I don't like to use a ball starter.

I love swabbing the barrel between shots, makes me feel like I'm shooting a muzzleloader.

If I didn’t swab between shots, It’d be hard too ever dry ball again

Even I can hold my train of thought that long... I think.

In reality my .54 cal Colerain radius bottom rifled gun seems too build up less fouling than the Green Mountain barrels I owned.

The GM’ s were all square groove barrels or smoothies

Depending on conditions at the time I’m shooting , I’ll normally swab every third shot away.....

Grenadier1758 said:

Shh

Shhh! What Brokennock and many others are saying when they state that they don't wipe between shots is that they are using a very moist patch around their ball. That moist patch lubricates the barrel for the ball and wipes the fouling from the bore onto the top of the load. Sometimes being in a very humid environment helps to keep the fouling moist and many shots can be loaded before wiping the crust ring from the breech. They don't wipe between shots because they have a different procedure that works for them.

Click to expand...

2.5 parts olive or coconut oil with 1 part beeswax and 0.5 part Murphy's Oil Soap.

FlinterNick said:

Hoyt and Getz both use more original style rifling which builds up fouling much more.

Click to expand...

Colerain does not have a monopoly on rounded groove barrels.

Some here, including myself, have rounded groove barrels rifled by Mr. Hoyt. The barrel i recently received from Mr. Hoyt has the smoothest bore i have seen on a cut rifled muzzleloader. It is so much easier to load and clean.

Round grooves ARE "original style rifling". Both round and square grooves (among other oddball shapes) were used in the 18th century, with probably the large majority of them being round (and deeper than they are today...).

Also round and narrow compared to the lands in guns I’ve seen. All my rifle guns have had equal lands and groves. Old guns I’ve seen haven’t. But it’s not something that gets my breechclot in a wad over.

If I remember correctly, several years ago, Paul Valandingham (spelling ? RIP)...maybe, wrote a piece on this forum regarding loading mallets used by the British soldiers. The information might have been found in a manual. The time frame might have been around the American Revolution, give or take several years.

I have seen photographs and examples of cased pistols. Several of those cases contained accoutrements for loading, cleaning and care for the weapons. In many examples, the cases contained a loading mallet.

As for using the side of a knife blade to seat a patched ball, I’ve seen a few accidents happen, from slight cuts to pretty good slices on hands. I have also seen broken wooden ram rods, and injuries from those, from slight to ugly.

I use a short starter/ loading mallet. No skin off my nose.

It’s my opinion that ‘loading mallets’ described all the way back to wheel lock times were short starters But to voice that is as great a sin as putting Velcro to hold your riflemans coat together, or having blue speckle ware in your kit.
So....if I’m at an historic event I shoot a smoothie and leave my starter at home.
Steel and cock= hammer and frizzen, porridge, or hasty pudding = hot cereal, Rag tinder = char cloth, loading mallets = short starters... I think.

It seems to me that a square cut muzzle would predate both a crowned or coned muzzle, therefor the necessity of a ball starter or loading mallet would also precede them. Or that the moment someone decided to patch a ball, the necessity would become apparent.

Carbon 6 said:

It seems to me that a square cut muzzle would predate both a crowned or coned muzzle, therefor the necessity of a ball starter or loading mallet would also precede them. Or that the moment someone decided to patch a ball, the necessity would become apparent.

Click to expand...

If you look at the muzzles of old rifles (flintlock era) you will notice two things – the lack of the modern radius crowns everyone puts on their guns today and a subtle relieving of the rifling which basically increases the diameter of the lands at the crown making starting a ball possible. It is a similar treatment to coning, but not the deep, usually more aggressive coning that some use today. Mike Miller, for example, uses a small chainsaw file to relieve the muzzles of the rifles he builds. By all accounts, his rifles shoot well (and are lookers as well). All that to say, rifles in the period would absolutely NOT need a starter out of necessity. Yes, mallets were initially issued to the British Riflecorps along with the Baker (with iron rammers) for a brief period before they were abandoned in 1802 (or ’03?). Clearly mallets were not a necessity because they were abandoned. Also, the earlier Pattern 1776 British rifle was NOT issued with a mallet.

It certainly appears that in SOME contexts, mallets were used, but it also is clear that they were no where a necessity.

I think the amount of guys that don’t use starters show they were ‘not necessary’. That’s not the same as not used.
Some of the first minies had a disk of lead placed in the hollow bottom. It blew forward driving the soft lead in to the groves. It wasn’t necessary but was used. Another thing that comes to mind is butt traps- patch boxes. American and Central European often have them, English French, Dutch and Spanish not so much. Military stuck them on then took them off. Not necessary but widely used. Fine cased pistols had loading mallets but also had ramrods.
loading mallets were issued with many military rifles.
The first thing I think of that’s needed on a ML is a ram rod, but some military rifles were issued sans ramrod, and the shooter carried one with his bag.
Queen Ann Pistols came without a ramrod as did Derringer pocket pistols, and some Scottish pistols . Queen Ann pistols had a key, but you still had to clean it. And if you lost the key you must have had a back up.

I think it's a silly thing to argue over. Some guns need one, some don't. Most of my guns need one, so i ain't giving it up.

Carbon 6 said:

I think it's a silly thing to argue over. Some guns need one, some don't. Most of my guns need one, so i ain't giving it up.

Click to expand...

Any gun loaded with a super tight patch & ball combo will likely need a short starter, unless maybe one that is deeply coned. Likewise no gun being shot with a looser patch & ball combo will need one. My personal belief is that the tight combo is more accurate for punching paper & the looser combo more accurate for historical purposes.

tenngun said:

I think the amount of guys that don’t use starters show they were ‘not necessary’. That’s not the same as not used.
Some of the first minies had a disk of lead placed in the hollow bottom. It blew forward driving the soft lead in to the groves. It wasn’t necessary but was used. Another thing that comes to mind is butt traps- patch boxes. American and Central European often have them, English French, Dutch and Spanish not so much. Military stuck them on then took them off. Not necessary but widely used. Fine cased pistols had loading mallets but also had ramrods.
loading mallets were issued with many military rifles.
The first thing I think of that’s needed on a ML is a ram rod, but some military rifles were issued sans ramrod, and the shooter carried one with his bag.
Queen Ann Pistols came without a ramrod as did Derringer pocket pistols, and some Scottish pistols . Queen Ann pistols had a key, but you still had to clean it. And if you lost the key you must have had a back up.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the mallets were meant for loading every shot, or.just for when things got dirty and "sticky," at which point some help was needed. If used with a gun with a metal ramrod the mallet could be used for those times when the ball got stuck on it's way down, even just short of the powder.

Carbon 6 said:

I think it's a silly thing to argue over. Some guns need one, some don't. Most of my guns need one, so i ain't giving it up.

Click to expand...

No one is asking you to give it up.

The only reason I even chimed in on this discussion was someone's statement alleging the tired old justification that of it was possible to make something at the time they must have made it. Sorry but that one gets a rise out of me every time. I don't care what people wear, carry, or use. I do care when they tell people who don't know any better that something they wear, carry, or use, for which there is no evidence was in existence in a represented time period, or seems to have not been at all common, was, "what they did, wore, had, back then." And worse, come up with, and continue to use, ridiculous justifications for doing so.

I believe several replies ago I stated that there is nothing wrong with saying, "this item is, or probably isn't, or may not be, correct for the time period in question, but it makes my life easier so I use it."

You are right, it is silly to argue about. Sometimes I think the two sides aren't even really arguing about the same thing. One side is hearing "there is not enough evidence that item is period correct, so you can't use it." But the other side isn't arguing that, "you can't use it." They are arguing the evidence for or against it's period existence, and the justifications for using things we don't see examples from for the period in question, or for the area or type of individual in question.

What did the British use to wax the end of their enfield cartridges ?

FlinterNick said:

What did the British use to wax the end of their enfield cartridges ?

Click to expand...

I seem to recall that during the Indian Mutiny, the rumor was that pig lard was used.

I did a little shooting yesterday. For my .50 cal flintlock rifle, I had 3 different thicknesses of patch material and 2 different ball sizes. For poops and giggles, I wanted to see what i COULD load without a short starter. The only combo could thumb start then ram down was a .490 ball and .010 muslin patch. Accuracy was terrible. Then, same patch with .495 ball. I could sorta half thumb start it and tap it down with the butt of my knife. Rammed it down but the 1st 6 " were dicey, as i didnt wanna break my ramrod. So so accuracy. Doable? Yes. Optimal? Absolutely not....for my gun. The tightest combo i could load using a short starter shot the best. I had an even thicker patch that I could not load with either ball. I probably could have forced the.490 ball down with my brass range rod, but the ball itself was getting too deformed from getting smacked with the nub of the short starter that I just gave up.

Bottom line, I'm gonna keep listening to my gun and feeding it what it likes. Its optimal load combination(and I'm far from finished experimenting) absolutely needs a short starter to load. My next sidelock will be a smoothbore and I hope to be able to skip short starting.

I understand it was a two part rumor. Muslim troops were told it was paid lard and Hindoo troops were told it was beef tallow, this made it ‘unclean’ to touch by those troops, it was infact sheep tallow and useable by both troops.

I use a ramrod only. Start the ball with my thumb and glide the load home. I have had customers complain about accuracy, only to watch them load with a short starter. In experience the rifleing cuts the patch if too tight. A shot patch should have a star formation on it after being fired. A too tight patch will show a cut, ragged edge, actually being cut when loaded. The patch is only to produce a spin on exiting ball. My opinion only.

rodwha said:

My understanding is that, in general, a tighter fit increases the accuracy.

Click to expand...