AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Accoutrements => Topic started by: Smokey Plainsman on December 02, 2019, 01:20:08 PM
-
Friends, I present you another question. I suppose some of you may wish I crawl in a ditch and fade away due to my ceaseless questions, and for that I apologize.
I am wondering when short starters were used? I’ve read they didn’t exist during the flintlock age, and that the time they first showed up ranges from the 1850s up until the 1970s, i.e. people think they are a totally modern invention.
I have an Ohio-style percussion rifle but I don’t want to cone it. I’d rather just use a ball starter but I am very hesitant because I want my gear as historically correct as I can.
Thoughts?
-
Try doing a search on them, in "Accouterments" here is one thread:
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32559.msg312302#msg312302
Tim C.
-
My take on the matter is that "back in the day" a hunter did not walk into a fabric store with a micrometer to acquire the "perfect" cloth thickness for his rifle. So at some point in the life of the rifle he would of had a thickness less than ideal. So Yankee ingenuity would have come into play, a peg inserted on the side of his knife or a whittled short starter to facilitate a reload.
kw
-
Very rarely see,or hear of, short starters in old pictures or documents describing equipment.
-
I use a ball starter because I start balls with it, not shorts.
Also there was never a long or medium starter, so "starter" works too. It's used three times, nub to swage the ball into the rifling before cutting the patch, main shaft to start it down into the bore, and then again-to compress the load after it has come to rest in the breech.
Daryl often notes that starters aren't necessary in the 40 and smaller rifles with a snug fit, such that you might likely be able to get a nice, accurate, self-cleaning load with only your packin' stick and proper technique (and a nice radius on the crown).
All this has been gone over a double dozen times here.
Did you ever check the actual rate of twist in your forty?
-
never say never, rarely is probably correct.
kw
-
Just because there is very little historical data or survivors out there didn't mean they didn't exist. My belief is that the "ball starter" (thank you Wade) was the flat side of their belt knife and that was also their patch knife. If the patch material they were using was just a little tight they may have added a nub onto something to "start" the ball but who really knows. I will ask Sherman to put me in his "way-back" machine to 1780 and ask the first hunter I find. If it works for you and you like using a starter then by all means use it.
The "Muskrat's" words for today.
-
How different would our re-enacting the past be if we had a fragment of the sort of photographic record that we now generate constantly? There may be more pics in my digital device than were likely made in the entire 18th century by all photographers combined.
Of course filling in the "blanks" is interesting and part of the fun, but absence of evidence cannot fully disprove existence-especially given the simpleness of the tool and also the tendency of shooters to load differently, with different notions and purposes.
-
A friend of mine purchased a cap lock rifle that had been passed down to the owner's nephew. I went with him to pick up the rifle. When we got there the young man gave Jeff the rifle and said this horn goes along with it. The horn had a measure attached that had a short shaft on the back end that appeared to be used to start the ball and patch. That portion of the measure was a bit under 2 inches in length. The measure was made from a deer antler. The rifle had been in the family for several generations according to the young man. I would date the rifle in the mid 1800's, but can not put any kind of best guess on the horn and measure. I think some sort of short starter was used in the past and have never thought of its use as an issue.
Roger Sells
-
Did Lew Whetzel use a short starter when loading on the run... I think loose loads were a common thing back in the day. Don't have any proof just a feeling I have.
-
Greetings All,
Page 19 of "The Mountain Man's Sketchbook Volume Two" by James A. Hanson & Kathryn J. Wilson includes a sketch of a straight starter" along with other firearms accessories. All items on this page are from the collection of the Museum of the Fur Trade. Maybe touch base with the museum and see if they have any history on this object?
Enjoy,
Kevin
-
Short starters date way back, as they were used as a means of starting oversized, unpatched balls. As patched balls took over, I think they died out and then were revived for use with patched balls, possibly as a result of some military textbooks plagiarizing older publications that mentioned their use for unpatched balls.
Earliest mention of a short starter on a patched ball is 1780, in a German text talking about civilian guns. By the 1790s the Austrians and British are issuing mallets with their military pieces; however, the Austrians used a very different method of loading their Jager rifles that involved keeping their iron ramrods on their belts (no provision for a ramrod on the gun itself) and the British mallets were issued only to every second man IIRC, which I suspect means that they were intended to be used to deal with dirty bores, out-of-spec ammo, and other battlefield contingencies rather than a routine method of loading. The use of a mallet for loading first appears in print on this side of the Atlantic in the first years of the 19th century, as far as I know, in a military treatise, from, I think, New England.
In contrast, there are a number of descriptions and accounts from the period 1750 to 1810 that describe loading without a short starter. There is a German text from about 1750 that describes how to hold the ramrod so as not to risk breaking it while starting the ball, to start with. Around 1790, Isaac Weld, who was apparently familiar with fowlers but not rifles, describes for his readers every point in which an American longrifle rifle differed from an English fowling piece, including the use of greased patches and rear sights (he likens rifle sights to surveying equipment), but never mentions the use of short starters. Neither does Hanger, for that matter, though I'm unsure how significant to take that omission. Audubon, writing about a hunt around 1810, describes the use of a knife handle to start the ball. I am not aware of any documentary or archeological evidence for short starters or mallets prior to at least 1800 here in the US - I have yet to run across any mention of them in the Draper manuscripts or other first-hand accounts of Indian fighting, any probate records, wills, etc., nor have any been recovered from archeological sites, either. Honestly, if they were in widespread use, I'd expect to see at least a couple off-hand references to them in the Draper papers and other narrative sources, if nowhere else, like a time that someone dropped his short starter while trying to load in a hurry and consequently had to make a run for it.
Given the evidence available, I think that we are looking at two different traditions of rifle use here. The old, mid-18th century style didn't use specialized short starters, is the one that was brought over and remained established through the remainder of the 18th century. I'd call this the "Kentucky" tradition, and I suspect that it remained predominate out on the frontier well into the 19th century, as I don't recall any mention of short starters during the Fur Trade either, nor are there any that I am aware of associated with Hawken rifles, etc. The other tradition of using specialized starters, mallets or short rammers, originated in Europe sometime later in the 18th century and came over here in a military context early in the 19th century. I suspect that got adopted by civilian shooters because of its usefulness in loading tight, accurate balls for shooting matches.
Hey, has anyone ever turned up an Appalachian short starter? Can't recall seeing one in John Rice Irwin's book, and he has quite a collection of shooting stuff in the Museum of Appalachia. If not, that might be significant....
Edited to add: I see that there is one supposedly in the Museum of the Fur Trade. Be interesting to know more about the provenance of that one.
-
The late percussion barrels I’ve re-worked all have muzzles relieved by 0.010-0.020” above bore size 2” down. This is not from wear. I’ve freshed enough barrels to know how hard it is to increase land to land and groove to groove diameters by 0.002” using sharp, designed cutters.
-
The late percussion barrels I’ve re-worked all have muzzles relieved by 0.010-0.020” above bore size 2” down. This is not from wear. I’ve freshed enough barrels to know how hard it is to increase land to land and groove to groove diameters by 0.002” using sharp, designed cutters.
Is this, then, what we have come to name “coning” in our present time?
I have pondered coning, but am hesitant due to reports of it hurting accuracy.
-
Modern coning is different and removes evidence of rifling at the muzzle. Originals show something I’d call a modest flaring. I’m not sure how it was accomplished but lands and grooves extend to the muzzle. It’s just greater diameter and patched balls can be mostly thumb started.
We can only guess how this was accomplished. Some think grooves were deepened by filing then lands filed down to maintain about the same height of lands over grooves. But it seems very regular and to extend over an inch. That would take a lot of genius filing in my view.
I have never seen what looks like modern coning on originals. Nor have I seen the common countersink or slightly beveled muzzle treatment on original barrels. They show as flat faced with deep grooves but a bigger diameter than 1-2” deeper.
-
Short starters date way back, as they were used as a means of starting oversized, unpatched balls. As patched balls took over, I think they died out and then were revived for use with patched balls, possibly as a result of some military textbooks plagiarizing older publications that mentioned their use for unpatched balls.
Earliest mention of a short starter on a patched ball is 1780, in a German text talking about civilian guns. By the 1790s the Austrians and British are issuing mallets with their military pieces; however, the Austrians used a very different method of loading their Jager rifles that involved keeping their iron ramrods on their belts (no provision for a ramrod on the gun itself) and the British mallets were issued only to every second man IIRC, which I suspect means that they were intended to be used to deal with dirty bores, out-of-spec ammo, and other battlefield contingencies rather than a routine method of loading. The use of a mallet for loading first appears in print on this side of the Atlantic in the first years of the 19th century, as far as I know, in a military treatise, from, I think, New England.
In contrast, there are a number of descriptions and accounts from the period 1750 to 1810 that describe loading without a short starter. There is a German text from about 1750 that describes how to hold the ramrod so as not to risk breaking it while starting the ball, to start with. Around 1790, Isaac Weld, who was apparently familiar with fowlers but not rifles, describes for his readers every point in which an American longrifle rifle differed from an English fowling piece, including the use of greased patches and rear sights (he likens rifle sights to surveying equipment), but never mentions the use of short starters. Neither does Hanger, for that matter, though I'm unsure how significant to take that omission. Audubon, writing about a hunt around 1810, describes the use of a knife handle to start the ball. I am not aware of any documentary or archeological evidence for short starters or mallets prior to at least 1800 here in the US - I have yet to run across any mention of them in the Draper manuscripts or other first-hand accounts of Indian fighting, any probate records, wills, etc., nor have any been recovered from archeological sites, either. Honestly, if they were in widespread use, I'd expect to see at least a couple off-hand references to them in the Draper papers and other narrative sources, if nowhere else, like a time that someone dropped his short starter while trying to load in a hurry and consequently had to make a run for it.
Given the evidence available, I think that we are looking at two different traditions of rifle use here. The old, mid-18th century style didn't use specialized short starters, is the one that was brought over and remained established through the remainder of the 18th century. I'd call this the "Kentucky" tradition, and I suspect that it remained predominate out on the frontier well into the 19th century, as I don't recall any mention of short starters during the Fur Trade either, nor are there any that I am aware of associated with Hawken rifles, etc. The other tradition of using specialized starters, mallets or short rammers, originated in Europe sometime later in the 18th century and came over here in a military context early in the 19th century. I suspect that got adopted by civilian shooters because of its usefulness in loading tight, accurate balls for shooting matches.
Hey, has anyone ever turned up an Appalachian short starter? Can't recall seeing one in John Rice Irwin's book, and he has quite a collection of shooting stuff in the Museum of Appalachia. If not, that might be significant....
Edited to add: I see that there is one supposedly in the Museum of the Fur Trade. Be interesting to know more about the provenance of that one.
Excellent post ElNathan. I love when people take the thoughts in my head that I can't seem to put into words at all, so I don't try, and not only express these ideas, but do so very efficiently and effectively.
Also, I never noticed your signature line before, great stuff.
I think a lot of people misinterpret what is being said when some of us come down on the side of no ball starting tool for the 18th century. They seem to take it as we are saying they were never used historically. Not so. It just doesn't seem likely that they were used in the mid to late 18th century, and that once their use began in the 19th century, that use was very limited to certain types of shooting for quite some time. And shooting to live on America's frontiers does not seem to have been one of those types of shooting.
Most of the arguments for adding a specialized ball starter to an otherwise historically accurate outfit really seem to be rationalizations. And why bother with rationalizing it? As long as one is honest that there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting their use before the late 1800's, and isn't trying to educate the public or new folks to this historical endeavor many of us are on, what justify it? Just say, "I know there is no evidence of its use for the time period but my gun shoots best with a load that requires the use of a ball starter," and be done with it.
-
I’m going to try starting the ball with my patch knife and using just the rod to push it down.
That is a historically correct method from at least two written accounts.
-
Alright I read several chapters in The Muzzle Loading Cap Lock Rifle by Ned Roberts tonight. Here is a very interesting photo:
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JFws2d0/46161-D49-7220-41-AC-83-C3-2-EE946-DFE104.jpg)
Keep in mind this book was published in the 1940s, and as mentioned, the author was really “there” and the people he learned from were there too.
He mentions this style of “straight starter” being carried by hunters as it was lightweight. He describes its use by striking it with the open hand hard then using the ramrod to finish loading it down against the charge.
I think this weekend I’m going to stop by Home Depot and look for a wooden knob of some sort and will try and make one with some hickory for the shaft. I’ll need to find a brass ferrule for the end, something Mr. Roberts describes as a necessity for this starter.
He also describes the usage of the bullet board also used with the starter. Extremely interesting, I’m learning more everyday. If Mr. Roberts cannot be counted as an accurate witness, then whom can? I believe this is proof of a starter being used by at least some hunters in the 19th century.
-
Bill Large was an advocate of the tight ball/patch combination and did not "cone" or
make a funnel out of a barrel.With good sights and an experienced shooter,they won
match after match for years.My own experiences with the Bill Large loading idea proved
to me that the tight load is just fine.Original rifles that have the bullet mould used with
them show a ball about 2 calibers undersize and frequently with a relieved muzzle for
an easy reload.Most of these guns would do well only in a shooting match among them
selves and would not stand a chance otherwise.I did no serious hunting with a muzzle
loader,only groundhogs with a flintlock and a Whitworth and nothing else.I am NOT
impressed with some of the 25 and 50 yard groups I see posted here and know from
experiences of years long gone that if the rifle is right,good sights and a tight round ball
load it should make a clover leaf at 100 yards.The last rifle I made for target shooting
was a 58 caliber half stock caplock and in 1962 I mounted a Malcolm telescope on it
and with the tight load combination I got groups of about 2and 1/2 inches at 200 yards
with 80 grains of DuPont 3fg.
I well remember Bill trying to explain to people that phoned him about tight loads and
sights.He's give the benefits of years of experience and get back an argument in return.
Maybe those who argued never should have tried a muzzle loader to begin with.
Bob Roller
-
"believe this is proof of a starter being used by at least some hunters in the 19th century" - smokeyplainsman
I believe you are right..... for the 19th century.
-
"Maybe those who argued never should have tried a muzzle loader to begin with."
Bob Roller
So, just because someone doesn't need "match grade accuracy" means they've never tried a muzzle loader?
-
"believe this is proof of a starter being used by at least some hunters in the 19th century" - smokeyplainsman
I believe you are right..... for the 19th century.
Correct, and for my type of rifle, it appears to be very much period correct.
-
"Maybe those who argued never should have tried a muzzle loader to begin with."
Bob Roller
So, just because someone doesn't need "match grade accuracy" means they've never tried a muzzle loader?
In the environment I grew up in,match grade accuracy was the whole idea.I speak only
from my own experiences.IF I were going to hunt with a muzzle loader I would probably
use an undersize ball such as a .562 in a 58 caliber barrel that needs no short starter.
If I was going into a match,it will be a .575 ball.
Bob Roller
-
It seems as though most people try to research "short starter" when they might try some other name for the same thing. Like "bulger". There is first hand observations of mountain men leaving rondezvous and part of their equipment was a ":bulger", a short stick just under bore size often with a knob on the end. This would have been 1840 or before but the question still remains as to when they were first used.
-
I've got NO idea about their origin. But I have been called a "short starter" among other rough sobriquets.
-
I think the short starter got its start in match shooting, at the very end of the true muzzleloading era, and the beginning of the muzzleloading renaissance. Short starters from the golden age of muzzleloading, are virtually unheard of.
Hungry Horse
-
It seems as though most people try to research "short starter" when they might try some other name for the same thing. Like "bulger". There is first hand observations of mountain men leaving rondezvous and part of their equipment was a ":bulger", a short stick just under bore size often with a knob on the end. This would have been 1840 or before but the question still remains as to when they were first used.
Do you recall by whom?
-
Elnathan, that quote was taken from the notes section of the book " Kit Carson Days ": by Edwin L. Sabin, volume 2. I assume the note #57 p 89 was in volume #1 and I don,t have that volume as of yet but am trying to locate one. If any one on this forum has volume #1 in the paper back version, maybe they could check this out and verify it. I and I might guess others would be interested in the findings.
-
In his book, The Plains Rifle, author Charles Hanson described these as "straight starters." He illustrated two of them with an assortment of other shooting accessories in Plate 40 of the book. One of these was a simple rod of bone, with no distinct handle. The other was of wood, with the handle in line with the shaft (like a screwdriver). However, Mr. Hanson did not provide any dates or provenance for the two "straight starters" in the photograph. The caption states the items are in the Museum of the Fur Trade Collection. The wooden straight starter may be the same one that was drawn by James Hanson for The Mountain Man's Sketch Book, Volume Two (page 19).
Notchy Bob
-
In his book, The Plains Rifle, author Charles Hanson described these as "straight starters." He illustrated two of them with an assortment of other shooting accessories in Plate 40 of the book. One of these was a simple rod of bone, with no distinct handle. The other was of wood, with the handle in line with the shaft (like a screwdriver). However, Mr. Hanson did not provide any dates or provenance for the two "straight starters" in the photograph. The caption states the items are in the Museum of the Fur Trade Collection. The wooden straight starter may be the same one that was drawn by James Hanson for The Mountain Man's Sketch Book, Volume Two (page 19).
Notchy Bob
Thank you. I have that book tucked away in one of my boxes, I need to look through it again!
-
You know, unless someone invents a time machine and you go back to the 1840's and ask EVERY person that was firing a muzzleloading firearm if they have ever seen, used or heard of a short starter, will we ever REALLY know if they were used or not?
I would imagine that if some feller had a tight fitting combination and a sore or wek thumb and couldn't get it down the barrel far enough to use his ram rod, he would have grabbed SOMETHING to shove it down there where he could...
just saying.
-
You know, unless someone invents a time machine and you go back to the 1840's and ask EVERY person that was firing a muzzleloading firearm if they have ever seen, used or heard of a short starter, will we ever REALLY know if they were used or not?
I would imagine that if some feller had a tight fitting combination and a sore or wek thumb and couldn't get it down the barrel far enough to use his ram rod, he would have grabbed SOMETHING to shove it down there where he could..
just saying.
Right, right. But for me and my personal uses, I feel as if the starters have a tangible measure of correctitude.
-
You know, unless someone invents a time machine and you go back to the 1840's and ask EVERY person that was firing a muzzleloading firearm if they have ever seen, used or heard of a short starter, will we ever REALLY know if they were used or not?
I would imagine that if some feller had a tight fitting combination and a sore or wek thumb and couldn't get it down the barrel far enough to use his ram rod, he would have grabbed SOMETHING to shove it down there where he could...
just saying.
So, they wouldn't have just used the ramrod in the gun, holding it with just a very short part of the loading end sticking past their hand? I'm thinking the flat of the knife blade, or part of the knife handle (without a little nub added) to be the most likely tool used for this scenario. And we know it was done.
-
What is it that you want to do smokey? Do you want to be historically correct? Do you want to shoot a rifle to its its full potential?
Mr Roller gives sage advise in his previous posts.
-
What is it that you want to do smokey? Do you want to be historically correct? Do you want to shoot a rifle to its its full potential?
Mr Roller gives sage advise in his previous posts.
Perhaps a little of both?
My research shows short starters are period for my rifle, and should assist in loading a snug ball and patch combo that Mr. Roller (and others) attribute to very good accuracy.
I will also be trying out looser combos just to see how they do in the rifle. I am not a serious competitive target shooter. My shooting style can best be described as recreational target shooter, plinker, and small gamesman. Perhaps a looser combo will more than suffice for my purposes. We shall see.
-
What is it that you want to do smokey? Do you want to be historically correct? Do you want to shoot a rifle to its its full potential?
Mr Roller gives sage advise in his previous posts.
Perhaps a little of both?
My research shows short starters are period for my rifle, and should assist in loading a snug ball and patch combo that Mr. Roller (and others) attribute to very good accuracy.
I will also be trying out looser combos just to see how they do in the rifle. I am not a serious competitive target shooter. My shooting style can best be described as recreational target shooter, plinker, and small gamesman. Perhaps a looser combo will more than suffice for my purposes. We shall see.
According to Daryl in another post, caliber 40 and down don't require a starter if one is careful not to over-reach his packer, and it's a good packer. I think he runs a .400 ball in his with a sturdy patch, no starter. So you might not actually need one for a no-wipe tight/accurate combo. Tha's about what I remember him saying a time or two.
You only have to load snug enough to prevent accumulation of fouling, there's no point in being tighter than that. Might be interesting to see how "loose" you can get non-accumulation to work.
-
What is it that you want to do smokey? Do you want to be historically correct? Do you want to shoot a rifle to its its full potential?
Mr Roller gives sage advise in his previous posts.
Perhaps a little of both?
My research shows short starters are period for my rifle, and should assist in loading a snug ball and patch combo that Mr. Roller (and others) attribute to very good accuracy.
I will also be trying out looser combos just to see how they do in the rifle. I am not a serious competitive target shooter. My shooting style can best be described as recreational target shooter, plinker, and small gamesman. Perhaps a looser combo will more than suffice for my purposes. We shall see.
According to Daryl in another post, caliber 40 and down don't require a starter if one is careful not to over-reach his packer, and it's a good packer. I think he runs a .400 ball in his with a sturdy patch, no starter. So you might not actually need one for a no-wipe tight/accurate combo. Tha's about what I remember him saying a time or two.
You only have to load snug enough to prevent accumulation of fouling, there's no point in being tighter than that. Might be interesting to see how "loose" you can get non-accumulation to work.
Very interesting indeed! I’ve got some .395” Hornady balls coming and will be going to Jo-Ann’s fabrics tomorrow to get a few pieces of ticking, along with maybe some linen, and so on. I’ve got some mink’s oil for lubrication. With luck the postman should have the balls delivered by a Saturday and I can go to the range then or Sunday. I’m excited!!!
PS: I didn’t measure the twist rate yet for my new rifle, but using my bore light I can clearly tell the rifling only makes about half a complete turn and looks quite slow. I almost certainly have a 1:66 twist, but it’s no matter, many have reported excellent results with it for .40 caliber (and other) Douglas barrels.
-
Smokey if you plan on shooting at targets first, you can just wet the patches with saliva... After I fire a shot I just pop a patch in my mouth while I'm measuring and pouring my powder... Then load the patch and ball. It works well. It's free. And it'll get you by until you get some mink grease.
Mike
-
45-110...never say never, rarely is probably correct.
Keep asking questions, Smokey, and don't feel so bad about it.
Unless there's a bloke who personally stood on the back of a wagon and inventoried every accoutrements used at a particular date we have no business arbitrarily stating what "They" had or did not have because wood, leather, cork and textiles have a habit of not surviving over the years during the pre-industrial era.
The best we can do is to use natural materials and tools if we are going off into conjecture, and don't use any more conjecture than is reasonable. I find myself more grateful that we even have re-enactors for a culture hungry public than whether or not their buttons are PC, HC or P/AH ( Posture/Attention Hungry)
I always thought that the reason starters are hard to find in the early eighteenth century was because rifles were hard to find in the early eighteenth century. On the other hand, some yob out in the boonies only needed an auger and a chunk of wood to figure it out before he faded into obscurity and his stuff rotted away.
I betcha if more people could write, more stuff would have been documented. Lacking that, I learned long ago that research is never finished and I'll place a greater value on the guy who asks questions over the guy who stakes himself in the ground over one source every time.
If I run into you somewhere, coffee's on me.
-
Mr. Rollers comment "I am NOT
impressed with some of the 25 and 50 yard groups I see posted here and know from
experiences of years long gone that if the rifle is right,good sights and a tight round ball
load it should make a clover leaf at 100 yards.The last rifle I made for target shooting".....I agree 100% with. Almost assuredly a RB rifle that shoots really well at 100+ yds is going to be hard to load at the muzzle. Most any loose load combination will group at 25yds.
kw
-
Here’s my take on short starters. Since the first long guns were commonly available, there were those among us who wanted to shoot more accurately to outshoot their brother. It wouldn’t take him any longer than an experienced shooter today to realize a ball seated tighter has the potential to be more accurate. Once that realization hit, they were faced with seating that ball. A system to facilitate the ball getting started is the obvious answer. I don’t think they were used in the 18th by the common woodland hunter Or the military, but among those who had accurate competitive shooting in their DNA, it seems inevitable. If we come to an obvious best practice, rest assured that same thought occurred to someone way back when.
I can imagine the old timers in 1740 laughing at the kid’s contortions getting his tight fitting ball loaded, just before he spanked their britches off them in the shoot.
I could be wrong.
-
One of the most common mistakes we all make in our study and interpretation of 18th century material culture is that of applying our "common sense" and "logic" to people of a completely different mindset, value system, and experience. What to us seems like an obvious conclusion wasn't to them, and I'm sure some of the things we ponder would seem to have an obvious answer to them,,, or (more likely?) would not seem something to ponder or have concern about at all.
-
One of the most common mistakes we all make in our study and interpretation of 18th century material culture is that of applying our "common sense" and "logic" to people of a completely different mindset, value system, and experience. What to us seems like an obvious conclusion wasn't to them, and I'm sure some of the things we ponder would seem to have an obvious answer to them,,, or (more likely?) would not seem something to ponder or have concern about at all.
That is likely absolutely true, but remember, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, when faced with the same technical problems we face today, their Engineers came up with the exact same solutions ours do. They had no internal combustion engine, no hydraulics, no electricity, yet their heavy lift cranes, etc. were, as far as physics goes, the same as ours. A problem is a problem, and I'd guess the average smart guy 5,000 years ago would have a 50/50 chance of finding a more elegant solution to any technical problem our average smart guy today could come up with.
-
Bob and Brokennock, you are both closer to being right than you both may realize. It is reasonable to assume in absence of any real hard documentation that ball starter could both have been and not have been used. There is some evidence of their usage at times in Europe to some extent or another, and it doesn't take much thought to realize that a stick utilized along with a small stone could easily be used to start a ball with some particularly heaver than normal cloth. It's also not hard to take what evidence is provided by several that have looked at many early original barrels and report that the ends were, for a lack of a better term, coned. It's also not hard to realize that tighter loading may not have been that common when rapidity of reloads were, in some instances, more valuable than the utmost of accuracy. In the end the best we can come up with what we have now is 'maybe, maybe not'. Unless one is actually reenacting, then it doesn't matter, and if one is reenacting then go with the best supported hard documentation.
-
The simple answer is they don't show up until the 20th century.
Darrin
-
The simple answer is they don't show up until the 20th century.
Darrin
Incorrect.
-
The simple answer is they don't show up until the 20th century.
Darrin
Yeah that just ain't the case brodingo.
Guys I made one. :)
Its based off an original from the shooting pouch from the plains rifle period. I'll show you this afternoon!
-
Context matters in these discussions. I believe the real question is not, “When did short starters first appear?” but rather, “When did short starters become a common and preferred way of seating a ball into the muzzle of an ordinary muzzleloading rifle used for hunting?”
Something can exist for a long time and used in special circumstances before achieving common usage. Look up “fuel injection in internal combustion engines”.
Fuel injection existed since the 1920s in Diesel engines. Then was used in gas-powered aircraft engines in the 1940s. And used in race cars etc from the 50s onward. But carburetors ruled everyday gas cars and trucks until the 1970s. So if the question was, “when did most car and trucks with gas engines have fuel injection?”, the answer would be “after the mid 1970s.”
Similarly the early use of short starters on specialized target guns or for British military use has zero relevance if the question is, “when did short starters become common in kits of American riflemen who were not shooting specialized target rifles?.”
-
Rich: I do believe you nailed it with your last post. Thank you.
Until they make a time machine and we can go back and see for ourselves a lot of it is conjecture, evidence and common sense.
-
"Only accurate rifles are interesting"so said Col.Townsend Whelen back in "the day".
Daimler Benz had fuel injected V12 aircraft engines in service during WW2 and they
could pull up out of a hard dive and still have power for a climb whereas the normally
aspirated Allison/Rolls Royce/Packard V12 would lose power.I have worked on Mercedes
inline engines that had a cam timed fuel injected system that had an independent timing
chain and it was simple and way better than a carburetor.I do not ever want another car
with a carburetor/choke system.Our 22 year old Lincoln Town Car starts instantly no matter
how cold it gets or how long it sets without being started.
This has NO thing to do with short starters but does show the superiority of the "Einsprtzsystem
over the Vergasser ;D"
Bob Roller
-
I just picked up another original barrel from a percussion rifle. It’s 36” long, 1.050” at the breech, .940 or so at the muzzle. Looks like something mid 1800s. About the size of a typical “plains rifle” barrel. It has probably been shortened at the muzzle about an inch because the front sight dovetail is mighty close to the muzzle. As is usual, the bore is seriously funneled at the muzzle with a flat muzzle face (no crown). It is one ugly barrel but with 20 hours of work will have a nicely freshed bore around .480, I’m guessing. I’ll get muzzle and mid barrel bore dimensions and some pictures tonight. (At muzzle it is .453 and mid bore it is .432.) How does this relate? If it wasn’t crusty one could seat the ball with a thumb and ram it home with a rod. Like every original rifled percussion barrel (from sporting guns) I’ve had in the shop. Not coned in the modern sense. Rifling extends to the muzzle. But the forcing cone is long, at least an inch. This would allow a fair bit of ramrod into the bore before things got tight when loading.
Im not suggesting anyone change their way of loading from what suits their needs and preferences. Just information on original barrels. I think the modern style of a uniform bore to the muzzle with a slightly countersunk crown is a late development on sporting rifles. Maybe as late as the “revival” era in the early 1900s. Maybe earlier, 1860s though I’ve seen plenty of 1860s barrels with this funneling and square faced breech. The easiest way to start seeing a trend is to look at face-on pictures of muzzles of original rifles. If there’s no crown and no provision for a false muzzle, and it’s a round ball barrel, it’s about guaranteed it is funneled but with grooves all the way to the muzzle.
(https://i.ibb.co/DwXLW7Z/8-BCF735-D-4-F88-48-B7-B820-71125-A556334.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bNh7mrk)
(https://i.ibb.co/8YJpPTd/FBD71463-4-B4-C-47-C3-898-B-80-EE873490-FA.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sWhGsk6)
(https://i.ibb.co/MVy4vwR/B80-DEBDC-C718-441-E-B562-CAD87340-F16-C.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2t0Q9Vj)
(https://i.ibb.co/3cfhDtH/DF20-A74-D-FCCF-461-D-BB4-E-4208-BB602-B21.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tDZC7y5)
-
This has been discussed here a number of times. Something similar to what we today call a "short-starter" was used by the US Army at least by 1840. The response below is from 2014. I added the bold highlighting below.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32559.msg312499#msg312499 (https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=32559.msg312499#msg312499)
Regarding Short Starters:
The British Army Rifle Regiment were equiped with what was referred to as a loading mallet. However, no detail descriptions or instructions for use have ever been found.
Along this same line, I found this regarding a similar device used by the U.S. Army:
Practical Instructions for Military Officers, for the District of Massachusetts, published 1811
Equipment
The balls attached to the cartridges are enclosed in a linen or milled leather patch well saturated with grease; when the powder is emptied into the rifle, the ball is to be separated from the paper, placed upon the muzzle and driven in with a stroke of the mallet, as will be described in the exercise of the rifle.
The bayonet must be slung on the left side, in a scabbard, the belt of which buckles round the waist.
The pouch is worn in front like those of the cavalry, and the belt also buckles round the waist. To this belt a case is fitted for the handle of the mallet, which must hang down the right thigh.
Loading from Cartridge
V. Load! One Compound Motion
Turn up the right hand and shake the powder into the barrel, pressing the cartridge with the thumb and finger, to force out the powder; instantly bring the paper to the mouth and with the teeth separate it from the ball and, patch, which place upon the muzzle, the stitched side up, and instantly slide the left hand to the muzzle and place the fore finger upon the ball; at the same time, with the right hand, grasp the mallet, draw it partly out, and seize the handle.
VI. Drive Ball! One Compound Motion
Bring up the mallet, flipping the finger from the ball, and with one or two strokes drive the ball into the muzzle; with a quick motion, place the end of the handle upon the ball and grasp it with the thumb and finger of the left hand, and with a few smart strokes upon the mallet with the right hand, drive the ball down the full length of the handle; instantly return the mallet to its sheath and seize the ramrod with the thumb and finger of the same hand, the thumb up.
Loading Loose Ball and Powder
V. Load! One Compound Motion
Pour the powder into the barrel, drop the measure and grasp the rifle with the left hand a little below the right; disengage the right hand, carry it down to the pouch, take out a ball and patch and carry them to the muzzle, place the patch upon the muzzle and the ball upon the patch, flip up the left hand and place the fore finger upon the ball, the other fingers round the muzzle, and with the right seize the mallet as in loading with cartridge.
VI. Drive Ball - As explained in Loading with Cartridge
My guess is that these instructions may well have come from U.S. Officers reading British Army manuals.
I would also question why non of the at approximately 1000 men of just one battalion didn't take the use of this device home when they got out of the Army.
In addition there is a patent issued by the U.S. Patent Office for a false muzzle design.
U.S. Patent, #1565
Alvan Clark
April 24, 1840
Justification
… thus more effectually saving the patch from injury, facilitating the loading, enabling the shooter to load as tight as desirable, and at the same time to dispense with the use of the mallet and stick in loading; and also preserving the barrel from injury and wear.
The implication of the above justification for the patent would indicate that loading mallets and sticks were in sufficient widespread use and that there was value in eliminating the need for their use.
It also makes the case that a fair number of people were using either something similar to a single piece short starter like the military loading mallet or were using a two piece short starting system of a mallet and stick.
-
Rich, not to change the subject too much, but just an observation....if I’m seeing your last photo correctly, only 4 threads in the breech before the hole for the drum? That seems a mite scant...
Greg
-
Rich, not to change the subject too much, but just an observation....if I’m seeing your last photo correctly, only 4 threads in the breech before the hole for the drum? That seems a mite scant...
Greg
Greg, on most original percussion rifles the drum partly threads into the breechplug. I’m not recommending it but 3-4 threads is more common than most would believe.
-
Nice job on the Thumb Rich ;D
Tim
-
So, Rich, a few hours of work, and you will have a great barrel! So what are you going to do with it? Plains-type rifle? Short-barreled target rifle?
What ever you do, I am certain of two things: 1) it will be very nice looking and 2) no matter what you call it, it will be a "St. Louis Rifle"!
Please let us all know how the work progresses. A few pics of the re-rifling work would be great.
-
Craig, the bore is rough, rough, rough! Looks like a long haul if I continue to work on it. Would make a J&S halfstock, I think.
-
Here is my authentic period correct 19th century starter, inspired by an original in Charles E. Hanson’s book, The Plains Rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/hGp1XLB5/EA09-E0-BE-79-DE-4-C55-B574-F37-BC3-DD6-C08.jpg)
-
That is one nice looking setup you have there SP.
Mike