AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Accoutrements => Topic started by: Red Owl on January 25, 2009, 08:06:26 PM
-
Are small patch knives historically correct? I have seen a couple of hunting pouches with a sheath attached but for what looks to be a full sized knife. Any one have any images of original patch knives- if they are PC? Thanks. :o
-
No personal research on the PC side for small ones, but I keep reading claims that there's not much evidence for small knives in this role, at least in the Rockies. I'm not too worried about PC, but I have learned a couple of really important lessons about patch knives in general.
They have to be sharper than sharp, and stay that way for quite a while if you do lots of shooting in a single session. And I'm happier with them if they're long enough to make the cut in a single pass, rather than having to saw. Longer knives seem to meet both criteria best, lasting longer than short ones, making that one pass cut more reliably at the beginning and end of a shooting session.
I've tinkered around with lots of knives for patch cutting- home made, custom made, and commercial made. Best luck for me is a good grade of carbon steel with a blade no shorter than about 4" and 5" is better. Longer is superfluous to me and harder to carry, no matter where I put it.
Another small detail worth passing on. My favorite home made has a very pleasing (to me) handle out of highly polished slick wood. Absolutely stinks as a patch knife if you lube at the muzzle like I do, and get lube on your hands. With even a thin film of lube on my hands (what's left behind after I wipe my hands on my pants, for example), that grip is as slick as greased glass or wet ice. It may be my favorite knife, but it's not a patch knife any more.
-
I have no idea what may be historically correct for a Lancaster Longrifle. However, the one I use has about 4 1/2" of cutting edge and the whole thing was made from an antique table knife from sometime in the 1800s. It has old ivory scales. The blade has integral butt and bolster forged into it. Looks good on the sheath attached to the bag and is an absolute razor. Watch for an old German table knife in your local antique stores and reshape the blade a little to make it into a great patch knife.
-
I don't know about 19th c., but patch knives in the 18th c., are not documented, or mentioned anywhere that I know of. From what is recorded from that time, pre-cut, and pre-lubed patches were used almost exclusively, and carried in the patch box, or stored in the shooting bag. There is a reference to the women of Boonesboro cutting patches for the men while under siege in the fort, and I seem to remember other references of the same nature. If PC is a concern, patch knives should not be used for 18th c. reenactment, nor bullet boards and short starters. There simply is no documentation for the use of any of these items by common hunters, or militia.
-
Hey Wick- Red Owl is Dave. There's a knife show starting this Friday in Lakeland and there's supposed to be some old knives- I am told- not sure if true.
and....getting back to the subject- The reason I asked is because there just didn't seem to be that much of a mention on patch knives, patches, etc in historical records and it got me to thinking about a few things. ALWAYS DANGEROUS.
1. Always seemed in a combat situation- patching a ball would take too much time- I was wondering if just a bare ball was ever loaded to speed up the process, trouble is you may need a slightly larger ball. Plain balls are shot out of pistols and seem to work okay. So my thought was whether in hunting a patched ball was used but in an skirmish was the patch eliminated? I think some of Mark Baker's writing speak of long hunters reloading on the run- did they really use a patch?
-
This is a bit off topic, but it has to do with the question of did they ever re-load (in a hurry) without a patch and/or with a different size ball. I am certainly no expert, but from what I have read Lewis Wetzel was the “master” of the re-load on the run. Nathaniel's habit of doing that in LOTM was apparently taken from the tales of Wetzel. From what I have read Lewis used to keep some balls (in his pocket) that were slightly smaller than normal. When he wanted to load in a real hurry (and he often did this on the run we are told) he would dump some powder down the barrel and then roll the ball down after it (the ball was small enough it would almost roll down the barrel). He would then “bump” the butt of the rifle stock on the ground to seat everything, and then turn the rifle sideways and “slap” it to make powder leak out through the flash hole – thus priming the pan. Then he was ready to fire. I recall one story (who knows if it is really true) where he was being pursued by hostile Indians. He kept re-loading in this fashion while on the run – each time turning and firing and knocking down another of his pursuers – until the last Indian gave up and ran away. This Indian was allegedly later quoted as commenting about the “gun that was never empty”.
I read another article about a fellow (can’t recall his name) who used to keep “spare” balls between the knuckles of his hand. Apparently he did this for so long that he eventually had “sockets” between his finger joints where balls would fit and just “stay” there.
Are these stories true? Who knows. But they sure make for interesting reading.
For my money, I’d like to think they are true, at least as far as Wetzel goes. Better to have a slightly loose ball without a patch – and at least have a rifle that would fire. I mean at point blank range, and with your life on the line – who cares if it is patched and gives you maximum accuracy! Your target is less than 20 feet away!
-
They used to put the balls in their mouth and spit them in the barrel.
Parkman's "The Oregon Trail" documents the process used to load a smoothbore trade gun when running buffalo.
Includes whacking the butt on the pommel.
Dan
-
Dillin, in The Kentucky Rifle plate 75 shows two bullets from Indian graves that he felt were fired without patch. Says old molds often were made to cast two sizes of ball, one for use with, other for use without, patch. Load w/o patch for that fast close range shot necessary to retain one's hair.
-
JCKelly- Thanks I had never heard of that but if there are old bullet molds that cast two sized balls- thats pretty conclusive.
I was led to believe that a round ball in a percussion revolver was okay because of a slower speed but if you tried that is a rifle the lead would shear off rather than spinning the ball. Now I don't know about that because we use pure lead- super soft. In any event- sounds like such may have been practiced from time to time.
-
Ball size in a percussion revolver is a totally different matter than in a muzzle loading rifle. A percussion revolver is really the same as a cartridge revolver, ballistically. In both cases the ball/bullet is swaged into the rifling. No patch is required to engage the rifling. A patch is required to engage the rifling in a muzzle loading rilfe. I would think that the unpredictable engagement of an undersized and unpatched ball bouncing up a rifled barrel would results in worse accuracy than a smoothbore of the same bore and length. I would think that you would have to be in serious fear of your life with the enemy close at hand to load a rifle in such a way. I rather doubt that it was done very often. I would be more incline to think that two sizes of patched balls might have been used. One to load easily for speed and one to load tight for accuracy.
I am sorry for furthering this off topic response but felt that I needed to address the total inappropriateness of comparing a percussion revolver and a flintlock rifle.
-
I have seen quite a number of original pouches with patch knife sheathes "attached to the strap" of the pouch...Id say these were generally made to take a blade between three and five inches long....As these bags still survive and in seemingly in number, I think its pretty safe to assume they are 19th century bags.
I have also seen a few bags with a sheath integrally "attached to the back" of the pouch...and these sheaths generally tend to be quite a bit bigger, as if made for a bigger utility knife rather than a smaller patch cutting type knife...because of this and other traits, I have wondered if these are perhaps an earlier style of bag truly used on the eastern frontiers?
Wasnt it Squire Boone that wrestled with an Indian brave for the knife attached to Squires pouch, each knowing that the knife would decide the contest? This sounds more like a utility knife rather than a small patch knife? Maybe earlier on, say late 18th century, the pouch knives were generally bigger, that I tend to think may be the case?
TCA
-
A knife is something rather easily lost in frontier conditions, and that loss could be huge. Many hunting bags have a sheath and knife attached, just as they sometimes have an accomodation for a poll hatchet. Logically, it's a good place to keep an eye on your equipment and lessen the liklihood of losing anything. Many frontiersmen most likely carried a belt knife and a small one in a pocket, or in the hunting bag, Today, It would be easy to identify the knife as a tool associated with reloading; hence a 'patch knife'.
Common sense says that stopping to trim a patch, especially under severe stress, or duress might result in one or more bad outcomes.
As to reloading on the run; Allan Eckert in his generally well researched books on the colonial frontier identified only one man as capable of doing that and his name was Brady. He was a contemporary of Boone. Not sure which book now, but it might be 'Widerness War'; Eckert tells a lot about Brady and he appears to have been a giant among giants.
Lew Wetzel, I suspect was a 'gaudy liar' in many ways (this was said about James P. Beckwourth, the famed black mountain man, as well) and Wetzel was never shy about taking credit for good deeds or bad whether his, or someone elses. But then, who are we to judge? I'll go with Eckert for the time being, however.
Dick
-
A knife is something rather easily lost in frontier conditions, and that loss could be huge. Many hunting bags have a sheath and knife attached, just as they sometimes have an accomodation for a poll hatchet. Logically, it's a good place to keep an eye on your equipment and lessen the liklihood of losing anything. Many frontiersmen most likely carried a belt knife and a small one in a pocket, or in the hunting bag, Today, It would be easy to identify the knife as a tool associated with reloading; hence a 'patch knife'.
Common sense says that stopping to trim a patch, especially under severe stress, or duress might result in one or more bad outcomes.
As to reloading on the run; Allan Eckert in his generally well researched books on the colonial frontier identified only one man as capable of doing that and his name was Brady. He was a contemporary of Boone. Not sure which book now, but it might be 'Widerness War'; Eckert tells a lot about Brady and he appears to have been a giant among giants.
Lew Wetzel, I suspect was a 'gaudy liar' in many ways (this was said about James P. Beckwourth, the famed black mountain man, as well) and Wetzel was never shy about taking credit for good deeds or bad whether his, or someone elses. But then, who are we to judge? I'll go with Eckert for the time being, however.
Dick
It's been said that Boone could reload on the run and Simon Kenton as well.
-
Knifes that might have been used to cut patches. The bottom knife blade is 3.5" long. Check out the horse head on the middle folder. tim
(http://)(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi270.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fjj85%2Ftfmahony%2FPicture012-1.jpg&hash=223f652fe3d4e063575b200d5727b418bcd244fd)
-
Thanks TCA: I've only seen a few sheaths attached to pouches and they were fairly large. one reason I asked the question.
Conclusion, patches used with round balls, in a life and death struggle someone may have reloaded without patching but that proves nothing. Patch knives are PC.
So... what I thought was true is true- just checking. I think its healthy to check on this stuff to make sure we are right.
Why?
Although this relates more to other areas of black powder shooting- the issue of char cloth to start a fire is in question. In civilized areas- the settlements- they apparently used a nitrated material but any historical evidence of char cloth as used today at many events doesn't seem to have any supporting documentation.
On one site I surmised that the Indian bow and drill could have been used and found out the Indians used a hand drill, there isn't any documentation (or so I am told) that Indians used a bow and drill- that blew me away, I thought that was a given. I'm told the bow and drill is primitive European. So now whenever I see a particular area doesn't have much documentation- I ask.
Penny Knives is another area- all kinds of stuff written on them. All the writers tend to use one source for documentation and that source has a wide circa date and no claim the item shown is original. The only penny knife I have found to date is at the Lexington Historical Society- I'd love to be wrong on this since I've made penny knives thinking they are PC. If any one has a documented Penny Knife source please let me know. ;D
-
I think it was again a Boone (Daniel) that had to break his knife in half to
outfit his hunting partner when they parted ways? I dont remember the particulars, maybe they just lost all their stuff to Indians...but they were not "flush" with blades so to speak, at least at that time...
TCA
-
Tim - you are correct - Squire Boone's accounts of the "Cove Spring Fight" near present Harrodsburg states that he and the Indian were grappling for control of his knife which was attached to his hunting pouch strap- the blood from his wounds and the Indian's making it slippery. No mention of the size of the knife.
On accounts of Wetzel - keep in mind he was often by himself on his forays and some of these running battles, so it is hard to say how he actually did things vs. lore. He sure was a deadly person to deal with, regardless of how he did it.
Most of the 18th century knives that I have seen tend to be a bit smaller than what a lot of guys carry these days anyway - maybe they just carried one all purpose knife if they were cutting patches?
On a side note - I have seen some small daggers that look to be late 18th or early 19th century - with blades that have a medial ridge on one side but ground flat on the other, with lots of wear on the flat side. Does anyone know - are these maybe ground this way for cutting patches or is it another purpose?
Guy
-
On a side note - I have seen some small daggers that look to be late 18th or early 19th century - with blades that have a medial ridge on one side but ground flat on the other, with lots of wear on the flat side. Does anyone know - are these maybe ground this way for cutting patches or is it another purpose?
Guy
I can't tell you why they did it, but I can speculate based on a modern example: High grade Japanese sushi knives. They are ground at an angle only on one side, with the other flat, actually a little hollow ground in the better ones. That allows you to lay the blade flat on the stone on the flat side for sharpening and only have to match the bevel on one side to keep a really precise edge. I suppose you could sharpen on the bevel side only, but the "sharpen both sides habit" is hard for me to break. Really easy to sharpen them and keep them sharp.
As for dagger styles with two cutting edges, I tried that on a small strap spring knife with a 3" blade. It's turned out to be a real handy way to have a "spare" knife along, which is good with such a short blade and rough chores.
-
On one site I surmised that the Indian bow and drill could have been used and found out the Indians used a hand drill, there isn't any documentation (or so I am told) that Indians used a bow and drill- that blew me away, I thought that was a given. I'm told the bow and drill is primitive European. So now whenever I see a particular area doesn't have much documentation- I ask.
I think that depends on where you are and where being "Indian" stops in your mind as you move north. The Indians or Natives up here used the dickens out of bow and drills for fire starting, as well as for drilling. They used them a whole lot for boring everything from wood to stone and bone and shell, too. Lots and lots of examples of both in archeology.
-
I hope nobody takes this out of context as I am certainly not intending to step on anybody’s toes. Just voicing a personal opinion on the “PC” / Patch Knife discussion.
As I see it, the whole “PC” issue can (and often does) get blown out of proportion. The accepted rule of thumb is if you can’t find “irrefutable proof” that something existed in a certain time frame and place then it’s not “PC”. Within reason I subscribe to that, but I also believe in the old expression, “There is nothing new under the sun”. Obviously nobody was running around in 1750 with a fiberglass ram rod or a Magellan GPS in their kit bag. On the other hand, to say that nobody from 1750 ever carried this or that kind of knife, or only used a certain blade style, or never carried a loading board, or never used a short starter, or never carried a pouch that looked like this or that, or never wore a pair of pants with belt loops, or never fabricated their home made foot wear in any fashion other than this or that, etc, etc – is (I think) not logical. People living in the 18th century were not stupid. When it came to being clever and innovative, they were undoubtedly at least our equals in every sense. More likely our betters. They may not have had access to the materials and fabricating equipment or techniques we have today, but they were every bit as smart as we like to think we are – and no doubt better motivated. Today we play with these guns, knives, bags, etc as toys to amuse ourselves. They lived with these items 24/365 as a part of their everyday lives. I doubt very much that anybody today has thought of anything to do with these “tools” that people from the 18th century had not already thought of and tried – many times over. Patch knives, short starters, bullet boards – no doubt in my mind at all that somebody back then tried all manner of variations on these items. Why wouldn’t they? A particular idea may not have caught on, or it may not have proved practical, but I’d bet the farm somebody tried it. Probably a lot of people tried it. Personally, my theory is if you can make it with your hands or equipment that was available at the time, and you can make it out of materials that were available in the time frame you are dealing with – then it is “PC”. So for my money, any kind of patch knife carried in any fashion anywhere on your body is technically “correct”. I grant you it may not have been common, but nobody will ever convince me that somebody, somewhere, in the mid 18th century didn’t try it.
Just my two cents worth. I don’t mean to ruffle anybody’s feathers. :)
-
Personally, my theory is if you can make it with your hands or equipment that was available at the time, and you can make it out of materials that were available in the time frame you are dealing with – then it is “PC”. So for my money, any kind of patch knife carried in any fashion anywhere on your body is technically “correct”. I grant you it may not have been common, but nobody will ever convince me that somebody, somewhere, in the mid 18th century didn’t try it.
That nicely sums up my views too, but with the "thread counters" of the world, such views will atract more yellow water than a fire hydrant in a dog park.
-
A pocket knife would certainly serve the purpose and weren't they popular at that time? Maybe a pocket knife for whittlin' and patches and a hunting knife for skinning and fighting.
Blair
-
Brian,
I think your comment is worth a whole lot more than your 2 cents. If anyone just uses common sense they have to agree with you. I certainly do.
Mark
-
Amen to that post Bryan. Me too.
Jerry
-
One feller I know carries a straight razor to cut patches! He finally re-handled it and attached a wee sheath to his bag strap to carry it. I always liked that idea, but have never copied it.
-
Kermit- the razor is not really a bad idea. Trying to find a period correct folding knife is all but impossible.
On the "could have been" approach as being okay as long as period materials are used. I agree- I think it is unrealistic to insist on every item having documentation. It is logical to assume that presented with the same problem a similar solution would result. Still, if any documentation is available- never hurts. Excessive seeking of documentation is a good way to go crazy. Where does it end? A shirt is supposed to be PC except the fabric weave is off, or the thread a little wrong? A really nice pocket knife but the blade is from bar stock instead of forged?
-
Knifes that might have been used to cut patches. The bottom knife blade is 3.5" long. Check out the horse head on the middle folder. tim
That folder appears to me to be a grafting or budding knife. They were mostly all folders so they could conveniently be carried when working in the orchard. Regards, TC
-
Brian,
I am surprised that you have this viewpoint about trying to be period/historical correct. You are a somewhat long time member of the ALR which is a message board where guys worry about making exact copies of original long rifles right down to how long the ramrod ferrules were, how were they placed, how was a certain rifles forearm or wrist shaped, etc., etc.
Aren't many of the members on this board just as wrapped up in PC/HC when it comes to building rifles as others are about clothing, accoutrements and other gear?
I think so.
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
Kermit- the razor is not really a bad idea. Trying to find a period correct folding knife is all but impossible.
Kermit,
You just haven't been looking in the right places for a period correct folding knife. There are a couple that were just put up on the Contemporary Makers board or on the CLA sight?? Period correct folding knives are available from a lot of different sources.
Randy Hedden
www.harddogrifles.com
-
No insult intended but this really needs to be said.
There is a difference between being HC and being completely off a cliff over it.
The "no patch knife" idea is too silly to contemplate.
Now I am not saying that little bitty patch knives are all that great since they are limited in use. But a knife on a bag COULD be a “patch knife”. I generally use precuts but my 54 at least shoots better with cut at the muzzle patches. Then we have the problem of making “precut” patches without shears or a punch. If you have a knife on the pouch and you use it to cut precuts from a strip of cloth is it then a “patch knife”?
The advantage to having a knife on the bag is simple. If you have to grab and run the bag with knife and horn is complete. Grab rifle and bag and you are in pretty good shape even if poorly clothed.
When people get phobic about bullet boards I think of the one on the pouch owned by a man born in 1761 in Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850. Yeah he died in 1840 but I suspect that the horn/bag were in service long prior to that. The board?? Who knows. Personally I don’t like or use them, don’t care for the dirt the patches collect.
Think about it. How many descriptions of actually loading rifles do you find from the 18th century? How many descriptions of how the bag and horn were carried. What was in or on the bag??? Very little was written down.
When people get to this level of nit picking I think of the poster on another site who would not accept a haversack pattern *printed* in a *1775* Maryland Gazette as something for the Militia to use, as suitable for Rev War use. Now I ask you is this nonsense? HE did not think they were actually used!!! HE did not THINK... Pompous elitism.
Someone will write some OPINION someplace and people read it and since its written down it has to be fact. Thus "patch knifes" are taboo in rev-war era.... Define patch knife.
We need to think a little more, or read a little more period writings. When the knife on the pouch as described by Squire Boone is well published how can people who are supposed to be researching the period miss it?? Then surviving bags with sheaths/knives. People interested in the period should have read it and seen that many a rifleman had a knife on his pouch. Now was it a "patch knife"? WHO KNOWS. WHO CARES? He had a knife on his pouch strap. Thus knifes on pouch straps are correct. It might be a 3" or a 6" we can't tell from here. But I bet that someone will get their britches bunched next summer at some colonial "event" because someone has a pouch knife because they read someplace that this is not HC.
The rifle was in use in America for at LEAST a century by 1780. Longer than that is Europe. It is ridiculous.
I can document beyond question that as of Summer 1804 there was a "Bear" (dare I say "TEDDY"?) childs toy at the Falls of the Missouri. So toy bears are fine any time in the 19th century in Montana, are we to assume that they were unknown 25 years previous? So toy bears for native American babies are "out" in 1790 since nobody wrote it down?
Yes things need to be HC and in some cases, like perhaps fashions or hairdos, the percussion cap etc it might be datable to a few years. Other stuff???
Dan
-
Kermit,
I have a number of "old" straight razors and some of them have etchings that I didn't want to cover up or destroy. I took a couple and removed the handles and made small fixed blade knives out of them for "patch" cutting. I used bamboo for the handles and then wrapped them in sinew. Made pretty durable old looking knives. Patch knives, ????
Mark
-
I don't know, it's seems to me part of the problem with this discussion is just trying to call a particular knife a "patch knife". Going back to the first question in this post I would say that the answer might be that if you want to carry a small, medium or large knife, well just go for it. That would for sure be period correct, right? If you wanted to use your small knife to cut a patch, well go for it. Just don't say that its your knife for "cutting patches", because more than likely its sole use wouldn't be for that, it would be for anything you needed a small knife for like gutting a deer or cutting your toenails. Why do you have to give the knife a label? Maybe my logic is goofy, but oh well. Regards, TC
-
Tony, I think your logic is pretty much right on. I am convinced that pre-cut patches were the norm, but I would also think that on occassion a patch might be cut at the muzzle, but I would think it would be cut with the easiest knife to get at, which would likely be the belt knife, or one attached on the bag. As far as working a deer, I can work one easily with my nine inch bladed belt knife. Much depends on the weight and shape of the knife. Most early blades were thinner than what many carry today, and most had a slightly dropped point forming a spear type point that will get into tight areas pretty well.
-
I once saw an old bag that had several pre-cut patches hanging in a stack, threaded through the centers on a piece of knotted cord. The other end of the cord was tied to the strap ....you could pull off a pre cut patch from the stack as needed by yanking it over the knot on the dangling end of the cord....pretty handy and a neat idea...I wish I could remember for certain if the pouch also had a knife attached...but I cant.
Its also prety common to find a stray old pre cut patch in an old bag....but its not common to find an actual
chisel type patch cutter anywhere, especially not in a bag...I dont think you even see such cutters in fancy cased gun sets, so Ive always wondered where the pre-cut patches were coming from since they were definately out there too.
All I know for sure is that most bags I see do have some type of sheath attached for a knife...and the knife is generally long gone...and as Madison Grant states, quite a few of the sheaths seem to be spuriously attached and not necessairly put there by the bags initial maker, maybe indicating that it was too hard to guess what kind of knife the final user was likely to want on the bag, even way back in the day???
TCA
-
The problem is documentation. Just because we as 21st cent types think that something "could" or "should" have been used in the 18th cent does not mean it was [and even if considered then, does not mean it was common or universal]. The problem with old hunting bags as "proof" is that the vast majority of them are 19th and ealry 20th cent bags--I know of NO documented 18th cent hunting bags. Most of these extent bags that do contain sheaths [-and not all do] have "hunting" knives attached--which can be used to cut patches or field dress game. What is a patch knife? Any reasonably thin sharp edge blade will do. I know of NO accounts of "patch knives" being carried or used in the 18th cent. Precut patches seem to have been the norm--I have read at least one period account of scissors being used to cut patches prior to an expected battle. I know of at least one period account of a knife being attached to the bag--but it was clearly a hunting knife. Reenactors who are serious about their hobby require documentation for use--not just "what if" scenarios. Modern shooters are free to use whatever devices and methods they choose [patch knives, ball starters, bullet blocks, modern chemical lubes, etc]....
-
Mike...the original question as posed was pretty general...
were patch knives historically used...I can only answer that in my opinion that yes they were judging from the old bags I have seen...and true, you cant prove, nor would I ever say they are 18th century ( though, on the other side of the coin in alot of cases no one can prove they are not either, although I recognize that logic in no way assumes or constitutes proof of date or origins, only the lack of it)
...but at some point along the way lots of bags started sporting small knives attached to the strap for some sort of use, perhaps I have assumed incorrectly that they were "patch" knives....
TCA
-
Yes, the original question was too generally phrased--"historically correct?" without adding which era is of interest. They are historically correct for the early buckskinner period for sure. They seem to have been in use by those surviving shooters of the late 19th cent who taught the early 20th cent boys how to do it. I have seen one bag supposedly dated to at least the 1840s which [currently] has a knife sheath attached to the strap; however the current knife in it obviously does not belong in that sheath and is not a "patch knife" in the the generally thought of way [it is a pointy little dagger]. I have seen numerous bags in collections that likley date from the 19th cent that have various knives attached either sheathed on a strap or on the bag itself--these knives are typically small bowie style hunting knives or butcher knives. I have seen a couple of knives called rifle knives or such that were interpreted to be late 18th or early 19th cent. I have searched for descriptions of early loading proceedures and have not found cutting at the muzzle mentioned--even in detailed accounts. It seems obvious to us, trained to do so, that cutting at the muzzle must have been done at some time--but was a special "patch knife" carried for that or just the hunting knife/butcher knife? Yes, the question must be answered with caveats--what period? what is your interest--shooting or reenacting a specific time? how certain [how much documentation] do you need to be? etc....I would have no problem showing up at a 1920s overthelog shoot or turkey shoot with a bag knife attached [I have one attached to my hunting bag--a hunting knife size]. I feel that thye are not enough documented for my 18th cent personas....
-
Yes, the original question was too generally phrased--"historically correct?" without adding which era is of interest. They are historically correct for the early buckskinner period for sure. They seem to have been in use by those surviving shooters of the late 19th cent who taught the early 20th cent boys how to do it. I have seen one bag supposedly dated to at least the 1840s which [currently] has a knife sheath attached to the strap; however the current knife in it obviously does not belong in that sheath and is not a "patch knife" in the the generally thought of way [it is a pointy little dagger]. I have seen numerous bags in collections that likley date from the 19th cent that have various knives attached either sheathed on a strap or on the bag itself--these knives are typically small bowie style hunting knives or butcher knives. I have seen a couple of knives called rifle knives or such that were interpreted to be late 18th or early 19th cent. I have searched for descriptions of early loading proceedures and have not found cutting at the muzzle mentioned--even in detailed accounts. It seems obvious to us, trained to do so, that cutting at the muzzle must have been done at some time--but was a special "patch knife" carried for that or just the hunting knife/butcher knife? Yes, the question must be answered with caveats--what period? what is your interest--shooting or reenacting a specific time? how certain [how much documentation] do you need to be? etc....I would have no problem showing up at a 1920s overthelog shoot or turkey shoot with a bag knife attached [I have one attached to my hunting bag--a hunting knife size]. I feel that thye are not enough documented for my 18th cent personas....
Let me get this straight. Squire Boone with a knife on his pouch strap is not good enough??
What is??? How do you discount this account?
This is what I was trying to point out with the Maryland Gazette haversack thing. Saying that something MENTIONED in PERIOD accounts is not good enough is simply beyond my comprehension. It goes back to people "learning" something, correct or incorrect and sticking with it no matter what comes to light. Looking at old pouches is fine, valuable knowledge is gained. But its nearly impossible to find a pouch in good shape that was not used into the 19th Century. There were likely 100,000 rifles and pouches in America between 1760 to 1790, How many surviving rifles do we have? The number of pouches is even less. So trying to make iron clad pronouncements concerning anything is tough.
This reminds me of the friend who did a college paper on the Wolf Reintroduction in the Mountain West and was given an A- because he did not give a wolf's perspective...
A bag knife is certainly optional. I only have one bag with one but I always have one in my pocket and/or on my belt. But if Squire Boone mentions one I cannot possibly see how it cannot be "HC"and its certainly good enough for me.
People seem to get a lot of giggles over "buckskinner" outfits from the 60s and 70s. And yes they generally stink. But they laid the ground work for what most of you folks are doing now so cut them some slack.
Do you have citations for the "detailed accounts" of loading processes? Is it 2-3 acounts or 10? Lets see out of a 100000 what is the percentage? Are they REALLY from the time or are they rewrites. Are they by serious riflmen, small percentage anytime, or something from someone who only know "powder first then ball".
Dan