Patches used in the 18th and 19th century

[FRJ]

My question is: What patc hing material was used in these centuries? Cloth or leather?It would seem to me that cloth would be very expensive compared to leather and that leather would do just as good a job as cloth maybe better as it seems to me leather would seal better. Comments please. Frank

[James Rogers]

Both were used. I would give you scripture and verse but I am on my Android and away from my main files.

[Roger Fisher]

My question is: What patc hing material was used in these centuries? Cloth or leather?It would seem to me that cloth would be very expensive compared to leather and that leather would do just as good a job as cloth maybe better as it seems to me leather would seal better. Comments please. Frank

We should remember that generally the old boys did not fire 80 to 100 shots in a day (in peace time) as some do today.

[Daryl]

Military dissued cloth patched balls for the .54's, .69's and the odds and sods of caliber rifles they purchased abroad. I rercall reference to using 'cloth' in Firearms of the Amercian West due to leather being too inconsistant in thickness and cloth being easy to come by and being cheaper - I don't know the particulars of that. Could be for those in large towns, cloth - for those stuck in the hills, maybe leather? The # of shots fired would definitely effect what was used.  Afterall, we shoot as if powder, shot and cloth grew on trees, in comparrison.

[northmn]

Linen was a very common cloth back then and seemed to be referred to for patching.  Tow was used for cleaning. 

DP

[Kermit]

Remember that rag-picking was a common "profession." IIRC, the rags were sought after to make paper.

Although in a book of fiction (based on tales of childhood), Laura Ingalls Wilder--stay with me here--wrote of her husband's childhood. Alonzo was it? Anyway, in that story it is told of the itinerant tinsmith coming through with his wares. His mother got out the rags she had been saving, and he evaluated the pile and they engaged in trading her rags for his tinware. He obviously had some market that allowed him to turn rags into riches!

It's an early 19th century event in upstate NY, but shows the importance of used cloth. It didn't go in the landfill. Some of my best patching came from a ticking mattress cover I saved from burial.

I'd wager that most cloth patching was from rags, not ticking from WallyWorld that's been thoroughly machine washed and dried and then precut into wee circles with punches, eh?

For the curious, it's called Farmer Boy and is the only tale she wrote that's not about her own childhood.

[FRJ]

I'm still wondering, maybe in the colonies they would use cloth but in the wilderness it seems to me that leather would be far more available. If the patc hing was cloth rags that to would be very uneven in thickness also. From what I've seen of old rifles used in the west they were very worn and while much of this would be from carrying in a hostile environment I suspect they were fired fairly often also. Its a simple subject but I think it deserves more research on my part. Frank

[whitebear]

Please do research this further, this is information that will be useful to us all.

[hanshi]

Some of my best patching came from a ticking mattress cover I saved from burial.

Uhhhhh....not YOUR burial, right? 

[Roger Fisher]

Some of my best patching came from a ticking mattress cover I saved from burial.

Uhhhhh....not YOUR burial, right? 

I do believe young Kermit has cabin fever or got in the jug a little early. I read his note as if he meant he saved the matteress ticking from it's own burial

[Kermit]

I'm not ready for a shroud just yet! I've got a knee that's ready to die, but the rest of me is still kicking. I saved it FROM burial, not FOR burial. 

I've wondered a bit about patching. I hear of guys--and I've done it my self--who take a micrometer with them to the fabric store to measure the cloth to the nearest thousandth. Seems a thoroughly modern way of approaching the problem. I'm guessing that, fabric or leather, they'd have grabbed what they had that was close to right and hauled off and used it. I also can't imagine that fabric production in, say, 1776 was anything like as finely done as post-industrialization. But I don't know much about commercial weaving and spinning 250 years ago. 

It's a looooong time since I've been accused of youth, Roger!

[northmn]

I will repeat.  Linen was a very common patching material, especially during the 18 century.  As a closth you do not see much of it now, but flax was more common back then and they can grow th wstuff even in NW Minnesota.  As a cloth it made for uncomfortable garments as compared to cotton,  I had a colonial linen shirt once that proved that.  I have known a few folks that wanted to be PC taht have shopped all over for linen just for patching.  Many have extolled its virtues as it is a very tough cloth and would have served far better back then than their cotton or lindsey woolsey.  The thinner parts of leather were also likely used by some.  It would ahve probably been scraped thin.  Possibly even greased rawhide which would soften with tallow.

DP

[alsask]

The British army used greased leather patches as well as linen patches with the Baker rifle.  I would assume we would have done the same here.

[Daryl]

I think everyone (else) should be as PC as possible, use old worn out scraps or cloth, don't be particular about thickness - don' t measure them or test for strength - be PC - load your patched ball down with only the rod's weight or single finger to push it down and come shoot against us at Hefley.

The way they did it is MOST interesting, but the way we do it today, is best for accuracy. We are using the same tools and mostly the same materials, but different sizes & thichnesses, is all.

I thought everyone took calipers or a mic to the cloth-goods store when buying material for patching - how else would you get the right thickness?

There are a lot of people in this hobby who merely enjoy the comraderie and the fact they are emulating what has gone before - they don't need calipers or a mic - more power to them, however those interested in even MORE of the sport, ie: adding accuracy to their enjoyment, do require measuring impliments.

[James Rogers]

Nothing at all wrong with that but it is modern shooting with an antiquated ignition system ; )

[Daryl]

I cannot and do not believe everyone used inaccurate methods and loads. There are too many recordings of incredible accuracy -  only one of which was 5 shots that when dug out of the chunk of wood, contained a lump of lead with all 5 balls smashed together, one atop of the other - range 75yards, the postion was offhand.  I will not accept he loaded that one finger over a loose load.  Even a really good shot, as was perfomed, needed an accurate load to do that - there are a number of chunk and other accuracy shooters here who can tell you what was necessary.

There also were target shooting clubs with evolved out from get-togethers where people congregated to shoot chunk, as in Davey Crocket's day - 60 yards and miss the scoring rings or card of about 3" diameter and you were disqualified? 1 1/2" allowance on each side of the centre was as poor a shot as would keep you in the race. Tell me they use greased buckskin & I'll have a hard time accepting it.

I think they were a LOT more savy than we might thing.

[northmn]

Ned Roberts in the ML caplock Rifle mentions cloth and paper with paper being that used for the really accurate loads.

DP

[SPG]

Gentlemen,

I agree with Daryl...the old timers were more savvy than we generally give them credit for. Remember, these were times when a good marksman had very important standing in his community, more so on the frontier. Accurate shooting just doesn't happen, then or now. Also, these were the days before the myriad  of diversions/entertainment that we enjoy (?) today. Rifle matches were an important form of entertainment. People took them very seriously and they didn't shoot them for fun...wagers were the order of the day. Men took pride in their shooting ability and weren't afraid to back it up with hard money.

One did not bet money, or stake a reputation on a rifle that he loaded indifferently. I think if we could go back in time we would be surprised at the pains frontier riflemen took loading their firearms.

I, too, would like to extend an invitation to those who adhere to the "any old patch that loads easy" philosophy to come and shoot one of our old-time turkey matches at Cody. They are pretty "correct"...off the plank at 60 yards or offhand at 35, out of the pouch, shoot the target with no foolin' around. After Dan Phariss took our money last week we could use a new influx of capital.

Steve

[Kermit]

I can hear the PC police revving up their "Primary sources please!"

[Pvt. Lon Grifle]

As a practical matter, the micrometer or calipers in the cloth store is no more than a very rough guide to thickness. This is because we are after cotton/linen material and the makers do use some sort of sizing and NO DOUBT steam/heat press the material as it is ready to be placed on the bolts for shipment and ultimate sale. Then it is in a significantly climate controlled store till you buy it.   It is a different thickness after washing and drying at home than when you buy it. Check yourself. 

 Yes,  I have measured too at the store.  For me it turns out that I have a dozen pieces of material and depending on what day you measure it it is either thicker or thinner because the little variations in household humidity make it swell or shrink.  Don't believe me?  Hang a little piece of cotton cord with thumbtacks about 6 feet apart with a little belly in the line. You can actually measure the expansion, contraction in the cord  at the bottom of the belly as it changes up or down. So we are dealing with a constant change in thickness of maybe +2 or -2 thousandths in our patch material.   

Now I'm an easterner. In the winter, mid-atlantic you may get dryness enough to give you static shock, in the summer 100% humidity. Cotton swells with humidity, shrinks with dryness. Now I haven't measured my dry patching in the house, walked around in the woods chewing on it and then measured it again. But I expect it to be thicker. By the same token I can't shoot good enough to get it to shoot differently humid or dry. It is probably not that critical.

I think once you have a good load and consistent ball, same lot powder, and fairly consistent bore conditions, it is shooting skill that prevails, not a small variation in patch thickness.  Lon

[Daryl]

Could be lots of variation Lon, depending on your local conditons.

  The materials I buy have lost .001", remained the same or gained .001" after washing twice, both cold water washes - 1st with soap, seocnd is a wash cycle without soap - super rinse, I guess it is.  That total .003" difference between the different weaves from ticking to different makes of denim. Seems to me, it was the ticking that gained a thou., probably due to shrinkage. 

What temperture you wash it in might also matter as in, if you want it slightly thicker, use hot?

What I know about humitity in storage, is in my basement shop, the humidity remains pretty much a constant DRY condition, the cloths remain the same thickness, day in, day out- no matter when I measure them- pouring rain outside for 2 days- still dry in the shop.  Come in with black fouling on a ML due to moisture in the air when shooting and in 20 minutes, it's white, inside the bore and outside.  It's like a big de-humidifyer in there.  It must change, but not much.

When shot for score, all my patches currently, are dripping wet with a WWWF/mix with some neetsfoot oil. Seems to work fine.   I do take the calipers or mic to the store (when I remember them) - has worked for me, since the 70's.  Every time I forget them, I come home with cloth that is too thin.  It feels thick enough in the store, but will range from .014" to .018" normally - if it remained the same or take a thou off after cleaning and the new .018" is too thin for shooting well in my guns.

[Simon]

I will repeat.  Linen was a very common patching material, especially during the 18 century.  As a closth you do not see much of it now, but flax was more common back then and they can grow th wstuff even in NW Minnesota.  As a cloth it made for uncomfortable garments as compared to cotton,  I had a colonial linen shirt once that proved that.  I have known a few folks that wanted to be PC taht have shopped all over for linen just for patching.  Many have extolled its virtues as it is a very tough cloth and would have served far better back then than their cotton or lindsey woolsey.  The thinner parts of leather were also likely used by some.  It would ahve probably been scraped thin.  Possibly even greased rawhide which would soften with tallow.

DP

Linen is available in the fabric stores; I haven,t seen it at wally world.  You have to be careful that it is 100% linen as most is a blend.  What I have found is all about .018 thick, there may be other thickness but I haven't found it.  I can't remember exactly, but i think the cost is about $10.00  a yard. You are also limited on colors, mine is bright pink.  Makes the fired patches easy to find. In eastern N. Dakota there is(was) a linen based paper plant, that's why they grow flax in that area, seed sold for food products, straw for paper.  Mel   

[KennyC]

Nothing at all wrong with that but it is modern shooting with an antiquated ignition system ; )

I agree with that

[Daryl]

Unfortunately, the linen in the stores here is too thin, .010" at best and useless for anything to do with this sport, except for maybe for way oversized balls (larger than bore) in shallow rifling.

[SPG]

Gentlemen,
 
"Modern shooting with a antiquated ignition system"

Point well taken and one that I agree with. However, my point is that old-time riflemen were not content with mediocre accuracy. Granted, there are different accuracy levels required for target work or for simply killing a deer at 50 yards. I would hazard a guess that the early-day rifleman did things differently when shooting a turkey match as opposed to loading for hunting; there are some distinctly different requirements. This would simply be common knowledge and practice amongst marksmen/hunters.

I do not like using 21st century technology in my shooting mainly because there is almost always an old-time solution to the problem. Determining what that was, given the parameters of what was available-while not sacrificing accuracy- is what makes shooting muzzle loaders in a traditional manner enjoyable to me. I think that there is a tendency, especially amongst those for whom the rifle is just part of their 'kit' to excuse poor accuracy under the guise of "This was all the better it was back then". One does not reliably hit a turkey's head at 60-75 yards with an indifferent rifle or load, then or now.

Most frontiersmen lived with a rifle in their hand. This provides for a level of familiarity that would make a great difference in one's ability both at the target and in the field. Not to repeat an old saw, but "Beware the man who owns one gun..."

Just my thoughts.

Steve