Short Starters

[A Scanlan]

I seem to recall reading from time to time a question as to did short starters actually find use in the muzzle loading period.  It also seems that members said none has ever been found or seen.  Of course the need is obvious but for whatever reason it seems to keep popping up.  Maybe someone else has offered their opinion but if not consider this.  From the "Collectors Illustrated Encyclopedia of the American Revolution"  Shown on page 160 with the text on page 161.

Wooden bullet "starters" to help seat the patched ball in the rifle bore.  #10 has an attached powder measurer.

Apologies to anyone who may already have solved this age old question.

[rich pierce]

I’m surprised they had cameras back then!   

I just don’t find this old publication convincing and to me it looks like they are back-dating something which came into general use much later. It’s nearly impossible to know that an accoutrement was made when someone claims it was made, and it’s hard to imagine a set of loading accessories surviving intact for centuries. I’ve gone through at least 3 short starters in 45 years, and my shooting bag contents is nowhere near frozen in time from when I made it and stocked it with stuff to rummage around in.

But, I’m a trained skeptic who requires hard data.

[Elnathan]

This comes up from time to time. Read the introduction. I don't have my copy available right now to get an exact quote, but IIRC it has a paragraph (second paragraph on the second page, I think) explaining that if the item is not given an explicit date, it is representative of what was (or was thought at the time to be) used in period, but is not claimed to be an actual Revolutionary period artifact. Something like 1/3 of the items fall into this category - they are there to give collectors an idea of what to look for, but aren't actually 18th century, just the best that Neumann could find at the time.

Those starters aren't dated, so Neumann is illustrating them as an example of what he thought an 18th starter should look like. He is probably right, IF starters were used they probably would look a lot like those!

On a general note, always read the introductions to history books. That is where the author sets forth the thesis or otherwise tell you the purpose for which he or she is writing the book, and knowing what the author is trying to do allows you to get more out of the book, usually.

[A Scanlan]

and to prolong the agony.....

The need for use in a military sense is not likely.  No "drill" I have ever seen or read tells the troops to pull out their starters then ram it down with the rammer.  It would take more time to load and it is also not likely necessary with smooth bores.  As to the use by backwoodsmen and "Indian fighters", that's another matter.  There is also a publication by the ASAC detailing the equipment used in the 1784 - 1791 period.  It has lots of detail on various inventories post 1790 that was in the possession of various facilities.  It includes such small items as "one broken drum stick".  I would expect if there were short starters in use by the military they would have noted some in these inventories.

[Elnathan]

and to prolong the agony.....

The need for use in a military sense is not likely.  No "drill" I have ever seen or read tells the troops to pull out their starters then ram it down with the rammer.  It would take more time to load and it is also not likely necessary with smooth bores.  As to the use by backwoodsmen and "Indian fighters", that's another matter.  There is also a publication by the ASAC detailing the equipment used in the 1784 - 1791 period.  It has lots of detail on various inventories post 1790 that was in the possession of various facilities.  It includes such small items as "one broken drum stick".  I would expect if there were short starters in use by the military they would have noted some in these inventories.

Not sure how significant the absence might be. I'm not sure how many riflemen were still in the Continental Army at the end of 1783, and I'm pretty sure that there were only a handful of garrison troops, none of which would be riflemen I'm sure, under arms until the reestablishment of a Federal force in 1792. I always got the impression that they dumped a lot of equipment that wasn't standardized, basically keeping only the Charlesville muskets and accouterments to equip another army if necessary and discarding the rest. Remember that the Founding Fathers weren't all that keen on a standing army in the first place.

Sounds like an interesting paper. Can you give the title? I am not sure what the ASAC acronym stands for.

[Clark Badgett]

and to prolong the agony.....

The need for use in a military sense is not likely.  No "drill" I have ever seen or read tells the troops to pull out their starters then ram it down with the rammer.  It would take more time to load and it is also not likely necessary with smooth bores.  As to the use by backwoodsmen and "Indian fighters", that's another matter.  There is also a publication by the ASAC detailing the equipment used in the 1784 - 1791 period.  It has lots of detail on various inventories post 1790 that was in the possession of various facilities.  It includes such small items as "one broken drum stick".  I would expect if there were short starters in use by the military they would have noted some in these inventories.

Not sure how significant the absence might be. I'm not sure how many riflemen were still in the Continental Army at the end of 1783, and I'm pretty sure that there were only a handful of garrison troops, none of which would be riflemen I'm sure, under arms until the reestablishment of a Federal force in 1792. I always got the impression that they dumped a lot of equipment that wasn't standardized, basically keeping only the Charlesville muskets and accouterments to equip another army if necessary and discarding the rest. Remember that the Founding Fathers weren't all that keen on a standing army in the first place.

Sounds like an interesting paper. Can you give the title? I am not sure what the ASAC acronym stands for.

ASAC= American Society og Arms Collectors. They have put out some very good articles over the years. I wish they were responsive to email inquiries as they have a really good article online on Spanish muskets that I would love to get a hard copy of.

Don’t forget that in 1792 the Government started to give contracts for rifles. Also I’m not sure how much odd ball armaments they surplussed out prior to Springfield and Harpers Ferry coming on line. There are inventories that still list English, Dutch and other arms and parts from that same time span. The last mention of non-standard 1766 type arms was, IIRC, 1815 when the remaining English arms were transferred to the Navy for use by the Marines.

[A Scanlan]

I just recently sold a book that was an outstanding read.  March to Massacre, History of the first 7 years of the US Army 1784 - 1791.  I still have the ASAC book, US Army Weapons 1784 - 1791 which is a supplemental book for the first one mentioned.  I think the questions raised here are clearly address with an understanding of the two publications.  Guthman authored both books.  My opinion is that a ton of people are simply not familiar with that period is history, I know I was not. 

[Daryl]

and to prolong the agony.....

The need for use in a military sense is not likely.  No "drill" I have ever seen or read tells the troops to pull out their starters then ram it down with the rammer.  It would take more time to load and it is also not likely necessary with smooth bores.  As to the use by backwoodsmen and "Indian fighters", that's another matter.  There is also a publication by the ASAC detailing the equipment used in the 1784 - 1791 period.  It has lots of detail on various inventories post 1790 that was in the possession of various facilities.  It includes such small items as "one broken drum stick".  I would expect if there were short starters in use by the military they would have noted some in these inventories.

With the usage of .64" balls in the .69's paper ctg, there was no need for a starter, peg or other device other than the musket's rod.
On the other hand, the British Military issued 'starters/mallets' to rifle regiments. What the Americans did with their rifle "cors" I don't know.
Maybe they didn't want them to hit anything?

[Elnathan]

and to prolong the agony.....

The need for use in a military sense is not likely.  No "drill" I have ever seen or read tells the troops to pull out their starters then ram it down with the rammer.  It would take more time to load and it is also not likely necessary with smooth bores.  As to the use by backwoodsmen and "Indian fighters", that's another matter.  There is also a publication by the ASAC detailing the equipment used in the 1784 - 1791 period.  It has lots of detail on various inventories post 1790 that was in the possession of various facilities.  It includes such small items as "one broken drum stick".  I would expect if there were short starters in use by the military they would have noted some in these inventories.

With the usage of .64" balls in the .69's paper ctg, there was no need for a starter, peg or other device other than the musket's rod.
On the other hand, the British Military issued 'starters/mallets' to rifle regiments. What the Americans did with their rifle "cors" I don't know.
Maybe they didn't want them to hit anything?

 
I really don't feel like rehashing this argument yet again and so soon since the last thread, but I'd like to gently point out that the Baker rifles were not, strictly speaking, 18th century rifles, that their usage was not necessarily representative of  what was done 20-25 years prior, and they were not the even the first first rifles issued to the British military. That honor goes to the much-neglected P1776 rifle, which given its captured rod might have been rather awkward to use with a mallet. Maybe a look into their accouterments, as well as the Hessians, might be useful?

As for hitting anything without a short-started ball, did you know that the Whitworth rifle had a coned muzzle? There is a picture in the May 2013 issue of American Society of Arms Collectors bulletin, "Sharpshooter Weapons." Bunch of pictures showing the coning on the web, now that I look for it , too. Maybe coning per se isn't an automatic accuracy-killer...

[Elnathan]

ASAC= American Society og Arms Collectors. They have put out some very good articles over the years. I wish they were responsive to email inquiries as they have a really good article online on Spanish muskets that I would love to get a hard copy of.

Thanks. I am familiar with the organization, but didn't recognize the acronym. Yes, lots of good articles - I have a folder full of pdf files from their website. 129 items as of now...

I'll have to get a look at Guthman's book at some point. I still think that the absence of short starters in inventories can't be taken as significant unless rifles and other rifle-specific accouterments ARE listed.

[Seth Isaacson]

...No "drill" I have ever seen or read tells the troops to pull out their starters then ram it down with the rammer...

Not for the 18th century that we have found, but for the early 19th century before the War of 1812 there are discussions of them. "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 and rod type short starter as discussed over in the "Black Powder Shooting" topic on this subject:

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.

[A Scanlan]

Now, that's good "authority".  Hope all is well with you and yours, Seth.

ACS

[James Rogers]

In clearing a path for others to follow correctly, can we clarify if the pictures are of an actual documented example of the mallets mentioned in the written documentation or a guess as to what they were?

[TDM]

From what I have read over the years the widespread use of short starters began after the Creedmoor/NRA matches in the late 19th century. Not to say they were never used before, but their common use is fairly modern.

[Seth Isaacson]

TDM, the piston type short "bullet starters" that fit over a muzzle or false muzzle were in widespread use for target rifles in the  antebellum era and Civil War in the northeast. If those were being devised to carefully load target rifles it certainly doesn't seem a stretch that simpler devises were being used by hunters and others, especially since we know the English and at least some Americans were using mallet style short starters.

[Daryl]

Those bullet starters run back to around 1850's & were in use by the members of the San Francisco Rifle Club.
Many of them had Remington barrels on their match rifles, turned at the muzzle for the "guide bullet starter".
There is a picture of some of the members, in the book "Firearms of the American West", 1803-1865.
They also were used by some of the 'snipers' in the American civil war.

[TDM]

TDM, the piston type short "bullet starters" that fit over a muzzle or false muzzle were in widespread use for target rifles in the  antebellum era and Civil War in the northeast. If those were being devised to carefully load target rifles it certainly doesn't seem a stretch that simpler devises were being used by hunters and others, especially since we know the English and at least some Americans were using mallet style short starters.

I have no doubt that information is correct. I had intended to include that U.S. target matches spread the use of short starters, but had not seen or read a start date for their use. Was just stating what I had personally read. Main point being that the way most shooters use and carry short starters today is a relatively modern, 150 or 175 year old event and not in widespread use before that. And who knows, maybe they were.

[Daryl]

Those people weren't stupid. Some would know that a tight load is much more accurate than a load that can be introduced to the breech without a "starter" of some sort.
Were they commonly used? Not likely any more than today. Some today still insist on loading without them, which is fine by me, less competition.

[AZshot]

I'm reading The Muzzle-Loading Rifle, Then and Now, but Cline.  He was a founder of the NMLRA and the book is largely about Tennessee rifles, Alvin York, and the like.  He mentions several times short starters as do some of his references.  He describes them as starting the bullet down the bore for an inch.  Now I admit, 1924 is only 100 years ago, and he was learning from people who were shooting maybe in 1874, about 40 years before 1824....still before the 18th Century.  But he also talks about how super tight loads were not always used in hunting rifles. 

So to me, it would make little sense that no one was using a loading aid like a short starter in 1790 or 1820.  It's a logical invention that may have been come up with time and again each generation.