I would think that would have been abandoned pretty quickly as it is cumbersome to do much movement with a rifle, rod, etc., granted many German rifles had slings.
-
If they were still using oversized balls, I'd expect to see iron ramrods a lot more often, as even after being started with a hammer bore-tight balls doesn't seem likely to just slide down.
One of the 18th century English sources I looked at specified that the wooden rod under the barrel was used for cleaning only and that a separate iron rod was carried for loading. A lot of us still use range rods when target shooting, and from that experience of walking around with a rifle, range rod, horn, etc., I would think that would have been abandoned pretty quickly as it is cumbersome to do much movement with a rifle, rod, etc., granted many German rifles had slings.
What source was that?
-
I thought I had put it in one of the prior posts, but I don't see it now. Maybe it was one of the pieces I had read from a later 19th century or 20th century publication that didn't seem solid. I know when I was reading about this on my phone while waiting for my daughter to fall asleep I found some 1920-1960s publications discussing the loading techniques of the past but without references to their sources.
-
The late Frank Costanza had a collection of over 90 original pouches. Not one short starter in any of them.
-
Page 257 “Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850”
Bullet board but no starter apparent.
(https://i.ibb.co/FVVGN06/IMG-7510.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wssD3wy)
-
Thanks, Dan. I've seen that picture before. Looks to me like the sheath on the strap --the one holding the dagger--is open at the bottom, indicating to me that it was not initially designed as a sheath for the dagger. Perhaps for a starter instead? I keep my starters on the strap in a similar set-up.
Just sayin'...
--JB
-
Thanks, Dan. I've seen that picture before. Looks to me like the sheath on the strap --the one holding the dagger--is open at the bottom, indicating to me that it was not initially designed as a sheath for the dagger. Perhaps for a starter instead? I keep my starters on the strap in a similar set-up.
Just sayin'...
--JB
Yet everything else remains. Even the useless bullet board.
-
Thanks, Dan. I've seen that picture before. Looks to me like the sheath on the strap --the one holding the dagger--is open at the bottom, indicating to me that it was not initially designed as a sheath for the dagger. Perhaps for a starter instead? I keep my starters on the strap in a similar set-up.
Just sayin'...
--JB
Yet everything else remains. Even the useless bullet board.
???
I guess I missed your point (although I agree about the bullet board. I don't use them). --JB
-
When I hunted moose with the .69, or rabbits with the .32 and .45, I used bullet boards. They're GREAT! (just like Tony would say).
(https://i.ibb.co/GFxkDHg/IMG-2859.jpg) (https://ibb.co/N7VpqTw)
-
One of the great things about ball boards is that when it is cold you can put them inside your jacket. It keeps the bear lube warm.
While it is interesting to speculate on what or what was not used in the 18th century, this is the 21st century.
When hunting I do not use a bag and horn, that is when I am seriously trying to put meat on the freezer. My ball block is on a thong around my neck. Everything else I need is in the picture below.
(https://i.ibb.co/wKSmh5s/0208191256.jpg) (https://ibb.co/K92vxTw)
The particular ball block in the photo doubles for trail-walk use.
When hunting small game I use one similar to Darryl's.
On occasion I have done "period correct hunts" both for deer and small game. But these I consider to be fantasy hunts. That is it is more like a rendezvous. Not really important if I kill something at such an event.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/vYLjnYd/deer-eats-popcorn-64.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/vYLjnYd/deer-eats-popcorn-64.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
:D :D :D :D :D
PM sent. :D
--JB
-
One of the great things about ball boards is that when it is cold you can put them inside your jacket. It keeps the bear lube warm.
While it is interesting to speculate on what or what was not used in the 18th century, this is the 21st century.
When hunting I do not use a bag and horn, that is when I am seriously trying to put meat on the freezer. My ball block is on a thong around my neck. Everything else I need is in the picture below.
(https://i.ibb.co/wKSmh5s/0208191256.jpg) (https://ibb.co/K92vxTw)
The particular ball block in the photo doubles for trail-walk use.
When hunting small game I use one similar to Darryl's.
On occasion I have done "period correct hunts" both for deer and small game. But these I consider to be fantasy hunts. That is it is more like a rendezvous. Not really important if I kill something at such an event.
Alacran--Nice outfit. I like it. --JB
-
When hunting moose, I carried started carrying the loading block with a round capper in my top pocket along with a horn of powder.
Later seasons, I carried 4 or 5 paper ctgs. in a parka pocket and capper in top pocket. That's it. For this hunt, the temp ran from -45F up to barely above freezing, around 33/4F
for a couple days, then drop back down again. Such is the weather with Chinook winds.
In a week period, the temp went from one extreme to the other, but then, it might be -40 for a couple weeks. Just lucky I didn't break a main spring.
-
Thanks, Dan. I've seen that picture before. Looks to me like the sheath on the strap --the one holding the dagger--is open at the bottom, indicating to me that it was not initially designed as a sheath for the dagger. Perhaps for a starter instead? I keep my starters on the strap in a similar set-up.
Just sayin'...
--JB
Yet everything else remains. Even the useless bullet board.
???
I guess I missed your point (although I agree about the bullet board. I don't use them). --JB
It means he got rid of the short starter yet kept the bullet board. The starter would be way more useful an item to keep, if one was present originally. Personally, I don’t think that dagger was the original knife used, but a later replacement.
How do we know when any of the items were added to or removed from that setup?
-
Good point, SmyleeG - a 'cone' that is 1 1/2" deep, is more like a funnel.
The problem loading Leatherbelly's rifle with the long cone, was the long bearing gradual surface, which increased the friction and pressure needed to seat the ball.
That is the only way I can understand why it took a LOT more pressure to seat the patched ball, than into the short crown we make. I read a letter written by Corbin
(bullet swaging/forming/re-sizing die company), who showed a picture of a die with the same from of 'shoulder' that we put on our muzzles, this rounded shoulder is
the correct angles and finish for moving "metal". I tried this/these angles on a muzzleloading rifle's crown back in the 70's when I was interested in what Corbin's was
doing and found it works.
So Daryl can you explain how you smooth your Muzzles like this? Thanks 😊
Had a lad at the Barnet rifle range (Burnaby B.C.) complain to me he couldn't load the combinations I was using in my identical rifle. .50 TC Hawken(s). The combination was
a .495" pure lead ball (telephone cable junction sheathing) and 10 ounce denim patch. I looked at his crown, and it was still the standard sharp cornered machined crown.
I use a pocket knife and cut the corners a bit, then a piece of emery from my possible's bag to smooth the crown. I then took one of his cast balls, piece of .022" denim and
loaded his rifle, just as easily as I loaded mine, using a starter and his 3/8" factory rod.
Here is one made by Dave Crysali, with a tool of his making.
(https://i.ibb.co/fFRLFzX/Dave-Crysalli-English-Rifle-11.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Rbndbkg)
Another, by Brian Barker.
(https://i.ibb.co/k5GQcSD/Brian-Barker-Muzzle.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zQmGf42)
A couple of my own.
(https://i.ibb.co/jzm2XFW/Crowns45and58001-zps2a7b2e16.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YXmMsGy)
-
Daryl can you explain how you smooth your Muzzles like that? Thanks
Anthony
-
Sure: 320 grit emery or 320 grit wet/dry paper. Push thumb into it and rotate your wrist. Rotate the barrel 90 degrees every 15 seconds or so. I use a spray of WD40 on the paper or emery. I first push a large patch down into the bore to "catch" the metal and stone, then when finished, fish that out with a dental tool, tweezers, needle nose pliers or hemostats. Any of those work well.
If you are tool oriented, DaveC2 made one that does it perfectly. The barrel doesn't have to be removed from the stock, but is handier if done so.
Most barrels come from the barrel maker, with about a 45 degree angled cut at the muzzle made by a cutting tool. Each of those corners need to be smoothed, ie: the tops of the lands and the bottom of the grooves to form the metal moving angles.
Crown as received:
(https://i.ibb.co/6yNdYvb/Crown-As-Received.jpg) (https://ibb.co/df7hBb6)
(https://i.ibb.co/CJL7TqP/Thumb-and-Emery-or-Paper.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TKy8FZW)
(https://i.ibb.co/0G2kWgQ/PB241922-zpsb5cca558.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sVRhD0t)
DavC2's muzzle crowned with his adjustable tool.
(https://i.ibb.co/zhQp9WZ/Dave-Crysalli-English-Rifle-11.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y7Pmn4h)
Muzzle Crowned clamped a lathe's 3 or 4-jaw chuck using 320 set/dry in the end of a finger.
(https://i.ibb.co/K229jy8/100-4477.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zXXShft)
-
Thanks Daryl
-
You mentioned DaveC2 tool.?. Sounds interesting, any pictures of his tool? lol. You know, for the Barrel 😁
-
A new bore such as this one will most certainly rip the patch when you "Snap" the ball and patch in with a short starter hard rap. The sudden compression will cut the patch. I have tested this with patches lubed with mink oil. Slowly push the load into the muzzle past the sharp edge and the patch usually survived when retrieved. Rap in in fast and it will rip enough for the burning gases to finish the job.
So, I do and advise all to smooth up the crown like Daryl suggests.
Bob
(https://i.ibb.co/0q8JFg8/New-bore.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
You mentioned DaveC2 tool.?. Sounds interesting, any pictures of his tool? lol. You know, for the Barrel 😁
Dave posted pictures of his tool, but I have not asked the correct questions to the search function to find them. Sorry.
-
I think we are missing somethings about bullet boards. If they were useless then David Cooke, for example, would not have carried one around. He was also a hunter, probably a market hunter and by the pouch contents likely spent a lot of time in the woods. He most likely fought in the War for Independence. And as a hunter surely had to dodge unfriendly natives at times. He was not shooting MLs and “treking” as a game. It was a way of life, serious business, perhaps life or death at times. He did not pack around a bullet board for ballast. When did he start using it? We will never know. Nor do we know what he did or where he lived prior to 1780.
The rifle shown is surely the last one he owned.
https://www.icollector.com/EXCEEDINGLY-RARE-RIFLE-AND-ACCESSORY-COLLECTION-CARRIED-BY-FRONTIERSMAN-DAVID-COOKE_i17332400
And I have read that the German mercenary riflemen used them to cut patches. Pushing a ball and patch in the hole(s) then cutting the cloth. And if you were in combat a bullet board would save a lot of fumbling. And would be simpler I think than sewing on patches.
-
Good point. ;)
-
Thanks for posting Dan. Cooke's rifle itself is a no-nonsense piece. Aside from the stock wood itself there is no discernible decoration. What you would expect from someone who spends most of his time in the field. The bullet board itself is crude, unlike many representations that we see today.
This debate about bullet boards and short starters has been tiresome to me for years. Kind of like the use of haversacks in civilian use.
I use bullet boards for hunting. Way more useful than trying to find balls in a shot pouch, or a ball bag.
-
With sets like the Cooke rifle and accoutrements, we don't really have any proof that the overall set is all original to each other or precisely what time period he was using them in if they truly were all his. The rifle and accoutrements are said to have been passed down through multiple generations of the family. The early generations may well still have been using and shooting the rifle, and they would likely have swapped some accessories out as needed or as it suited them and certainly could have lost a starter along the way if one was present. I lose pieces of kit all the time! :o
Alacran, I agree these discussions can be tiresome at times, especially if we just repeat the same things over and over rather than dig up more information. I enjoyed looking into historical publications to see what was written down in the period, but that didn't really resolve much in terms of the 18th century. It did pretty clearly show that there were American sources in the early 19th century talking about starters/mallets. Nothing we find is likely to change how very many people shoot today. It certainly won't change what I do at the range. Heck, I almost always load with a short starter and ranger rod for my rifles and a round knob "pistol loading rod" with my pistols because that is what works well for me and allows me to enjoy myself. My Murphy's Oil Soap, alcohol, and water patch lube isn't historically correct either, but it works for me. That said, for the historical purists, reenactors, and historians, finding an answer to question would be exciting, and we certainly still may find an American source discussing a short starter or bullet board in the colonial era/late 18th century.
-
What I see in some of this about equipment is that many seem to think that people in the past were too stupid to figure things out. They were not. Its a VERY short step from a bullet board for cutting patches to carrying ready to go patches and balls in a board.
AND if you actually have stuff you need to operate with in the pouch it makes it hard to get to some specific thing to load the rifle so the bullet board mean you don’t have to dig for patches and balls in the pouch. Of course we have no idean when he started using the bullet board. But rifles had been in use for how long by 1770? 300 years perhaps? And nobody thought of this? In 300 years?
Its like the powder horn thing. Which I equate to more recent things like… Collectors would buy a mid/late 19c side arm used in the West with the “cowboy” leather it was used with. They would take the arm from the leather for display and throw the leather in a box, maybe. NOW the vintage leather is highly collectable, worth significant money but 40-50 years ago was just junk to most people. And its almost ALL separated from its firearm. See the book “Packing Iron”. How many pouches and horns did Kindig possibly leave behind when he bought a rifle? HMM? Which the family then perhaps threw in the garbage bullet board and all? Assuming it had not rotted away by that time. Remember this stuff was often used as toys by the family kids. As I stated before we only have the slightest snippets of such things from say 1770. And a significant percentage of the horns from this time are fakes, documentation for the fakery dates back over 100 years and maybe to our Centennial celebration of 1876. So….. Is it surprising we see so few bullet boards? Or pouches for that matter.
-
Old topic, annually or semi-annually revisited. Almost all barrels had relieved muzzles. Unlike “coning” today, the rifling extended undiminished to the muzzle in rifles with relieved muzzles. The relief in the couple dozen original barrels I freshed the rifling on was 0.010-0.015”. And no, this was not due to wear or other explanations because that would diminish the rifling, result in ovalization, and so on. This same setup was documented on an Oerter rifle in excellent shape in the Moravian book by Bob Leinemann. Clean, bright, and relieved for over an inch. Now you and I know this is not the way to get best accuracy so some of us close our minds to it like a bank vault. Never happened, because it wouldn’t work for me.
We don’t have to know how they did it, just accept real data. It’s possible that young fellas with great eyesight deepened the grooves by filing, then relieved the lands.
A number of original Hawken rifles were similarly relieved. The result is that a patched ball can be thumbed into the barrel, patch trimmed, and rammed home without any short starter needed. This is what period accounts of Audubon and Boone describe as loading procedure.
The proposition that “they had to pound the balls in somehow” presupposes that the muzzles were finished as they are today. Yes, they did have to pound them in when using late percussion barrels rifled by Remington or others during the established bullet board/short starter era.
-
The last three posts are probably the best responses to my original question, although some of the rest were fairly informative--re: the way some of you load, shoot, etc. Even though the posts didn't provide an answer to my original question, I always appreciate new information, but not always revisionist stuff. (For the record, I am NOT a purist, nor an authenticity nazi). I started this thread because I actually wanted an answer to my question. (In retrospect, I possibly could have made the question plainer). When I started muzzleloading in the 60s, conventional wisdom was that a short starter was used to load a tightly patched ball with a well-greased patch. "Thumb-starting" risked a broken ramrod, (which really puts the shooter into deep kim-chee). It made sense. Nowadays, I'm hearing some folks say that starters are a modern item, or at least weren't around for quite a while before the 19th C. Made me scratch my head a bit. Was their utility suddenly "discovered" when the calendar changed from 1799 to 1800? Or were things done quite differently before that? If so, what changed? Did the early shooters have some kind of material advantage that was lost in the 19thC and that was never re-discovered? Some folks are looking for documentation. It might not exist. Doesn't really matter to me, because I'm probably not going to change how I shoot just to be like someone's interpretation of Daniel or Davy.
Regarding bullet boards, that seems to be something that kind of wandered off the original topic. For the record, I don't think they're "useless," just that I personally don't use them.
What I've learned from all of the discussion in this thread is that no one really knows for sure. I don't think anyone *can* know. There isn't anyone alive today who was alive during the 18thC, so all we can do is give it our best guess based on what we DO know.
This will probably be my last post on the topic. Thanks to everyone who added his .02 to the discussion. :D --JB
-
I realize that everyone has not had the chance to view many original barrels so I took these pics. These are pictures of an original rifle signed W Zollman that is in our library. The barrel has really good rifling down to the breech and the original cone. I find this type of coning on just about every original barrel I have inspected.
Here is a sample of the HC type of coning that Rich is referring to. I also assume that the coning was done with files by first filing out the grooves while following the twist of the bore. Then another file is used to file out the lands and gives the bore a Hexagon shape in this six grooved barrel. Yes, the bore is actually round! Compare this muzzle to todays crowned muzzles and you will easily see the difference.
(https://i.ibb.co/G31hbZf/muz-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Z1wZkQR)
Here is a shot showing the groves and lands. This 40 cal bore opens up to about .430.
(https://i.ibb.co/QjFpzLK/muz-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3Yy4G2C)
Here is a 395 patched ball inserted with thumb pressure. It is interesting that the rifleling is coned about .390 into the bore, just the perfect size ball for the .40 cal bore. I find on most original barrels that the cone depth (into the bore) is usually the best size ball to use in that barrel. The cone at the muzzle usually opens up about 3 calibers, .400 to .430. in this barrel.
(https://i.ibb.co/fn7TGH5/muz-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gPCcFJp)
-
The shorter the cone, the more accuracy potential the barrel will have.
Cones made today with various "tools" have too long cones, imho.
Modern BR guns from the 70's up to now will have square or 11 degree muzzle-crown/ends(11 degrees from OD to centre) with sharp corners, no rounding. These are the MOST accurate muzzle shapes, but can only be used on breechloading guns.
With the muzzleloaders, we must have a system to allow a tight combination of ball and patch to be loaded, without damaging the patch, yet be as close to the sharp muzzle crown as possible- if
the best accuracy is required.
Good post, Ed.
-
Those long coning tools that have been marketed were developed without much research. Every cone that I have inspected wasn't that long, or deep into the bore. The universal coning tool I make produces a very short cone, all you need to do is remove enough of the rifling to be able to thumb start a patched ball' Here is an example done by a customer. You can almost see where the cone ends. I usually don't even remove this much rifling but the owner claims it works great!
(https://i.ibb.co/zSWWq2R/mlcrown.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GVffzM2)
-
I see that one is likely 1/2" deep, Ed.
This one is less than 1/16" deep and easily forms the ball and patch into the bore.
No thumb start, of course.
(https://i.ibb.co/bHCvTCZ/100-6518-zpsoyoluoi4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pWMKcM8)
-
First off, I don't see the need to cone a barrel more than Daryl's patented thumb crown smoothing.
What is the point of thumb starting? Speed of loading? Speed with muzzleloaders is an oxymoron. If you want a quick second shot for hunting, carry a pistol of adequate caliber and learn to use it.
-
If speed is a requisite, then a paper ctg. is the method. With mine(14bore), I was able to fire an aimed shot, 8 seconds after the first shot.
It took some practice, but was entirely dependable. The design of the rifle is of paramount importance in fast aiming. I carried paper ctgs,
in my right parka pocket, with the capper in the left breast pocket. The average American styled rifle is not designed for this fast shooting.
The various early guns which resemble Germanic heritage, are better for this than the later designs.
-
CapAndBall did a video on Napoleonic skirmishers and they appeared to have starters?
https://youtu.be/wrhRT9yx4YE?si=TU2lTQXKsSHEvCXk&t=794
Not sure how accurate this is.
-
I just watched the video Jakob. Thanks for posting.
It appears the starter is used as a mallet to seat the ball. A few ball blocks would have really come in handy.
-
British Rifle regiments were issued a mallet to so many men, or every other man, I forget.
This was for when something got stuck, not for normal use.
It was there if needed was all.
Best,
Rich.