Did They Use Pre-Cuts or Cut at the Muzzle?

[Smokey Plainsman]

Guys I’ve read various different things about how the old timers (circa 1700s and early 1800s) would use patching material when loading. Some say they used pre-cut patches. If so, were they the round type found today, or something else?

Others say they cut at the muzzle.

Well, what did they actually do and is there any provenance to support either method?

-Dillon

[OldMtnMan]

I prefer to think cutting at the muzzle is proper but the answer is probably they did both.

I would think square patches if precut but who knows? Have precut patches been found in old kits?

[Smokey Plainsman]

I prefer to think cutting at the muzzle is proper but the answer is probably they did both.

I would thing square patches if precut but who knows? Have precut patches been found in old kits?

Not sure, that’s a good question!

[smylee grouch]

I just cant imagine that out of the millions of shots fired out of flintlock arms during that time frame that only one method would have been used.  With out question in my opinion both if not some others were used. 

[rich pierce]

Don’t see many patch punches in old kits.

[EC121]

A square patch will work.  No punch needed.  Or the square corners could be trimmed.

[Smokey Plainsman]

Don’t see many patch punches in old kits.

I see. You think they used pieces of cloth and cut at the muzzle?

[Flint62Smoothie]

Like others opined ... and that my own use proves (experimental archaeology maybe?) ... they used BOTH methods ... deferring to whetever the field conditions, timing and/or environment dictated.

[Kevin]

Greetings All,
In the for what it's worth department:
The hunting pouch pictured in plate 11 of Madison Grant's "The Kentucky Rifle Hunting Pouch" is accompanied by "an antler measure, bullet mold, and a string of patches."  The patches appear to be square to slightly rectangular.  The author estimates the pouch as "circa 1810-25" but who knows when the string of patches were placed into the pouch.

Kevin

[thecapgunkid]

Smokey...Well, what did they actually do and is there any provenance to support either method?

You might consider this process to answer your question:

Step One; shoot a lot
Step Two; watch everybody else
Step Three;  The older the shooter is, the more you watch them
Step Four; do whatever you see that you like, and in your mind imagine yourself competing with Mike Fink and Fess Parker.

When some guy goes and digs two of your perfectly round balls out of the same hole, you has arrived, son.

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

[retired fella]

just a thought and addition to the capgunkid     don't attempt to catch the ricocheting bullet in yar teeth and mind yar topknot.     

[rfd]

consider a specific era time frame and then consider the value of cloth for that period.  early on, cloth was a very valued commodity, particularly that of the tight weave required for patch material.  then consider for that time period what was the typical firearm type, what was its requirements, and thus how it was loaded.  one might find that in the early to perhaps later 18th century, that those ubiquitous smoothbores were "patched" with tow or nesting or flora or hide ... or maybe nothing at all.  lotta dependencies that we in this century don't hafta be concerned about, unless we wanna be "period correct" for whatever reasons.
 

[Pukka Bundook]

Smokey,

I think they did it both ways.   Cut patches go back the early 1500's so likely fashion at the time dictated what was done.  (The patches of the earliest dates were cut with a punch).

Merry Christmas!

R.

[rich pierce]

Eric Kettenburg studied an early brass-barreled rifle (the Deschler rifle) with a side opening brass box. In the box were a lot of half round (possibly deeper) drilled holes that likely were used to hold patched balls that had the patching lightly sewn together and pressed into the cavities. Very cool insight into how one individual did it. I’m estimating it as a 1765-1775 rifle. Very robust. But it’s sll guesswork. Whenever we ask “”how did they go it?” where and when and probably who, matters.  Folks were individuals with different traditions back then like now.

[vanu]

This does not address the question directly, but interesting none the less; from Gary Brumfields old website:

http://www.flintriflesmith.com/Antiques/berneck_jaeger.htm

Bruce

[rfd]

circumstances would also dictate the loading process.  hunting can be tremendously different from defense/protection, where the former is about control and accuracy and the latter is typically more concerned with rate of fire, hence how muskets were typically loaded. 

[Hungry Horse]

I think that when we view anything from the early days of this country, and ask “did they” do this, or that, the first thing you need to define is who was the “they”. America had to deal with the remnants of the social status system that controlled virtually all of Europe. It didn’t break down over night. So a farmer on the frontier didn’t do thing the same way as a gentleman in the city, or a plantation owner in the South did. I would imagine men of some social standing, likely had pre- cut patches in their patchboxes. But, we know those of lesser statis especially in the South didn’t use pre-cut patches much because many of the guns they used had no patch box.
 I know for a fact that in the early twentieth century in the rural Midwest, folks cut patches at the muzzle. When I first started shooting a muzzleloader, my grandfather mentioned that the only whipping he ever got from his mother ( who he adored) was for cutting bullet patches out of his shirttail.

  Hungry Horse

[rfd]

common sense would have prevailed on the frontier.  fit the load type and load process to the task at hand, with the loading resources at hand, for the kind of gun in hand.   and then there is the use of ball boards.