So, enlighten me…(about historicity of short starters)

[jbigley]

Recently, I have been reading that short starters weren’t used in the 18thC apparently because there is no documentation for their use. One author in particular has stated this, or words to that effect.  (I could say a whole lot more about “documentation,” but that would be a whole different rant.)
So what’s the straight skinny? Starters or no starters?
Enlighten me.
Thanks—JB

[smylee grouch]

This is an often asked question. I have never seen mention of a " short starter " in many many books on that time period. BUT I ran across a reference to a " bulger " as part of " the mounteniers equipment " when a bunch of trappers were riding out of one of the western rondezvous.. This " Bulger " was described then just as you would describe a " short starter ".

[Daryl]

IIRC, the British Baker Rifle Regiments called them a "peg" which was made of iron, I think.  As well, one soldier in 2 or 3 had a wooden mallet hammer with a long skinny
handle that would fit inside the barrel, for shoving the 'load' down 8 to 10 -" before the rifle's rod was employed.

[Clark Badgett]

Am I misrembering or wasn’t one of the older collectors/builders on record as noting that most the old rifle barrels he examined were coned in some form?

[Wingshot]

This is a question I’ve always been fascinated with. My best guess would have to be that the rifleman would maybe carefully load a tightly patched ball in a clean bore with the help of a short starter of one form or another and go forth with confidence of his first shot accomplishing the task at hand, harvesting game perhaps. In a situation where a follow up shot would be required or if the outing became a life and death scenario with hostiles the reloaded rifle would be bare balled? I just imagine being pinned against an ancient tree taking incoming from a raiding party, arrows and lead being hurled from multiple angles. The only sensible hope of survival would be to keep as much lead airborne in their direction as rapidly as one could physically be able to do. I have to think that loading one’s rifle was a task that was carefully carried out for “mission specific” situations. Hunting and friendly shooting matches would mean one method of loading and run and gun combat being something extremely different.

[Daryl]

Am I misrembering or wasn’t one of the older collectors/builders on record as noting that most the old rifle barrels he examined were coned in some form?

I think what many people call coning, was more of a filing out of the lands AND grooves to aid loading tighter combinations. Cones, as done today, some measuring over
an inch in length, do not help with loading the combinations we like to use, in fact, makes it more difficult. This, we found out with a "coned" .40 cal. gun Leatherbelly bought here
from a member. He was unable to load a .400" ball and 10 ounce patch in the coned barrel, yet it was easy in my .40, with a .398" bore & could be done fairly easily without a short
starter.
The big book on Jaeger rifles with pictures of guns in wonderful condition, easily shows this filing at the muzzles. With a number of US made rifles, this filing is also evident, but others are
in such bad shape it is not easily visible in pictures.

[jbigley]

Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB

[smylee grouch]

So what is anyone's definition of conning? I have seen many originals that were " relieved " at the muzzle end and were called coned. I have seen some modern barrels that were " coned " but I would consider funneled.

[Daryl]

Good point, SmyleeG - a 'cone' that is 1 1/2" deep, is more like a funnel.
The problem loading Leatherbelly's rifle with the long cone, was the long bearing gradual surface, which increased the friction and pressure needed to seat the ball.
That is the only way I can understand why it took a LOT more pressure to seat the patched ball, than into the short crown we make.  I read a letter written by Corbin
(bullet swaging/forming/re-sizing die company), who showed a picture of a die with the same from of 'shoulder' that we put on our muzzles, this rounded shoulder is
the correct angles and finish for moving "metal". I tried this/these angles on a muzzleloading rifle's crown back in the 70's when I was interested in what Corbin's was
doing and found it works.
Had a lad at the Barnet rifle range (Burnaby B.C.) complain to me he couldn't load the combinations I was using in my identical rifle. .50 TC Hawken(s). The combination was
a .495" pure lead ball (telephone cable junction sheathing) and 10 ounce denim patch. I looked at his crown, and it was still the standard sharp cornered machined crown.
I use a pocket knife and cut the corners a bit, then a piece of emery from my possible's bag to smooth the crown. I then took one of his cast balls, piece of .022" denim and
loaded his rifle, just as easily as  I loaded mine, using a starter and his 3/8" factory rod.
Here is one made by Dave Crysali, with a tool of his making.

Another, by Brian Barker.

A couple of my own.

[Clark Badgett]

Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB

How do any of the answers other than Daryl mentioning British riflemen of the Napoleonic era using a hammer and rod answer whether short starters were used in the 18th century US? And frankly, why would we care? We are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st century. And for the record, we can prove common usage for just about any item related to muzzleloader shooting except for short starters and bullet boards. Both of those items are about as rare as hens teeth.

[jbigley]

Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB

How do any of the answers other than Daryl mentioning British riflemen of the Napoleonic era using a hammer and rod answer whether short starters were used in the 18th century US? And frankly, why would we care? We are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st century. And for the record, we can prove common usage for just about any item related to muzzleloader shooting except for short starters and bullet boards. Both of those items are about as rare as hens teeth.

Thanks Clark.
I’m interested in answers to my original question. Still haven’t gotten what I was looking for, but I appreciate all of the input, including yours. Lots of info regarding “pegs”, “cones” , etc.  That’s what I meant by “good answers.”
For the record, I agree with your statement that we are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st C— albeit using 250 year old technology. From some of the posts it seems like many modern shooters do use short starters — also sometimes called bulgers or bozers. I’m not so sure that I agree that bullet boards (which I don’t use) and short starters are as rare as hens teeth. Plenty of pictures of both. Did they just spring into existence when the calendar changed from 1799 to 1800, or were they being used and were just so commonplace that they weren’t worth mentioning? And if they weren’t being used prior to the 19thC, why not? Or put another way, why did those items come into use in the 1800s and not before?
This may seem trivial or irrelevant to some, but I’d like to know. Enlighten me. —JB

[AZshot]

Ned Roberts learned to shoot muzzle loaders from his uncle, a rifleman in the Civil War.  His book talks about all the old timers he knew as a boy, so it's a direct linkage to what people did in the generation or two before his.  He learned to shoot a southern muzzle loader from his uncle, who picked it up beside the dead southerner on the battlefield.  He learned to shoot it in 1875.  Also,  in his prelude he thanks his friend Hacker Martin from Tennessee for the month he spent with him observing him making a [Southern Moutain] rifle. 

To me, if he used a short starter, there was a tradition and oral history of them being used earlier.  Many pieces of shooting equipment are discussed in detail, and Ned explains which were old and falling out of fashion, which were new things, and which he rarely hear of from old timers.  His peers would have taken exception even if he had "made up" his parts about the straight starter, so he did not.  I've never read anyone refuting that he said they used one, in the 90 years of his book. Remember, during the 1770s-1850s most descriptions of rifles were written by people that didn't know much about them, authors basically, not gun people. Someone like Samuel Clemons won't be accurate in their descriptions of equipment, they're writing for the general populace. The few tracts that were writeen by rifle men, are not usually very descriptive.  Ned Roberts is an exception.

He says:
"Sometimes a straight starter is used, with which the ball is pushed some three inches down the bore, and then pushed home with the ramrod. The short starter consists of a wooden plug 3 or 4 inches long about 1/16 inch smaller than the bore of the rifle with a flattened knob on top...applying pressure to start the ball of bullet into the muzzle of the rifle, then striking the knob with the ball of the hand, the ball is forced down the bore..."
(The Muzzle-Loading Cap Lock Rifle, Ned Roberts, 1940)

[smylee grouch]

The original question asks about use of a starter in the 18th century. There is references to their (bulger) use in the first half of the 19th century. I think we can assume they were used before that reference date but how long before is a question. Back in the day just as now there were shooters using different methods to load so not every one would have used a bulger, straight starter or short starter.

[Longknife]

 When the old M-Loader barrel makers passed on many secrets died with them.   I have examined many original m-loading barrels and there is definitely a "funneling" at the muzzle. Some historians thought this "funneling" might be ram rod wear but that does not appear to be the case.  One of the most interesting quotes on this subject is from the famous Bill Large (now deceased). Bill was one of the founding Fathers of the NMLRA and one of the earliest 20th century barrel makers who helped pioneer the resurrection of the m-loading rifle. Bill Large barrels are coveted today. In a letter to John Baird who wrote "HAWKEN RIFLES, THE MOUNTAIN MANS CHOICE". Bill stated that he had re-bored and rifled 25 to 30 original Hawken barrels!!!!---- He also stated---"all were belled and showed signs of the funneling tool commonly used by most gunsmiths, as a request of the owner, to permit easy and fast reloading"""".

[Clark Badgett]

Good answers, all. Keep’’em coming. —JB

How do any of the answers other than Daryl mentioning British riflemen of the Napoleonic era using a hammer and rod answer whether short starters were used in the 18th century US? And frankly, why would we care? We are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st century. And for the record, we can prove common usage for just about any item related to muzzleloader shooting except for short starters and bullet boards. Both of those items are about as rare as hens teeth.

Thanks Clark.
I’m interested in answers to my original question. Still haven’t gotten what I was looking for, but I appreciate all of the input, including yours. Lots of info regarding “pegs”, “cones” , etc.  That’s what I meant by “good answers.”
For the record, I agree with your statement that we are sport/recreational shooters in the 21st C— albeit using 250 year old technology. From some of the posts it seems like many modern shooters do use short starters — also sometimes called bulgers or bozers. I’m not so sure that I agree that bullet boards (which I don’t use) and short starters are as rare as hens teeth. Plenty of pictures of both. Did they just spring into existence when the calendar changed from 1799 to 1800, or were they being used and were just so commonplace that they weren’t worth mentioning? And if they weren’t being used prior to the 19thC, why not? Or put another way, why did those items come into use in the 1800s and not before?
This may seem trivial or irrelevant to some, but I’d like to know. Enlighten me. —JB

This subject comes up every few years here and it usually goes a few pages of back and forth before it’s finally settled that of known originals there are maybe 1 or 2 that can positively be proven to be pre 1840. Why, I have no clue. Short starters are a pretty good idea, they do make loading a breeze. But, on this side of the pond it seems to have been something that became popular in the percussion era at least from documentary evidence, including Ned Roberts writings.

[Daryl]

I totally agree that the use of starters was likely a late 18th or early 19th century innovation.

[Clark Badgett]

I totally agree that the use of starters was likely a late 18th or early 19th century innovation.

Daryl, you are probably onto something. Started in Europe, eventually made its way across the pond to the cousins, where it started catching on at the end of flint era and was normal business within a decade of the percussion era.

[Daryl]

By the 1850's I think it was, the gun club in San Francisco were pretty much all using guide bullet starters, according to the picture in Firearms of the American West.
Might have been post 1860, but I think it was earlier.

[Hungry Horse]

I think you will find that the Civil War altered the shooting landscape forever. But it didn’t happen all at once. At the very end of the Civil war many target shooters were still clinging to their muzzleloading guns, but had embraced aperture sights, sight tubes, and actual telescopic scopes.
 As the 1880’s rolled around the muzzleloader shooters had all started shooting conical bullets mechanically started with a plunger type starter that fit over a rebated muzzle. These elongated bullets were paper patched, and usually shot from a heavy short gain twist barrel. It didn’t take long before all these separate components were rolled up in a metallic cartridge.

Hungry Horse

[jbigley]

Thanks guys. Good answers all. Without stating an opinion/conclusion either way, I think I now have the skinny. Thanks again. — JB

[JohnnyFM]

I have not found any resources that prove a short starter, peg  or any other such device was common in the 18th century colonial frontier. What the Germans or Swiss were doing in the 17th century is irrelevant. It never caught on here on this side of the “pond”.  Why?
Because there were times when the  “ two-legged game” shot back, or tomahawked you or just stabbed you over and over until you were dead.   And the four legged game could run away faster than you could run after ‘em or they were big enough to defend themselves with tooth and claw.
Call it what you will, coning, filing, funneling, whatever. Speeds the loading process, protects the patching and sends real lead down range and hits the mark.  It also makes shooting more enjoyable and I can shoot more. More ball down range = more fun. And it is more historically realistic if that be your cup of tea. (at least prior to the Boston Tea Party)
Shoot the way you like be it with short starter, hammer or nail, but don’t justify it by bending history to fit.  I don’t want to carry a loading bench or some such picnic table in the woods just to load my rifle gun and you can be pretty dang certain neither did a rifleman in North America during “the bloody sevens”  Nuff said.

[smylee grouch]

One thing to consider. There is documentation that starters were used by SOME shooters before 1840. When it actually started on this side of the pond hasn't been discovered yet. When someone makes a claim that no one used them prior to a certain date I say prove it. This is an ongoing subject study and there might be more to learn before anyone can prove  use or non use .

[Daryl]

One thing perhaps to note, I loaded .400" balls with 10 ounce denim in a .398" bore, without a starter.
I also loaded .360" balls in my .36 and .32" balls in my .32 using the same 10 ounce and even the .0235" mattress that we can no longer acquire
without a short starter, just by choking up on the rod and pushing straight down into the bore. With the crowns shown above, the ball and patch
conform into the lands and grooves.
Just sayin'.
The starter just makes it faster. With larger bores, than perhaps .45 or .50, a starter is "mostly" necessary depending on the patch thickness.

[davec2]

A little off topic perhaps, but anytime I hear a discussion about this or that not being "historically correct" I bring this tidbit up......a documented Revolutionary War telescopic sight on a flintlock rifle.....

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=60660.msg607647#msg607647

And Smart Dog added this reference......

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/charles-willson-peales-riffle-with-a-tellescope-to-it/#:~:text=However%20strange%2C%20there%20was%20one,portrait%20painter%20of%20the%20period

[alacran]

Lost my short starter las week while squirrel hunting. Loaded the gun just as Daryl says, so I could keep on hunting.