Ball Starters

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

He is wise - beyond his years!

[Tim Hamblen]

I watched Herschel House loading one time and he beat the ball down with his knife, cut the patch and ran it down with his ramrod. I think he probably was spot on as to how the old timers done it. Myself, I made a tapered mandrel and coned the muzzle of my Kincaid gun and it did not accuracy one iota. I've won a ton of matches with it since. I can load ramrod only but I still use the short starter so I can use a tight patch / ball combo.

[Bob Roller]

Funneled muzzles,undersize balls and overcoat material for patches.No starter needed and mediocre accuracy guaranteed.
Major Ned Roberts was born in 1866 I think and the Northeast was industrialized heavily during and after the Uncivil War.Reading his book on the caplock rifle I am thinking they got away from the round ball ASAP with the possible exceptions of squirrel hunters and back yard plinking.False muzzles,bullets going thru guide starters plus a false muzzle,all looking for top accuracy at distances farther out than those associated with a round ball.
The aforementioned industrialization made possible steel barrels,precision tools and measuring as judged by the standards of that time and certainly the surviving targets prove they had something right.
The good Major mentions all the great gun makers of his time such as Brockway,Warner,Whitmore and Pope and as far as is known,none of them were interested in anything other than the best possible accuracy at the farthest practical ranges.I think 40 rods or 220 yards was popular and some were even much farther out.
Industrial history is a fascinating thing whether it applies to firearms or the automobile and they are intertwined.

Bob Roller

[Vomitus]

I have a copy of Ned Roberts book and (educated guess) the use of a ball starting tool must have predated him.  His mentor surely used them in his youth.  This begs the question, from whom did he learn of them?  And when? 

good question


Today, many 'shooters'  are just happy their gun goes off and piece paper can be hit, to the other extreme of the guys who aren't happy unless successive balls barely enlarge the small oblong hole put in the target by the first 2 shots.  We are a wide group of many associated, but somewhat different interests. What drives some to perfection in the sport, would drive others from the sport.  We are a group of similarly minded individuals with quite differing interests in the same basic sport.  Thus, what floats someone's 'stick' might not float someone else's. We have to maintain an open mind, difficult at times for mere mortals.

  Daryls, you are either mellowing or someone else wrote this for you!  

[WadePatton]

  Daryls, you are either mellowing or someone else wrote this for you!  

i thought it was his medication.  

[Daryl]

HA!  Guess I was feeling mortal. Pain does that to me. You may be correct, Wade!

[Vomitus]

  Doesn't matter Daryls. I like what you said. I knew a few fellows from the High Power days that couldn't hardly hit paper but never missed a head of game. I'm not that fussy about bench shooting any more. I know it has to be done. To move a tight group to center is a tough one with a ML rifle. A piece of cake with a scope. Getting off topic,sorry.
  We've been bickering back and forth for years about short starters. When I first started, I shot big honkin slugs out of a TC "Bigbore". No need for a starter. Nor did I know what one was. No internet in those days. I met up with our local club gents one Sunday and was informed that this clunker would shoot roundballs with a cotton patch! So I tried it. Had no idea what to do,  figured it out,but my patch material was too thin. After about 10 shots, I could not force another thin patched ball down the bore all the way. With a little fiddling, I made a shortstarter and things started falling together. My TC/BB started shooting real nice groups with thicker patches. I could not get this load started with the ramrod, not a chance! From then I thought this must be a period correct item, only to have my bubble burst here.  then I thought, well FFFFFFg it! I'd sooner be accurate then totally P/C. just my thoughts... I kinda figured our forefathers would have figured this out too? I guess not.

[Kopfjaeger]

Without taking sides on this issue I can see a longhunter smacking the patched ball flush with the muzzle using the handle of his knife.  From there it is certainly possible to seat the prb the rest of the way with just the rr.  I've done this myself many times in the past.

I seen a video on youtube where Hersel House did it that way with his knife. Most of my flintlocks are coned.

I would think in the 18th century the frontiersman wouldn't want a super tight patch and ball combination, loading slow could get you killed back in them days. I'm sure they wanted a rifle as accurate as they could get it, but with out sacrificing loading speed.

[WadePatton]

...

I would think in the 18th century the frontiersman wouldn't want a super tight patch and ball combination, loading slow could get you killed back in them days. I'm sure they wanted a rifle as accurate as they could get it, but with out sacrificing loading speed.

Watch some more videos, nothing has been sacrificed.  See if you can find the one of Daryl(s) and another fellow loading (no-wipe tight, during a trail-walk)[Oh lookie there it is, next post].  

If they were loading "loose and easy" then they would have had to wiped several times by this point in the shoot (wiping is not loading*) or be using a hammer to drive loads home.  Either way they would have spent a lot more time loading during the event-which could have been the time the bad guys needed to grab your frontiersman.  

"Easy loading" isn't faster, it's fouler. (if you need more than one shot)


*or is it?  (the converse, without the negative--i.e. Loading IS wiping when done properly)

note: I came back and edited without realizing i'd been quoted in full.  sorry for any confusion.  This loading is tight enough to eliminate wiping, and contest-winning accuracy.  I'm yet a noob to long rifles, but I try to share the grains of good information as I can.  Don't have targets to share, but am eating fresh venison...my rifle scored exactly 2 bucks opening weekend.

[Daryl]

In these videos, there has been no wiping and many shots fired prior to the vids. being taken. In the first video, at least 50 shots by both of us- proabably 80 by HJ - Hatchet Jack with his smoothbore and me with my .45 rifle. My combination here is a .445" ball and a 10 ounce denim patch, that I measure compressed as hard as my fingers can do it, at .0225" with the calipers.  That's .010" compression in the bottom of each and every .010" deep groove- GM barrel.

In the second vid, I'm loading a shallow (.008") rifled .58 using a .0215" patch and .562" ball. That gives some .008 thou. compression in the bottom of the grooves- each and every one, yet loading is very easy.

Taylor, in the third video, is loading his Virginia .50, with a .590" or .595" ball and .020" patch.  He uses his wiping rod (range rod) for loading as it's easier than removing and replacing the rifle's wiping stick when range shooting. This rifle has .016" deep rounded rifling. His .495" ball + the .020" patch gives only .0015" (1 1/2 thou) compression in the bottom of each groove. This weak combination shows it's traits as there is brown scorching lines showing on the collected patches after shooting.  If Taylor increases his 2F powder charge over 85gr., the patches will show burn through as they are not tight enough to hold back any pressure increase over the 85gr. load.  At 85gr., they mostly maintain their integrity and shoot well, but do show those scorch marks on most of the groove marks on the spent patches - almost burning, but not quite. If he used 85gr. of 3f -with it's higher pressure and faster pressure build, the patches would most likely burn up. His velocity at 85gr. was recorded at just over 1,400fps, iirc , 4,008fps.  With such a weak load, even though there are some powder gasses streaking past the patch, he does not have to wipe at any time while shooting all day & the gun remains easy loading.

I should note here, that some of the remarks made by me here, after or during the videos may sound condescending.("easy as pie" and "now, wasn't that easy") For that, I am truly sorry - not meant to be that way at all - but seems that's the way I come across, at times - again, sorry.

[Kermit]

Daryl, can you add the info on the lubes used, if you know it?

[Kopfjaeger]

...

I would think in the 18th century the frontiersman wouldn't want a super tight patch and ball combination, loading slow could get you killed back in them days. I'm sure they wanted a rifle as accurate as they could get it, but with out sacrificing loading speed.

Watch some more videos, nothing has been sacrificed.  See if you can find the one of Daryl(s) and another fellow loading (no-wipe tight, during a trail-walk).  If they were loading "loose and easy" then they would have had to wiped several times by this point in the shoot (wiping is not loading*) or be using a hammer to drive loads home.  Either way they would have spent a lot more time loading during the event-which could have been the time the bad guys needed to grab your frontiersman.  

"Easy loading" isn't faster, it's fouler.


*or is it?  (the converse, without the negative)

Your putting your own thoughts into what I said. I never said a loose and easy load, I said I would think they wouldn't want a " super tight load " meaning a load they would have to beat down the barrel like some target/bullseye shooters do.  And there's a big difference between a trail walk or shooting a target match and a 18th century longhunter fighting for his life and trying to load on the run. Personally I think fouling wouldn't be his major concern if he had a few indians chasing him. Daryl thanks for the videos. From what I can see on Daryl's videos he's not shooting a " super tight load " ( they go down quite easy ) that he has to beat down the barrel, yet he stated he got at least 50 shots without wiping.

Easier loading is faster, but it could be less accurate. Try a Seneca Run Match with a super tight load combination.

Seneca Run
A running match of about 200 yards consisting of paper targets at 5 shooting  stations, shot offhand with a 10-minute time limit. Shooting from the Bag or pockets and no range rods allowed.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Headhunter:  we don't consider the loads we use to be tight and certainly they are not hard to load.  The wooden ramrod is all that's needed once the ball and patch are in the bore...we've just used a starter to do that job from the beginning so don't know any better.  I've competed in lots of Seneca Runs over the years, using the .020" + thick patches, .005" undersized PURE LEAD BALL, and spit for lube.  But OTHERS have commented that they cannot load that combination because it is too tight.  I see guys posting loads that include a .010" - .015" patch, and a .010" undersize ball, and that's all they can manage to get down their bores without a mallet.  I'm left scratching my head when I read that.

Once the patch and ball are started into the bore, they cannot be tight - only bore sized.  The load cannot expand and become tighter.  I believe that it is the build up of fouling that is their problem, and that's why they have to wipe.  Today's barrel makers all produce such fine barrels that are of uniform dimensions through their length, and so smooth, loading cannot possibly be difficult, unless the bore has been either seriously fouled, or 'frosted' (even pitted) by inadequate cleaning practices, or both, as one leads to the other.

I have to be honest...I've never tried shooting a target while wiping between shots.  So I have no idea if that would produce a better group or higher score than just continuously shooting.  I might give it a try.  I am the first to admit that I do not have all the answers.  I will say though, that I have been in the winner's circle much more than not.

[ScottH]

Taylor
Would it be possible to get a close up view of the starters that you guys are using? They look like they work great and don't look like anything I have seen in a store ready to purchase.
Thanks!

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

These are a few of my starters.  I like to have one for each gun I use.  I think all of these have a moose antler knob, all have a very short brass nubb to seat the ball just below the muzzle's mouth, and all have a socket that is slightly larger than the end of the ramrod, so that the last couple of inches of seating the ball can be done with a comfortable handle instead of a rather sharp ramrod end.  This is mostly to ensure uniform pressure when reaching the powder...firmly down without upsetting the ball.

[Kopfjaeger]

D. Taylor Sapergia thanks for the infomation. Nice ball starters, I made a few out of elk and moose antler also. I rarely use ball starters now because I coned four of my eight flintlocks ( the other four will get coned later ). So now I just push the patched round ball in with my thumb and then push it down the barrel with the wiping stick. I know some shooters worry about losing accuracy with a coned barrel, but I've experienced no lose of accuracy with the four I've coned.

I see you know a little german. I lived in West Germany for two years courtesy of the U.S. Army.

[Dphariss]

I suspect that starters date to the 18th c.  There is a hunting pouch pictured in "Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850" that belonged to a hunter who was born circa 1760 and died in 1840. There is a loading block and a starter. So we can assume the predate 1840 and may well date to the Revolution. But of course this flies in the face of conventional wisdom which is that our forefathers were too dumb to figure this out in the something like 240 years the rifle was being made and used BEFORE the American Revolution. There were also bullet boards in use, based on statements on Frontier Folk, by German Mercenaries during the American Revolution. They used them to cut patches. Push a ball and the patch material into the board then cut it with a knife. Push the ball out and repeat. Short jump to figure out that a board with several holes could speed loading.
Then: There have always been gun owners, shooters and riflemen. The first two are not so hard to please. If you go to the local rifle range and watch some people shoot while sighting in the rifles for hunting season you will immediately understand that lost of gun owners and shooters cannot shoot well enough to tell an accurate rifle from and inaccurate one much less hit a deer at any distance. This with a SCOPED modern rifle.
So while I am sure some people loaded their rifles "loose" I am also sure some did not . The British used two different ball sizes in the Baker. One for volley fire use and one for accurate fire. The latter was loaded tight so it gave reasonable accuracy for point targets.
We also see that not all the men in Rev-War rifle units were good shots. Many apparently could not reliably hit a man much past 100 yards, which is little better than a smooth bore. This could be the result of  any number of things. But not knowing how to load for accuracy, not working up a load that shot well (or ignoring what the maker stated) could easily be part of the problem.  The rifling form was often abysmal as well.


Which makes it harder to load a tight fit.

I often wonder who Audubon was hunting with that poured  powder into his hand. Makes one wonder where all the old powder measures came from.

Dan

[Mick C]

These are a few of my starters.  I like to have one for each gun I use.  I think all of these have a moose antler knob, all have a very short brass nubb to seat the ball just below the muzzle's mouth, and all have a socket that is slightly larger than the end of the ramrod, so that the last couple of inches of seating the ball can be done with a comfortable handle instead of a rather sharp ramrod end.  This is mostly to ensure uniform pressure when reaching the powder...firmly down without upsetting the ball.

Thanks for showing us your starters.  I love those, much better than the ugly, and unwieldy wood balls that everyone sells....Mick C  :-)

[Daryl]

Well presented, Dan.

I am reminded of a shooting contest some time in the 1830's to 40's where the shooter fired 5 shots from a .52 calibre rifle at 50yards. There was but one hole.  They said he missed 4 of his shots. He said to split the 'chunk' and there were his 5 balls, welded together, one on top of the other. I've never been able to do that - amazing feat, amazing shot. I will not accept that he thumb started the balls and patches.

I have read somewhere, some book or a re-print of text where the hunter 'relieved' the bore to obtain better accuracy. Does this mean rounded his crown to allow tighter patching?

We know the Germans routinely filed the lands or the lands and grooves at the muzzle so they appeared sharp, but both lands and grooves were oversized compared to the actual interior of the bore.  This would be a most elaborate radiused crown effect.

Both Taylor and I used to compete in the Seneca runs in the 70's.  At that time, we were already using balls that were .005" under bore size and .022" denim. We were usually in the winner's circle.  I did have a slow run once due to the combination I was using, but almost made up for my time with the accuracy I got from a .028" deep rifling Bauska barrel in .448" bore.(I still have a chunk of that bl.) I used a .457" ball with .022" denim (=.501")which was .003" undersized to the groove to groove measurement of .504". Between the start and the first target, I lost my starter, so had to load by merely pushing the patched ball (.009" LARGER than the bore) out of the block into the bore, then down she went, all with the 3/8" hickory rod. To get the ball started, I choked up on the rod so only about 1" was out of my hand, By pushing straight down, the ball and patch formed into the the bore.  Seems to me I recall the last shot was a huge gimmi plate close, so that one went down without the patch.  Overall,  not having a starter did slow me down, but I still finished in 4th or 5th- maybe 6th? I probably couldn't load that today, but maybe - I was much stronger then, a mere kid at 23 to 25yrs. of age but did have a lot less experience in this game.

Kermit:

In the videos I was using WWWF(Winter Windshield Washer Fluid -35 to -45- usually Blue Thunder brand) with a bit of Neetsfoot oil - about 2 ounces per litre.  Most of us up here use it. I use the same lube for shooting in the summer time and the oil seems to slow the evapouration. That is the only reason I use it- got into the habit, so that is how I always mix up a new batch.  It seems to shoot the same as a spit saturated patch.
Couple winters ago, Taylor switched to using straight Neetsfoot Oil as it was not as cold as the water/alcohol/oil lube noted above.
When I tried Track's mink oil in my .32, I found subsequent loading easier after the first load (which was also easy, mind you)- no wiping needed and easy all day - perhaps 45 to 55 shots that day. I was using a .311" ball & .0235" railroad mattress ticking patch. The patches were pre-cut and saturated in melted oil, then squeezed out and placed in a tin prior to going shooting.  I think the first was harder shoving down due to the 'existing' lube in the bore - WD40? After that, the mink oil lubed bore, even with whatever fouling was in there, was super slick. The 2nd through 50's were easier than the first.  The rifling is backwards in this barrel. The grooves are VERY narrow and lands wide, opposite to what they should be for easy loading, yet it was incredibly easy loading.

[Kermit]

Thanks for that, Daryl!

[AZshooter]

I am still a firm believer that the early longrifle shooters didn't patch or load their balls a tight as we tend to want to do now days.   Lots time they didn't have time to go through all that process.   I think everything was done with only the ramrod and it was loose enough to cause no problems when loading.

Oldtimers may not have loaded patched balls as tight, and they didn't typically use as heavy powder charges as some folks do today.

With the advent of high velocity cartridges and chronographs, some,especially younger shooters, feel that a plain ol' PRB ain't fast enough to kill deader than dead.  The trendy conicals and minies are also in demand, with lots of questions about making them as accurate as balls in traditional rifles.

As for the flap over terminology, I have a short starter that has been known as such since it was built some 60 years ago.  It is nothing special, but was given to me by a gent who made it, and went on to make more, newer and "better" short starters.  It has never occurred to me that  tghe ball wouldn't be fully seated after starting, and in my over 45 years of shooting, has never been an issue. 

'Suppose I'll just continue calling it what the original maker named it, and won't feel a bit sinful about it.

I have a particular rifle that I do patch tight, in fact so tight that I need a mallet to tap it flush with the muzzle, then tap the short starter with the home grown mesquite wood, handmade mallet.  It is the same load the previous owner of the rifle used for the 35 years he owned it.  I've tried other combinations, but the tight patch load gives me the best accuracy - better than I ever expected.

Always remember that: A rose by any other name will still jab your finger and make you bleed if you don't pay attention on how you handle it 

[Bob Roller]

The few original rifles I have seen with their original moulds indicated a ball 2 calibers undersize.I started shooting muzzle loaders in 1951 and never heard of extreme powder charges for about 30 years.The advent of the mass produced muzzle loaders brought in a bunch of new people that thought a 180 grain load was about right for a 50 caliber round ball.I think a lot of these people were interested in making a very loud noise and accuracy was not considered.No doubt the makers and seller of black powder thought it was agood idea as well.

Bob Roller

[Pete G.]

The few original rifles I have seen with their original moulds indicated a ball 2 calibers undersize.I started shooting muzzle loaders in 1951 and never heard of extreme powder charges for about 30 years.The advent of the mass produced muzzle loaders brought in a bunch of new people that thought a 180 grain load was about right for a 50 caliber round ball.I think a lot of these people were interested in making a very loud noise and accuracy was not considered.No doubt the makers and seller of black powder thought it was agood idea as well.

Bob Roller

The popular guns mags in the early 70's all had at least one article about black powder. The publishers and advertisers all saw a large untapped market, but to convert the regular everyday shooter they felt like they had to extoll the virtues of the muzzle loader so they loaded them up with enough powder to approximate the ballistics of some centerfire rounds. Some of Sam Fadala's writing listed loads that were just crazy.

[PPatch]

The few original rifles I have seen with their original moulds indicated a ball 2 calibers undersize.I started shooting muzzle loaders in 1951 and never heard of extreme powder charges for about 30 years.The advent of the mass produced muzzle loaders brought in a bunch of new people that thought a 180 grain load was about right for a 50 caliber round ball.I think a lot of these people were interested in making a very loud noise and accuracy was not considered.No doubt the makers and seller of black powder thought it was agood idea as well.

Bob Roller

I ran into one of those fellows while purchasing some supplies at a plumbing store last summer. We got to discussing hunting and he mentioned owning a "Hawken" 50 caliber. Of course it turned out to be a TC type rifle. He told me he didn't shoot it anymore because of the kick being too punishing. When I asked him what charge he was using he replied "180 grains, and its not very accurate."

dave