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

[Dphariss]

Coning:




From pg 42 John Baird’s “Hawken Rifles, The Mountain Man’s Choice”, 1968

I shot for maybe 30 years+ without a starter but started using one on my swivel breech. Its not really necessary except maybe for the English style rifle with a .662 ball and maybe hard cast. I can easily load a 50-54 with a 535 for eample, and a heavy ticking patch (which is no longer available).
The problem with determining the use of a starter historically is that there are so few surviving complete shot pouches/hunting bags etc. The horns are far more durable. So what we have is a tiny fraction of what might have been used in the 18th c. And only slightly better for the mid-late 19th. And often common items are not even mentioned.
THEN….
We have what I call the 3 classes of firearms ownership.
1. Gun owners, they usually know which end the bullet come out of.
2 Shooters. Who actually use firearms.
3. Riflemen. These are the ones who are more critical in their use and know how to place a shot and expect the rifle to perform.

Then we have rifling forms. Most, “probably”  all St Louis Hawkens, for example, have a fairly “modern” rifling form. About equal lands and grooves. But then there is this Leman/Connestoga Rifle Works trade rifle with an 1840 dated low quality flintlock. I do not recall any “funneling” but I only saw this rifle once back about 1980. But it was not apparent or I would have noticed it.
It looks like they used a hacksaw blade for a groove cutter.

[jbigley]

The problem with determining the use of a starter historically is that there are so few surviving complete shot pouches/hunting bags etc..... So what we have is a tiny fraction of what might have been used in the 18th c. And only slightly better for the mid-late 19th. And often common items are not even mentioned. (Emphasis is mine).

I think this is one of the best answers I've heard so far. Thanks Dan.
And once again, Thanks to all who responded to my question. --JB

[Clark Badgett]

The problem with determining the use of a starter historically is that there are so few surviving complete shot pouches/hunting bags etc..... So what we have is a tiny fraction of what might have been used in the 18th c. And only slightly better for the mid-late 19th. And often common items are not even mentioned. (Emphasis is mine).

I think this is one of the best answers I've heard so far. Thanks Dan.
And once again, Thanks to all who responded to my question. --JB

Yet the use of these items does indeed get mentioned in the early 19th century by an English source, per Daryl. It’s not that the common doesn’t get mentioned, it’s because the new and unusual always gets mentioned.
For example, early US riflemen were expected to perform as regular infantry when they weren’t employed as riflemen. Thus we have a written source that explains both a rifleman’s bag (with sewn on and greased patches inside) and separate horn, worn on slings on opposing shoulders, along with a separate cartridge box with standard style cartridges (no patch on ball) was worn on the belt. This was a break from the usual method and got recorded.

[Marcruger]

No matter when they came in, I would use the term, "Ball Starter".   

[Sharpsman]

Short starters? It's really of no significance to me whether "they" used a short starter or not back in the 1700 era! Folks so intrigued today about being authentic are using other things that were not used....back in the day; shooters/hunters back then rode horses if they had one and folks today are using modern transportation items called cars or trucks when they attend matches. I use a short starter and it's a big help because since I don't have anyone attempting to steal my scalp....I use a RB with a tight patch because I've found that gives me the best accuracy. I'm enjoying a fun sport of shooting these fine rifles and I'm not worried about using the same method of loading because D Boone may have used it or not! I suggest others do the same thing!

[axelp]

Everyone has differing values and preferences when partaking in any hobby. Why is it "better" to NOT research and practice the way old Dan loaded his gun? Why is it better TO research and practice the way he loaded his gun? Because it is your preference and what you personally value (or devalue) in any given moment. There is no moral or ethical dilemma to overcome here. Here we focus on ball starters, somewhere else, ramrods or carving styles or gusseted linen breeches.

This hobby seems to be a progression of steps toward a personally chosen goal that is a moving target. We jump in or out wherever we choose. We don't have to click the button --Love it.

Ken

[bluenoser]

VERY well put.

[Seth Isaacson]

"Mallets" for loading rifles are mentioned in a lot of late 18th century English sources on loading rifles, and clear discussions of their "handles" being used as rods show up regularly in discussions of rifles in the early 19th century in England, and there are some references in the early 19th century in the U.S. The gunnery section of the Encyclopaedia Britannica by 1780s and 1790s discussing loading a rifle with a mallet. Some of the earliest mallet discussions clearly indicate they were using a mallet to start an oversized ball, but later discussions discuss loading with patches.

Given we know English rifle shooting was influenced by American riflemen in the Revolution, it doesn't seem a stretch to assume some short starters were being used here at that time, but I haven't seen any American references to them from the 18th century. When this discussion comes up periodically, it seems like we settle on that they existed from at least the very early 1800s in mallet form in the Britain and may have been around earlier, but we can't say for sure when that is. It would be interesting to see what 18th century German sources say about loading rifles given the connection to American rifles.

This combination mallet and short starter is from the case of an English double barrel "smooth rifle" or "ball gun" from 1838, and the same style was in use earlier. How early exactly is unclear to me, but it would be interesting to go back and look and see what the earliest cased set with one is that we think is likely to be original:



This set was dated to 1815:


In 1800 James Sadler writing about his "New and Much Improved Rifle Gun" discussed the ball "wrapped in a greased cloth, and rammed down with great force by a mallet and rammer..."

"Practical Instructions for US Military Officers" published by E. Hoyt, Brigade Major and Inspector in the Militia of Massachusetts in 1811 clearly discusses using a mallet similar to the one above to start the ball and then drive it down into the bore further with the "handle."
https://books.google.com/books?id=0NcvAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

V. Load! One Compound Motion
Turn up the right hand and shake the powder into the barrel, pressing the cartridge with the thumb and finger, to force out the powder; instantly bring the paper to the mouth and with the teeth separate it from the ball and, patch, which place upon the muzzle, the stitched side up, and instantly slide the left hand to the muzzle and place the fore finger upon the ball; at the same time, with the right hand, grasp the mallet, draw it partly out, and seize the handle.

VI. Drive Ball! One Compound Motion
Bring up the mallet, flipping the finger from the ball, and with one or two strokes drive the ball into the muzzle; with a quick motion, place the end of the handle upon the ball and grasp it with the thumb and finger of the left hand, and with a few smart strokes upon the mallet with the right hand, drive the ball down the full length of the handle; instantly return the mallet to its sheath and seize the ramrod with the thumb and finger of the same hand, the thumb up.

The Mechanics Magazine in 1825 discussed loading rifles discussing tight loads and using a mallet or "punch":
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mechanics_Magazine/rboAAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mallet+rifle&pg=PA99&printsec=frontcover

Another English source which clearly indicates the use of a mallet with a short starter stick with cupped end like the example shown above:

[smylee grouch]

Thank you Seth for that bit of history. 👍

[Daryl]

Yeah - that was great and the starter (mallet) you pictured, looks very similar to the one I use in my .69 and 20 bore.

[Clark Badgett]

So 1811 was the first known American mention of a mallet?
Seems to be inline with the timeline Daryl mentioned up thread.

[Daryl]

My "timeline" was just a guess.

[Seth Isaacson]

1811 is the first American source I've seen, but keep in mind that a lot of English books would have been read here too among the well to do. "Scloppetaria: or Considerations on the Nature and Use of Rifled Barrel Guns..." from 1808 also mentions the mallets and has this important sentence which may explain why we don't see clear indications of short starter use: "As it always happens, that the greatest difficulty in loading, is in first forcing the ball into the barrel, most riflemen carry either a small mallet, or what is called a rammer, either of wood or brass, a little countersunk at the end so as to obviate the  possibility of injuring the front sight, by its slipping off the convex sphere of the ball."  If in common parlance a short starter rod was being called a "rammer" as was a regular full-length ramrod, we'd have a hard time telling when people were talking about ramrods vs. starters. The 1811 American source when talking about rammers is referring to the ramrod. The images for Scloppetaria show a mallet like the one a showed before and a "drawer pull" style "rammer" that is very similar to the starter I currently use for my smaller caliber rifle.

The James Sadler source I mentioned above from 1800 also mentioned use of "mallet and rammer" that I originally took to mean mallet and ramrod, but it sounds like that is a short starter but in some instances they mention the "rammer" and mallet being used to drive the ball "by repeated blows home to the powder," so that would imply a full length ramrod. Both mallets and rammers are also mentioned in the Encyclopaedia Britannica in the late 18th century, and the wording there sounds like they were using the mallet to hit the "rammer" to start the ball. "An Essay on Shooting" from 1789 describes the normal way of loading a rifle for the English as an oversized ball driven into the bore using a mallet and iron rammer whereas the Germans are noted as using greased patches. The latter is noted as easier and more efficient. Other sources writing later about German riflemen such as Winthrop in "Our Rifles" indicated they had historically also loaded oversized balls and carried a mallet and "short metal rod" for loading the oversized balls and then drove them home with a metal ramrod and used the wooden ramrods under the barrels only for cleaning.

I didn't have much down time over the weekend, but if I get snowed in tomorrow I may dig into this further. It would be interesting to see how early of a source we can find on loading rifles and see what different sources say. Some of the one's I've read clearly just parrot or paraphrase earlier sources. The Essay on Shooting's section is word for word in some of the sportman's dictionary publications a decade or more later for example.

American newspapers already use rifle as a common term without explanation in the 1750s as shown by this example form 1756:

[smylee grouch]

So it appears as though there were SOME shooters using some device like a short starter, peg, ball starter, bulger or mallet back in 1789. Could we then assume that its use was SOME time before that by at least some but not ALL rifle shooters? The answer to the original question would then be yes the use of a starter was made by some . Word salad ! 🤔😁

[Seth Isaacson]

It is clear some English riflemen were using mallets in 1780 and before (Encyclopaedia Britannica from that year) and likely had been all along since they keep mentioning that as the normal way of loading a rifle. Keep in mind rifles weren't common at all in England until the late 18th century. By around 1800 there are discussions of the English using mallets that also worked as short starters.  So what were the Americans doing? Should we presume they were following traditional Continental European methods for rifles since that is the origin of our rifle traditions? There are scant references later to using knives to start a ball (Audubon's writing mentions this), but I haven't seen much in American sources providing any detail on loading, probably because it was not something remarkable to them that needed documenting.

This source from 1761 again mentions the Germans using a mallet and both oversized balls and patched balls and might be the source for the other later writings on the matter given the nearly identical phrasing. That of course presumes this source itself isn't repeating another earlier publication which it very well may be. They notably don't specify how the patched round balls were being loaded:

[Elnathan]

All my books are still in storage, so I have to go by memory as best I can. A couple points:

1) A distinction must be made between patched and unpatched ball in 18th century accounts. Mallets and short starters WERE used for starting oversized, unpatched balls - IIRC, there is a French military source from early in the 18th century that describes the loading sequence for a rifled carbine using an oversized ball started with a ramrod and an iron pin. This was later plagiarized by an English source. It may also be the source for Robins' treatise that Seth just posted.

2) The Baker rifles and their associated mallets get brought up very single time, but it is not certain that the mallets were used for routine loading. I believe that DeWitt Bailey notes that they were not issued on an individual basis but only to every second man, which suggests that they were intended to keep badly fouled rifles shooting in emergencies rather than for routine loading. Of course, what the quartermaster intends and how they were actually used may have been quite different...

3) The earliest use of a mallet for starting a patched ball that I am aware of comes not from Britain nor America but from Austria, with the 1796 model military Jaeger with its odd detached ramrod:

4) Despite numerous assertions to the contrary, "they" did write down how to load a rifle: I am aware of at least two accounts of loading patched balls in a civilian context from the relevant period, one from mid-18th century Germany which discusses how to hold the ramrod to avoid breaking it when starting the ball (contained in Wolf's Steinschloss Jaegerbuschen) and Audubon's account of Kentuckian loading procedure around 1810, in which the the patch is cut at the muzzle and the ball started with the knife handle. In addition, quite a number of mundane details about daily life are mentioned in passing in the Draper manuscripts, Shane interviews,  Isaac Weld's description how these strange (to him) weapons were used in the 1790s, probate inventories, etc.  There is really quite a lot of evidence for how firearms were used along the frontier, including debreeching barrels to unload a bad charge, wiping between shots when squirrel hunting, de-hexing the gun if you happen to shoot at a wolf and miss (Amerindian belief, that one) - you just have to look for it.

5) Modern barrels aren't very good representations of 18th century barrels. Original barrels, by virtue of the manufacturing process, would necessarily feature a slight degree of choking due to wear on the boring and rifling blades and compression of the materials used to hold them against the metal, and we know that different patterns of choking and funneling were deliberately introduced in fowling pieces. Baird's figures for the Hawken rifle he examined (posted by Dan Phariss above) suggests that rifle barrels may have been treated the same way at times - to the best of my knowledge no one has ever researched the question. Ergo, we should probably be extremely cautious about extrapolating too freely from our own experiences with replicas - what is necessary for good accuracy with a modern barrel may not be necessary, or even desirable, with originals.

I think that it is pretty clear that while mallets and short starters were around throughout the 18th century, the use of them for patched balls was a European innovation of the last part of the 18th century and didn't spread to the US until the 19th century. There seems to be a correlation between the use of a mallet and military use, perhaps due to the need to get mass-produced balls down fouled rifle barrels in the field - I suspect that the fact that this innovation occurs alongside the introduction of much larger conscription-based armies and new operational concepts blurring the distinction between the strategic and tactical spheres is not a coincidence (that is, the shift between 18th century "kabinettskreig" and Napoleonic-era warfare). As an aside, based on this I would suggest that the idea that looser-fitting balls were used along the frontier due to the frequency of armed conflict is probably wrong, which in turn raises some interesting questions about how firearms were actually used tactically along the frontier and how both Whites and Indians viewed warfare culturally, but that is kind of a big topic in itself.

[Daryl]

Interesting video. I was surprised by his accuracy, with what appeared to be a fairly loose combination. I know this lad can shoot and his results were likely the best that rifle
can produce. Notice, no mention of having to "SWAB" the bore. I assume all shooting was from a dirty bore. I missed what lube was used, if it was stated.
Now that I think back to what I was able to produce, accuracy wise, with an 8 groove Musketoon having a slightly shorter sight radius than he had I can understand his group sizes.
Same with the Remington Zouave, however it's rifling was not period correct. Both guns shot considerably better than his, but then, I also used tighter combinations & powder charges
the guns liked, not was was declared the issue load. I am sure his would shoot better, given appropriate load combinations, in spite of the rather fast rifling twist.

[Seth Isaacson]

I think that it is pretty clear that while mallets and short starters were around throughout the 18th century, the use of them for patched balls was a European innovation of the last part of the 18th century and didn't spread to the US until the 19th century. There seems to be a correlation between the use of a mallet and military use, perhaps due to the need to get mass-produced balls down fouled rifle barrels in the field - I suspect that the fact that this innovation occurs alongside the introduction of much larger conscription-based armies and new operational concepts blurring the distinction between the strategic and tactical spheres is not a coincidence (that is, the shift between 18th century "kabinettskreig" and Napoleonic-era warfare). As an aside, based on this I would suggest that the idea that looser-fitting balls were used along the frontier due to the frequency of armed conflict is probably wrong, which in turn raises some interesting questions about how firearms were actually used tactically along the frontier and how both Whites and Indians viewed warfare culturally, but that is kind of a big topic in itself.

It still doesn't seem pretty clear to me. I'm not sold that Americans were or were not using mallets and/or short starters of some form in the 18th century. To me that still remains to be proven one way or the other. I can totally see why some have taken the side of them not being in use until we have proof they were though. I haven't read as many first hand accounts from riflemen of that period. I wonder if any of them talk more extensively about rifle use. It seems that we don't have much in the way of information on American loading techniques; however, if mallets and short starters were already in use for rifles using oversized balls, why wouldn't some shooters have found them useful when loading tight patched balls as well? We know the German/Swiss riflemen were using both oversized and patched balls, so they would have had experience with mallets and short starters. Our early rifle-makers were largely Germanic immigrants, so they would have brought over German practices and at least some of that would have been passed those on to the riflemen themselves. We obviously don't know at this point if maybe instead riflemen were just using knives or other objects (many belt axes would make nice mallest) to start tight loads since we haven't seen documentation for their practices and have almost nothing in the way of 18th century riflemen accoutrements aside from horns. However, when the mallets/short starters get mentioned in early 19th century sources as more was being written and published such as that 1811 militia manual, they don't appear to be talking about them as some new innovation.

[Elnathan]

It still doesn't seem pretty clear to me. I'm not sold that Americans were or were not using mallets and/or short starters of some form in the 18th century. To me that still remains to be proven one way or the other. I can totally see why some have taken the side of them not being in use until we have proof they were though. I haven't read as many first hand accounts from riflemen of that period. I wonder if any of them talk more extensively about rifle use. It seems that we don't have much in the way of information on American loading techniques; however, if mallets and short starters were already in use for rifles using oversized balls, why wouldn't some shooters have found them useful when loading tight patched balls as well? We know the German/Swiss riflemen were using both oversized and patched balls, so they would have had experience with mallets and short starters. Our early rifle-makers were largely Germanic immigrants, so they would have brought over German practices and at least some of that would have been passed those on to the riflemen themselves. We obviously don't know at this point if maybe instead riflemen were just using knives or other objects (many belt axes would make nice mallest) to start tight loads since we haven't seen documentation for their practices and have almost nothing in the way of 18th century riflemen accoutrements aside from horns. However, when the mallets/short starters get mentioned in early 19th century sources as more was being written and published such as that 1811 militia manual, they don't appear to be talking about them as some new innovation.

Maybe I'm missing something, but DO we know that German riflemen were using oversized balls after, say, 1700? I've never investigated closely, but for awhile now I've thought  that they probably stopped doing that sometime in the 17th, if not the 16th century, and the practice only gets mentioned thereafter because that one French source claimed the French military was still doing it and a lot more people read French than German...If they were still using oversized balls, I'd expect to see iron ramrods a lot more often, as even after being started with a hammer bore-tight balls doesn't seem likely to just slide down.

If you are looking for first-hand accounts of riflemen, the Draper manuscripts, pension applications for Revolutionary War service, later captivity narratives, and miscellaneous autobiographies are your best bets, I think - you will be looking for something along the lines of "When I went to load, I discovered my mallet gone..." or some other off-hand reference, not a detailed description of how to load a rifle.

[Seth Isaacson]

If they were still using oversized balls, I'd expect to see iron ramrods a lot more often, as even after being started with a hammer bore-tight balls doesn't seem likely to just slide down.

One of the 18th century English sources I looked at specified that the wooden rod under the barrel was used for cleaning only and that a separate iron rod was carried for loading. A lot of us still use range rods when target shooting, and from that experience of walking around with a rifle, range rod, horn, etc., I would think that would have been abandoned pretty quickly as it is cumbersome to do much movement with a rifle, rod, etc., granted many German rifles had slings.

[Elnathan]

If they were still using oversized balls, I'd expect to see iron ramrods a lot more often, as even after being started with a hammer bore-tight balls doesn't seem likely to just slide down.

One of the 18th century English sources I looked at specified that the wooden rod under the barrel was used for cleaning only and that a separate iron rod was carried for loading. A lot of us still use range rods when target shooting, and from that experience of walking around with a rifle, range rod, horn, etc., I would think that would have been abandoned pretty quickly as it is cumbersome to do much movement with a rifle, rod, etc., granted many German rifles had slings.

What source was that?

[Seth Isaacson]

I thought I had put it in one of the prior posts, but I don't see it now. Maybe it was one of the pieces I had read from a later 19th century or 20th century publication that didn't seem solid. I know when I was reading about this on my phone while waiting for my daughter to fall asleep I found some 1920-1960s publications discussing the loading techniques of the past but without references to their sources.

[Waksupi]

The late Frank Costanza had a collection of over 90 original pouches. Not one short starter in any of them.

[Dphariss]

Page 257 “Kentucky Rifles and Pistols 1750-1850”
Bullet board but no starter apparent.

[jbigley]

Thanks, Dan. I've seen that picture before. Looks to me like the sheath on the strap --the one holding the dagger--is open at the bottom, indicating to me that it was not initially designed as a sheath for the dagger. Perhaps for a starter instead? I keep my starters on the strap in a similar set-up.
Just sayin'...
--JB