Not using a short starter!!

[Roger Fisher]

Ok not to hijack Acer's thread I'll start this anew....

I refer mainly to the shooters that load tight and use their rifle/rifles mainly for the shootin matches!   Making certain that our short starters (yes I use them) are long enough that they set the ball deeper than the frt site dovetail and the upper tennon should be standard practice, since stuff happens.... improves the safety aspect of the loading and shooting sequence.....!

Now then, I picture the shooters (that do not use a loose enough ball and patch combo) in the loading procedure having the ball started just a tad beneath the muzzle, with the loading rod iron or brass jag wiggling around at the muzzle starting the patched ball.   After hundreds or thousands or maybe only a few dozen loadings they end up with the rifling ends battered at the muzzle and so ruining the barrel's accuracy

This raises the question is the above really the better way or is having a short starter in use that seats said ball deeper than both dovetails the better method?

I did fire a short started ball yrs ago when distracted by kids on the range and rung the 13/16th .45 barrel; but she hung together and was replaced with a new barrel.

A co question----- Can anyone state for certain that the old boys did not in fact use  short starters??    I believe that their use was rare; but dare we say never?
I learned years ago never to say 'never'   I refer now to ol tyme shootin matches not the hunting mode.  Can anyone come up with examples of original shooting bags that go back to the Golden Age era that did in fact contain said short starters with a fair certainty that they were not added 'later'

[Pete Allan]

Interesting question. Being mainily a match shooter I must say that I use a short starter BUT it is only about 3/8" long and is right on my patch knife handle. I have never found the need for something longer as my barrels are smooth enough to use the ram rod to seat the rest of the way. Once the ball is completly into the rifling I never felt it got any looser pushing it farther. Again as a match shooter I always clean between shots so fowling was never a problem.

[Frizzen]

Same here, Never use a short starter. All my rifle loads are using a bore size ball, or just a
couple thousnds over. Steel ramrod takes it down smooth.

[B.Barker]

I don't use the metal end of my rod to push the ball down. I put a little cup on the bare wood end and use that  for pushing the ball down. But again I'm not a match shooter, just a hunter.

[Candle Snuffer]

I have seen posted pictures somewhere on the internet of ball starters going back to at least the American Revolution, or at the very least they were claimed to be originals.  I don't know where it was, but the information is out there somewhere in cyber space.

I use a short starter in all my rifles, but my .45 Pedersoli Kentucky pistol I don't.   I've found that a .015 patch & .440 round ball will thumb press into the muzzle enough for me to send the ball down the barrel and seat it on the charge with my ramrod.

Maybe after State Shoot I'll try some .440's over the .445's I use now and see how they perform with the use of loading with a ramrod only?

[James Rogers]

To my knowledge there are no shortstarters that can be dated to the 18th century. There are quite a few that some people will attribute to that time frame with no provenance.

[northmn]

I have used Pete Allen's method successfully where I put a short starter into the handle of a wooden handeled patch knife then seat with the ramrod gripped close.  It works quite well.  I have no idea how far back they go, if in fact they were used at all.  I have a feeling that they are a match shooter thing like a false muzzle and serve little use for "practical" use of a long rifle.

DP

[roundball]

After hundreds or thousands or maybe only a few dozen loadings they end up with the rifling ends battered at the muzzle and so ruining the barrel's accuracy

I use short starters...and admittedly as bad as that burst barrel situation was, plan to continue using them for two reasons:

1) I do like a snug P/B combo, can't start them without a short starter;

2) To eliminate any chance of "wallowing wear" at the muzzle...AND/OR...deformation of the projectile.

(PS: the SS's I use at the range even have captive muzzle guides on them).



IMHO...as unfortunate as the burst barrel incident was...and all these discussions are excellent to re-emphasize an awareness level to all of us...there is never-the-less a degree of danger inherent in this sport.

The constant proximity & use of black powder;
Blowing down a barrel or not;
Wiping between every shot or not;
Using a short starter or not;
Actually seating the ball over powder;
Allowing auto-priming or not;
Pouring water down a bore and waiting 30 minutes before pulling a ball or not;
Using a hammer stall or not;
Etc;
Etc;
The list goes on and on...

I operate within the sport as safety conscious as I know how within the realm of practicality and calculated risk...ie: if I NEVER EVER wanted to be exposed to any risk from this hobby, then I would end it today...the same could be said about driving to work every day...to literally remove every element of risk, I'd have to stay off the highway.



On the lighter side...lets think outside the box...how about this:

We imbed a micro chip in the range rod where the witness mark is located...and when the chip comes into magnetic proximity of the steel muzzle...a release mechanism on the lock is actuated which only then allows the frizzen to be closed to take a shot.
 

[Kermit]

   Just as an aside, just two nights ago I watched--yet again--the Williamsburg video of Wallace Gussler building a longrifle. Really building.

But what jumped out at me this time--and I'd never before taken note of it--is that he didn't use a short starter. Oh, nor a priming horn. Just a ramrod and primed from the main (only) horn.

I stopped using a short starter a couple years back, but not for the here-discussed safety reasons. I'm just trying to offload unnecessary stuff. Nice to know there are other reasons to be shut of 'em though.

[Ole Doc]

 A few years ago shooting a 36 flinter at the range , playing around with different patching etc. Went n started loading  WITH OUT the short starter ... just plinking and having fun.
 Well found I could load easy enuff and the rifle shot good enuff for plinking and small game hunting... nailed two groundhogs the same day out to 90 yards or so.
 One less item hanging on my bag now.
and I now prime from my main horn as well.

[Leatherbelly]

 

Same here, Never use a short starter. All my rifle loads are using a bore size ball, or just a
couple thousnds over. Steel ramrod takes it down smooth.

If PC is the reason you don't use a short starter, why would you use a steel ramrod? Or is there another reason you don't use it?
 I use a short starter on all my muzzleloaders. Who cares if it is or is not period correct?  Who says it's not? Just because one hasn't been found? I use one because I load a tight ball/patch combination which gives the best accuracy,a good lube which cleans the bore after every shot,and is quicker to load,especially if you include swabbing. I will not give up accuracy for an easier loading thinner patched load that I'll need to clean after a shot or two. I can't imagine stopping to clean when being attacked by hostiles!

[Canute Rex]

I use a long starter. That is, I generally load from a block with a starter made from a turned wooden ball and a 7" cutoff section of 3/8" ramrod. I had a starter with a stub leg and a 4" leg but I never used the stub. I figured that as long as I was smacking the ball down a few inches I might as well give it a couple more. Makes it easier to ram. Hard to say what it does for accuracy - my shooting is long periods of mediocre punctuated by moments of luck (flashes of brilliance?).

As far as the PC thing goes, never say never, this side of actual physical impossibility. There were a lot of common objects in the 18th century that undoubtedly broke and got pitched into the fire or the bushes. Try to find an original 18th century British leather cartridge box. There are maybe a handful left in the world and they were made by the tens of thousands. Nobody cared about them at the time. Likewise wooden spoons, loading blocks, and, perhaps, short starters. It's the corollary to Boorstin's Law: The past looks better than it actually was because more of the good stuff survived.

So, the more cheap, common, plain, and perishable (or combustible) something was, the less likely it was to survive. Add specialized, outdated, and unrecognizable to a non-user like a ball starter, and forget it.

As for provenance, how does one date a short starter? A wooden spoon? A loading block? I have seen a picture of a loading block with the date 1757 carved into it (along with some decoration - probably the reason it survived) but that is rare enough with everyday items.

[northmn]

Remember the discussions on the accuracy issues of coned barrels?  We are kind of back at it.  First of all one needs to evaluate how the weapons is being used.  If the primary use is on the firing line shooting 5 shots into bulleyes, then tighter loading for accuracy is more desirable.  Precision shooters, like bench shooters and X stick shooters, may use false muzzles and ball that may lightly engrave the rifling.  Some target shooters also use very tight combos and practically need a mallet to seat the ball (some do).  For field use and shooting at "primitive" matches where you either hit or miss, a short starter may not be needed.  For field use where 100 yards would be a long shot, are they needed?  As to being PC, bullseye targets are not likely PC either.

DP

[Mike R]

To my knowledge there are no shortstarters that can be dated to the 18th century. There are quite a few that some people will attribute to that time frame with no provenance.

I think this is correct.  I have searched period literature in vain for any mention of short starters and have collected several excellent old time descriptions of loading procedures--in fact I have submitted an article on this for publication.  No short starters. My personal take is that they were developed by target shooters in late 19th cent time frame.

[Dphariss]

I am not a fan of starters but they are sometimes necessary if shooting against people that use them in competition.
I would *guess* the starter came about circa 1800-1820 along with the bullet board. But this is one of those things that is hard to pin down.
I am sure the rifles were often preserved and the accessories put in the trash. Based on the collecting of revolvers used in the west. The holsters were generally separated from the guns and sold cheap/discarded. NOW they are important collectors items but 30-50 years ago they were just in the way. I suspect the hunting pouches got similar treatment at some point.

If your rifle shoots best with a patch cut at the muzzle then a short, short starter may be needed.
Etc etc etc.
I prefer to load with just a rod. But I have some starters. Larger caliber balls .62 and up can be hard to start.

Dan

[Candle Snuffer]

I got to thinking about this topic and remembered that I already did try loading the patched .440 round ball at Rendezvous with only my ramrod, (about five years ago), and accuracy stunk.

Of course that was only one time when I was practicing before the afternoon shoot.  I expect that if a person worked up their load with the smaller ball, and/or thinner patch, accuracy would be had and loading with the ramrod would be all that is needed.

I'll stick with my short starter in any event.