Things I have assumed were wrong

[WKevinD]

I just examining a collection of long fowlers and club butts and a few items stood out that I have made poor assumptions about in the past.
Most of the fowlers had barrels that were 58"-60", 4- .62-.66 caliber 2-.70-.78 caliber as expected.
Most had original ramrods, the part that surprised me was that they all had such drastic tapers. 1/2" was the average tip diameter at the muzzle end but 3/16" was the general diameter at the end, some had a small worm but all were so thin that I questioned what type of loads they were used with. I can not see a tight wad/ patched ball with these slim rods.
The other surprise was average LOP. !2 1/2" - 13 1/2". With the barrel lengths I expected something else I guess. Most requests for LOP on reproductions have been longer and I have been assuming that was correct.
Thoughts?

Kevin

[Roger B]

People were a lot smaller in the previous centuries. Even looking at American WW2 uniforms in museums shows that we're smaller as a species in the early 20th Century. Smaller shooters, smaller LOPs.
Roger B.

[rich pierce]

Regarding the ramrods being thin, I think they were really fowling guns. So they just needed to seat wads. Any pressed into service for round ball use probably got iron ramrods. But today most folks wanting a fowler are thinking of plunking gongs or deer with a round ball. So they want their ramrod to be a minimum of 3/8” on the short end.

[Snowmoon]

Regarding the ramrods being thin, I think they were really fowling guns. So they just needed to seat wads. Any pressed into service for round ball use probably got iron ramrods. But today most folks wanting a fowler are thinking of plunking gongs or deer with a round ball. So they want their ramrod to be a minimum of 3/8” on the short end.

Plus from what Mike Beliveau has found in his research, round ball shooting would simply entail tapping down a wad over the undersized ball and powder. Just as easy as loading shot (in fact, easier, since you don't have to use an over-powder wad).

[James Rogers]

Patched balls in smooth guns seems to be a modern thing adopted by bp rifle shooters who jumped on the smoothbore fads as they came along.
The period mindset of a patch was to go into rifled grooves to impart spin. These were shotguns and whenever a fowler used a piece such as these with a single ball projectile, he generally used wadding instead of a patch.
Some that were transformed for purpose of war usually were cut back for the bayonet, possibly were equipped with an iron rod but still used paper cartridges or wads. 

[JTR]

From what I've seen, original ramrods are pretty rare.
But of the ones I've seen, yes, they taper down pretty thin.
John

[James Rogers]

From what I've seen, original ramrods are pretty rare.
But of the ones I've seen, yes, they taper down pretty thin.
John

I agree.  The pipes usually tell the tale though.

[Seth Isaacson]

People were a lot smaller in the previous centuries. Even looking at American WW2 uniforms in museums shows that we're smaller as a species in the early 20th Century. Smaller shooters, smaller LOPs.
Roger B.

The average American man's height has not changed as much as people often think according to the data I've seen: 5' 7" around the Civil War,  5′8″ in WWII, and 5' 9" today. Average weight certainly has change more: 135 in the mid-19th century, 145 in WWII, and 200 now. I haven't found the length of pulls on antique muzzle loading sporting guns to be shorter than today on average. I've measure a fair number of English and European sporting guns from the 18th and early 19th centuries, and most have been around 13 3/4 to 14 1/2 inches unless clearly made for a child or women. Military muskets and rifle-muskets seem to be more around 13 1/2. American long rifles and half-stocks though are all over the place it seems in terms of length of pull.

[smart dog]

Hi,
According to data for several regiments published by Don Hagist for British troops during the Rev War period, the average height was 5' 7 1/2".  Today in the UK, the average height of a white male is about 5' 10".  Hagist published the data because it showed that the tall guys were put in the grenadier companies and the smaller guys tended to be in the light companies. British troops frequently remarked how much taller American soldiers seemed.  I think diet had a lot to do with it.  Clothing shrinks a lot over time so looking at museum examples can be misleading. I've measured a lot of British flintlock military and sporting guns. The length of pull varied from 13" to just under 14".  The average for both groups combined was 13 5/8".  I found it interesting that the shortest LOP (13 1/8") for a military gun was the pattern 1760 light infantry carbine.  A gun for the little guys.  In addition, the dragoon carbines I've measured had LOPs about 13 1/4", again guns for little guys on horseback.  The long land muskets were all 13 3/4" - 14".

dave         

[JV Puleo]

That people were notably shorter in the past is a widely held misconception. Size actually hasn't changed much but is closely related to diet so we find that people were often shorter when they suffered from a severely restricted diet. (On my father's side I don't think any of the women were much over 5' tall...my grandmother was about 4'11 but all these people were the children of poor Sicilian peasants. At 5'9" I was the tallest member of the family.)
There is also the evidence of surviving clothing but this is also misleading because a large part of what survives was simply too small to be useful when it was out of fashion. Well into the 20th century clothing was relatively much more expensive than it is today. It wasn't unusual for a man to own one suit...maybe over his lifetime, My own grandfather had two...the one he was married in and the one he was buried in.

Another observation, based on archeology, shows us that size was directly related to urbanization. In 10th century England, when 99% was rural, burials show that average height wasn't much smaller than today. As the country urbanized and people moved to cities they were largely dependent on the foods that could be easily preserved and were inexpensive. By the mid 18th century average height had decreased about 2". This is one of those subjects that elicits a lot of opinions but has only been actively researched in recent times.

[Pukka Bundook]

Joe,

I trust all is well with you!
This subject of height  is a bit big and off topic here, but can I just add that what you say is correct, and that burials from the late Paleolithic often show heights very close to today.  I suppose at that time, you ate well or starved to death pretty fast!
No cheap food so to speak.. no sugars apart from natural and honey..

Back to ramrods!
Yes, I feel sure the posts above cover this, that a wad of tow or whatever over the powder, and a ball in this nest with something light over it to hold it in place, even grass, would be how a ball was loaded and would not be the least bit hard on a rammer.
I also feel pretty sure a lot of these fowling pieces never saw a ball, but were truly just used for fowling.
Possibly, in times of trouble, a buckshot load could be used.

Best,
R.

[smylee grouch]

When I read the subject line for this post the first thing I thought of  was the statement I have heard so many times before. Usually made by someone describing some thing people will say " always " or " never".

[Daryl]

Read somewhere the skeletons found on the Mary Rose, could be divided into infantry and archers due to deformities in the arm and back/shoulder bones and length of the bodies.
"THEY" figured most of the archer's skeletons were Welsh and were 6' tall. Perhaps this had something to do with the "shipping or military records".
So long ago, I don't remember where I saw this.

[JV Puleo]

I'll get back to ramrods as well. All of the original ramrods I've handled were quite thin at the small end...and this is judging from the presence of an original "patch puller" end. I realize people still call these screws "ball pullers" but they aren't anywhere near robust enough for that. The whole thing brings into question just how tight were the patched balls? I'd guess not as tight as modern muzzle loaders think they were.

[Pukka Bundook]

I am sure you are right, Joe.
In my old EIC pattern F musket, with a full charge, the ball bumps up to fill the bore. A
A definite equator or flat band can be seen on a fired and recovered ball.

This was with a .750" fired in a .760" bore.

Also as you say, the worm on the end of these ramrods is a Tow worm for cleaning, and not a ball puller.
It would likely work for pulling wads from over shot and powder, but not a ball.

[Bob Roller]

People were a lot smaller in the previous centuries. Even looking at American WW2 uniforms in museums shows that we're smaller as a species in the early 20th Century. Smaller shooters, smaller LOPs.
Roger B.

The so called "average man".Paul Harvey defined "average" as the best of the worst and the worst of the best.The breech loaders all seemed to be comfortable even with the crescent butt plates and powerful loads both nitro and black.

Bob Roller

[Bob Gerard]

Here is a graph of the heights of British  soldiers of the 33rd in 1775. Its quite interesting!

[Bob Gerard]

As to ramrods- the one on my Halbach and Son flintlock is obviously made for a round ball, as it’s a pistol. Looking at how drastically it’s tapered you can assume the ball wasn’t very tight! I would assume this design was similar to long guns as well (though with the much longer barrel some more mass- i.e., a thicker rammer-  was needed).

[Daryl]

Was there such a "thing" as an issue paper ctg for pistols?

[JV Puleo]

When?
US single shot pistols had an issued paper cartridge usually carried in tinned tubes as part of the saddle holsters.

[Clark Badgett]

Was there such a "thing" as an issue paper ctg for pistols?

Yes. There sure was.

[Daryl]

I recall the ones for the Sharps caplocks and the cap and ball, but didn't know about the ones for horse pistols.