PRIMING HORN REFERENCE - 1758

[Bob McBride]

Interesting thread, found on another forum.

Even if this commentary was envisioning a full sized horn and not the small horns we envision, it is certainly a period reference to priming horns and the concept of carrying a separate horn filled with a finer grade of powder specifically intended for priming.

So I say, so much for priming horns not being period. They may have been rare, but the concept was known to be advantageous prior to this date...

FOLLOWING IS THE INFO PULLED FROM THE OTHER FORUM.
——————————————————————————

From: Small Arms of the British Forces in America, 1664-1815, by Dr. De Witt Bailey

Chapter 18, Pages 260 – 261

One of the earliest specific references to a “priming horn” occurs in the description written by George Scott, the ranger captain, concerning a unit which he wished to raise, cloth and arm according to his ideas. It is more intriguing because we do not know whether he was ever able to fully achieve his outfitting goals, thanks to the logistic limitations in America, although he certainly continued to lead ranger units. In writing to Lord Loudoun in 1758, Scott describes the priming horn:

[Captain Scott wrote the following:]

“The priming-horn is intended to be filled with Pistol Powder, and the Ranger always to prime from it in time of action, by which method he will not be near so subject to burn priming or miss fire as He would by priming from a Cartridge, as the grain of the powder will be small and a very great fault which Men are subject to in time of action will be prevented, Vizt. That of spilling one half of their Cartridge of powder and sometimes more in priming and shutting their Pans, and when they have loaded and discharg’d their Pieces after the common method, it often happens that the Ball is not sent with half the force it is intended or anything near the distance it ought to go, which mistake will (I imagine) be avoided by the handiness of the Priming-horn, as the Men will have nothing more to do with the Cartridge than bite off the top, put it in the barrel at once and ram it down, and if the Cartridge is fill’d with Cannon powder it will have just the same effect I conceive as if fill’d with Pistol powder which will get into the touch-hole and catch fire as quick as can be wished…..” 21

End Note 21 from page 366: HL, LO6927, 13 Feb. 1758

[MuskratMike]

Just because I do it doesn't make it right but I have a priming horn in all of my flintlock shooting bags. Here are 3 of them. Note the last photo the vent pick is part of the plug. Works great and very handy.

[Bob McBride]

 Nice horns Mike. I use them for my 12 bore and anything else I use 1f, 1.5f, and at least one 2f gun that is obviously faster with 0B. I carry one in a small belt Lyman that I use for extra patching and wear with all my bags. Belt by James Rogers.

I don’t always use a primer, but when I do, I prefer Tim Crosby... 

[MuskratMike]

WOW that Tim Crosby flat horn is perfect. Might want to hide that when I come out.

[Bob McBride]

WOW that Tim Crosby flat horn is perfect. Might want to hide that when I come out.

 

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

We all know that a priming horn was used to prime cannon, especially onboard a ship.  It would be interesting to know the granulation size of their prime.

[Bob McBride]

We all know that a priming horn was used to prime cannon, especially onboard a ship.  It would be interesting to know the granulation size of their prime.

It would be interesting. Pistol powder as above you think? I wonder how fine that was? They certainly had the ability to grind it as fine as they wanted.

[smallpatch]

Ok, here's my favorite!

[Elnathan]

I think that the fact he has to describe it in detail is a pretty good indication that it was a fairly novel idea. The rational for it is as much due to the difficulty of priming from a cartridge under the stress of combat as it is for better ignition, too. It is interesting, but I can't see that it changes our understanding of how firearms were normally loaded.

I think "pistol powder" is roughly comparable to modern FFFg.

[Bob McBride]

I think that the fact he has to describe it in detail is a pretty good indication that it was a fairly novel idea. The rational for it is as much due to the difficulty of priming from a cartridge under the stress of combat as it is for better ignition, too. It is interesting, but I can't see that it changes our understanding of how firearms were normally loaded.

I think "pistol powder" is roughly comparable to modern FFFg.

I don’t disagree at all, as my first thought after reading the account was he was trying to “explain the concept of a priming horn to his CO”. That being said, the guys in the trenches did have that info as early as that date obviously. Also to my military mind he was selling a concept he knew the REMF CO would understand, that is, their fire was less than it could be by some tangible percentage, and as a bonus, but more importantly to him, a Ranger Captain, the fire could also be “discharged as quick as can be wished”.

It’s an interesting read.

[heinz]

Bob, I think your observations are probably right on.  I would also note that he was addressing Officers of British troops who knew no firearm but the one the King shoved in their arms and no shooting tradition beyond the manual of arms. 
From personal experience of shooting flintlocks since 1969, I would note that priming from a powder, even when just hunting, is pretty much a bother compared with using a priming horn. 

[RoaringBull]

He also made reference to the loss of velocity and decline on trajectory due to the loss of powder from spillage and priming.

[Elnathan]

Bob, I think your observations are probably right on.  I would also note that he was addressing Officers of British troops who knew no firearm but the one the King shoved in their arms and no shooting tradition beyond the manual of arms. 

That is a BIG assumption there....Of all the people on the planet, I would think that upper class European officers, drawn from rural gentry with a tradition of gentleman's sporting guns with the finest accessories available, plus a knowledge of flasks used by the artillery and the horns carried by troops of a generation earlier to supplement their cartridges, would probably be most familiar with such a piece of equipment, had it existed, not the least familiar.

The separate container is not a novel idea. Carrying finer grained powder in it for a shoulder arm, distinct from the powder intended for the main charge, - the modern definition of priming horn -  evidently was novel, as indicated by the fact that he had to specify that it contained pistol powder. At a superficial level it may look like proof that priming horns in their modern sense are "period correct," but I think that if anything it lends weight to the idea that they were not in any kind of widespread use  - the author cannot assume that his general will understand what he wants without detailed explanation, the specification of "pistol powder"indicates that there was no category of finer-grained powder specifically produced for priming horns, and the request is introduced primarily as a solution to a problem arising from a loading method arising from using paper cartridges under combat conditions, not the method or conditions of loading for the majority of shooting done now or in the past. The mention of fewer misfires - our worry today -  looks like an afterthought. He also doesn't specify that they be smaller than normal horns, and given the context I suspect that something like an artillery horn was envisioned, rather than our tiny priming horns today, though I'll allow that he might have wanted something like a pocket flask for pistols instead.

My aggravation here is that we have something like a generation of research into trade lists and period accounts of frontier life that have completely (as far as I know) failed to turn up any reference to a separate category of gunpowder specifically intended for priming small arms, or any mention of a separate horn for carrying said powder in the context of civilian or frontier life, yet all that is going to be thrown out and ignored on the basis that someone once suggested using horns to carrying pistol powder in a military context to solve a combat-specific problem. I don't think that it is a smoking gun that I know a lot of people "over there" are going to take it as...

While I think that the quote is interesting because it shows that the idea was around at the time (and probably earlier) I think that the evidence suggests for most shooters, including those along the frontier with which we are most interested today, a priming horn was a solution in search of a problem.

[Bob McBride]

I don’t think they were in wide use at all. That’s not in question. To me this is simply documentation for where a person might have learned that there was an advantage to using and carrying a priming horn in his career as a soldier, and after having used them to advantage in service, consequently gone on to use them over the course of his life. With this documentation one can build a legitimate persona who uses a priming horn, and he would have documentation, and a good story, showing where his persona picked up the habit. I found it interesting because I have heard the argument that there is NO documentation of a period person using a priming horn, much less a Captain of Rangers in the King’s service who actually wanted to implement their use.

Also, a quick search on Google books found at least 5 references to priming horns being used at or before the period in Europe, including one describing the accoutrements of a matchlock musketeer and this one. Though not of our period and place, it’s shows they were known and used. This one describes a small 6” horn powder horn.

https://books.google.com/books?id=GQdJAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA314&dq=priming+horn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj55puvyJ_pAhUbVs0KHSCcCD4QuwUIRjAE#v=onepage&q=priming%20horn&f=false

  https://books.google.com/books?id=j3kZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA301&dq=priming+horn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibq87by5_pAhXEWc0KHYqVDc84ChC7BTAFegQIARAp#v=onepage&q=priming%20horn&f=false   

[heinz]

I think the big assumption that is false is that a different grain size of powder was used.  It is convenience that the priming horn brings to the loading process.  The powder grain size between period "rifle powder" and "pistol powder" is neither large nor consistent.  My priming horn is usually filled with fff since DuPont left the business.

The re-enactor researchers do not come without bias. 

And the gentleman officer from the ranks of the nobility probably never loaded his own bird gun.

[Elnathan]

Bob,

The first one is a catalog from 1890, using whatever designation the Late Victorian era curator used. Might be accurate, might not be - not very helpful one way or another.

The second one shows the use of the phrase in period, but - again - different circumstances and different uses, and since (I think) they already used the phrase to describe horns carrying powder for cannon, it is not too surprising that they used the phrase for a matchlockman's priming flask. As I alluded to above, some troops continued carrying flasks into the early flintlock period to supplement their cartridges, and I'd be shocked if they never primed or renewed their prime from a flask to avoid wasting a cartridge. That, IMHO, is a different definition of "priming horn" than what we use today, in which we mean a small horn or flask carried alongside a larger one and carrying powder unsuitable for the main charge and specifically intended to prime a shoulder weapon. That is what doesn't seem to show up in period accounts, as far as I know.

Heinz,

I can't tell what side you are arguing for, or what point you are trying to make, though I will say that I think your argument that Loudoun, by dint of being a nobleman, can be presumed to be ignorant of how to load nonmilitary arms or the accoutrements thereof is pretty farfetched. Contrary to modern egalitarian prejudices, I've never found much evidence that the British officer corps of the day was notably ignorant, stupid, or incompetent.

For the record, I am not a reenactor.

[Bob McBride]

And so were clear, I’m not arguing for ‘priming horns’ per se, just that they weren’t unheard of. I don’t imagine they were used much in the colonies, but I’m certain they were known and used occasionally, in certain places and situations, and I’d be more surprised if they never show up in the documentation than if they do. That being said, no dog in the fight for me besides the debate.

[MuskratMike]

Heinz: Why use fff in the priming horn instead of ffff? I have no issue with it as many of my friends who prime from their main horn and use fff have very good success. As I shoot almost exclusively flintlocks I go through ffff Goex fast enough to warrent the purchase in my priming horns. I use them because I just got tired of overfilling my priming horn not for any perceived quicker ignition.
It obviously works for you and would love to hear your thoughts and reasoning. I am never too old to learn.

[heinz]

Muskrat Mike, I have 3 f old-stock DuPont powder in it now.  Because I have it.  I have never found an ignition difference between 3 and 4 f in the pan.  That is however based on perception, not actual scientific timing.  I use the priming horn because trying to maintain muzzle safety discipline while priming from a horn is a hassle.

Elnathan, I am a believer in priming horns, both because they are documented in the 17th century and because something that useful does not simply drop out of use.  How often do you note powder horns noted in inventory lists?

I did not mean the researcher comment as a personal slam.  My apologies if it came across that way. Sometime around 1970 it became suddenly the thing to deny the existence of priming horns.  The impetus came from the military re-enactment community.  A number of small original horns existed that were associated with hunters or hunting bags.  They suddenly became a "salt horn"  I will observe that there is nothing more useless for carrying salt in that a small horn with a restricted spout opening.  The salt clumps and can only be picked out. 

The rifle shooting tradition was always largely an oral tradition.  A set of ways to shoot accurately and reliably passed from generation to generation.  The writers often did not get the information right, like pouring the powder over the ball to determine the charge instead of using a measure.  Have you ever seen anyone actually try that.  We did it once at a station on a woods walk.  You are left with a handfull of powder and an unpatched ball in one hand and a rifle in the other hand or crook of the arm.  Priming horns and bullet boards were standard equipment at the first matches in Friendship back in the 1930s.  I spoke with charter members of the NMLRA. Flintlock shooters always used priming horns when target shooting..  You did not go to the line with a full-size  horn

Captain Scott was addressing the use of a priming horn in conjunction with cartridge loaded muskets.  A different thing than being loaded from a horn.  His chief argument was the loss of powder from the cartridge when priming under stressful conditions I am not clear if he was also noting the benefit of being able to unprime a loaded weapon and reprime it.

Your characterization of his audience was "Of all the people on the planet, I would think that upper class European officers, drawn from rural gentry with a tradition of gentleman's sporting guns with the finest accessories available, plus a knowledge of flasks used by the artillery and the horns carried by troops of a generation earlier to supplement their cartridges, would probably be most familiar with such a piece of equipment, had it existed, not the least familiar."  Not specifically Lord Loudon. My comments as to the upper class rural gentry not loading his own gun stand.

[MuskratMike]

Heinz: thank you for the excellent and well thought out reply. I agree with everything you wrote.

[David Rase]

Ok, here's my favorite!

Just when I thought I would get back to some serious rifle building you come along with a killer project that I now have to try my hand at.  Thanks Dane.  That is an incredible looking primer.  Stay tuned.

David

[acorn20]

These are pics of a few that I have for my rigs.  Made by blacksmith Brian Anderson.

[RoaringBull]

I WANT ONE LIKE THAT!!

[heinz]

I think that David should make about a half dozen so he gets the technique down.  The Valley Forge Museum has one similar to this

[David Rase]

I think that David should make about a half dozen so he gets the technique down.  The Valley Forge Museum has one similar to this

I am going to give it a try.  I was given a couple of small horns by a friend a few years back.  I am going to pull them out of storage and see what I can do with them.  Make one for myself and give the friend the other one for giving me the horns. 
David