Simon Kenton?

Brokennock said:

This is another good argument for probable use of smaller balls and looser loads historically.
Just using a .45 caliber rifle as an example, if one was using a .445 ball and it shoots well with some scrap linen that was on hand (and if it were measured would be .011") and one had run out of that cloth, if your buddy's patch cloth,or the stuff from the trader, was thicker, one might have had a problem. If our historical shooter had used a .440 ball, he could still maintain "minute of injun," or "minute of deer vital," accuracy, most likely even if the replacement material was slightly thinner.

And, no need for extra junk like a ball starter.



Unless one is shooting in serious competition where cutting X's is the difference between 1st and second place, I just don't see the need for these loads that need a starter and then to be beaten down the bore. Why do folks put themselves through that for something that should be an enjoyable pass time? And please don't get me wrong, I'm all for accuracy. I have very high expectations of my modern pistols, but it doesn't take me extra stuff to carry around or extra effort and messing around when loading to get what I want.

Click to expand...

Yep. This exactly. With my loose fitting loads, I can still hit a cereal box at 50 yards. It’s easy to load and I can use different materials for patching and not loose any accuracy. At least what I consider accuracy. I don’t use a short starter. I normally use .490 or even .440 round balls in a .50 caliber rifle.

If someone is shooting in a match where cutting X’s is the difference between first and second place, that’s different than what I am getting at. I like studying what is really historically accurate and try to emulate that if I can. I don’t always succeed however .

If any of you have a copy of Ned Roberts The Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle there is mention of short starters in use. Maybe around Uncle Alvarez's time. And before. His was a Civil War sniper and hunter if memory serves me correctly. But going back to cap lock times may not be early enough for your hypothesis of short starters in Rev or F and I war times.

I was curious as I was preparing for a Woods Walk type shoot where all shooting had to be done from the shot pouch. My 1803 Harper's Ferry Rifle was very accurate at the distances to be shot, but I had been using a tight load that required a short starter. I decided to test a very loose ball and thin patch combination. The thin patches were totally shredded compared to the thicker patches and larger ball. The impact moved slightly, and the group opened up slightly, but the results were satisfactory for shooting at the Woods Walk.

Here's a link to my previous posting of my experiment.

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/finally-makin-some-smoke.147919/#post-2085194

Brokennock said:

There is no evidence for the use of a, "short starter," or "straight starter," or whatever one wants to call it, by folks on the frontier (or civilians in general) during Kenton's time. There are references to using the flat of one's belt knife blade and a smack against it when laid across the ball, but even these are few.

But hey,,,, as evidenced by many, many replies elsewhere on this forum,,, no one cares anymore. It's a do your own thing and do your best to justify it (or not), kind of world. Wear a toga and call it a rifleman frock (that predate our period and the material to make them was available, so someone "must have." Use a short starter and all the modern reasoning you can muster.
It's a "traditional" muzzleloading forum that doesn't give a lick about honest history.

Click to expand...

I am afraid as you will know this hasn't been a traditional muzzleloading site for a long while.

Banjoman said:

Yep. This exactly. With my loose fitting loads, I can still hit a cereal box at 50 yards. It’s easy to load and I can use different materials for patching and not loose any accuracy. At least what I consider accuracy. I don’t use a short starter. I normally use .490 or even .440 round balls in a .50 caliber rifle.

Click to expand...

Yeah but,
I can hit a cereal box at fifty yards with a smoothie. A bess should do that too.
Not much use of shooting a rifle, that cost twice or more what an imported fusil does if it doesn’t shoot noticeably better then a rifle.
I think it’s telling how inspite of rifles being available Canadians white and red, and most American Indians went after that smoothie

I am inclined to agree with those who suggest that people used somewhat smaller balls on the frontier than we use now. My dad had a number of old muzzleloaders when I was growing up, and one of them, an old Tennessee rifle with a wrought iron barrel. The rifle had been shortened and half-stocked, and bored and rifled to around .53 caliber. The original hand-forged mould came with it. I don't recall the exact measurements, but it threw balls that must have been at least .020" undersized. I shot this rifle once, when dad was away, loading it with a light powder charge and scrounged, filthy mattress ticking for patches. I remember it loaded easily, and the three shots I fired at about twenty yards were almost touching.

I appreciate a ball and patch combination that loads easily.

Notchy Bob

Can anyone recommend an available tool to cone a .36 and .50 cal muzzle ?
I've never coned a muzzle before and dont want to lose accuracy .

My two cents. No one in colonial times etc would want a rifle that was a pita to load. Accuracy was relative and could be changed with amount of powder, patch material, size of ball and of course skill of the shooter. I think "smooth" rifles, fusils, fowlers or what ever you want to call them outnumbered 'true" rifles, everyday of the week because they were more useful. You could load RB, Buck n Ball or Shot depending on the need. Hunting then was also different, most in deep woods, shots were not particularly long etc., stalking was prevalent as were hunting skills in general, After all, it was how people survived! I think the ornate rifles we see were for the wealthy and were a sign of wealth etc back in the day, that could be displayed. The avg. person was not paying for "bling". They needed a firearm that was built well, reliable, and would hold up. There wasn't a "gunsmith" around every corner that you could go to too tune your rifle etc. Most of that work was probably done by the owner! Bottom line, I think they used a slightly smaller ball & patch combo that allowed them to load easily but still maintain "hunting" accuracy. I also believe that they used various patching material depending on what was available. I think practicality, availability, cost etc came foremost on the frontier.(IMHO)

tenngun said:

Yeah but,
I can hit a cereal box at fifty yards with a smoothie. A bess should do that too.
Not much use of shooting a rifle, that cost twice or more what an imported fusil does if it doesn’t shoot noticeably better then a rifle.
I think it’s telling how inspite of rifles being available Canadians white and red, and most American Indians went after that smoothie

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with all that. My original post was about short starters. I’m just wondering what an original one from the 18th century looked like, if they even existed at all.

Tenngun,

In another thread about hunting bags, you posted a picture of your hunting bag and it’s contents. Between the bag and knife is what looks like a hand carved starter. If it is, I like it. I could see that being something folks in the 18th century might use more than a cue ball with a wooden dowel and brass cartridge case on the end.

Cattywompuss said:

You don't, but you certainly can erode the muzzle of a barrel over time, which is how many originals appear to me. Got us a reference to coning other than a bunch of worn muzzles we suppose are coned?

Also, it hardly needs repeating, but there is an old parable regarding water dripping on a stone i.e. the Grand Canyon.

Click to expand...

I purchased a 45 caliber rifle and had been left uncleaned for probably 25 or 30 years, and has stood in a closet with the barrel down where the bottom of the barrel could get damp. One side of the barrel, For about an inch and a half, had the rifling almost eroded away, which cause the first shot to shoot about 8 inches to the side at 50 yards. If you didn't clean after every shot, the next several shots would be very good shots just 8 inches to the left of the first. After inquiring on this site, I took a round file and removed some rifling from the opposite side that was already missing, and it worked like a champ, and now even the first shot is very close to the bull's-eye. It did seem to help in loading also. There is a little rifling in the top and bottom of the barrel, just not much on the sides.
squint

There is evidence in the grooves that early coning was done with a file. The tapering included both the lands and the grooves.

Banjoman said:

Tenngun,

In another thread about hunting bags, you posted a picture of your hunting bag and it’s contents. Between the bag and knife is what looks like a hand carved starter. If it is, I like it. I could see that being something folks in the 18th century might use more than a cue ball with a wooden dowel and brass cartridge case on the end.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of a tale of two Winchester Model 12s. I've owned a heap of them. One had an original Winchester branded wooden dowel in the tube as the plug. It was a very cool piece of Winchester and that particular gun's history. The other M12 had a crudely stripped stick in the tube that someone had probably fashioned in the field to stay on the right side of game laws.

We like to err on the side our forebears appreciating well crafted stuff and wanting the best: I call it the "Old Craftsman Wooden Handled Screwdrive Syndrome TM". Reality is often less refined and more expeditious.

Coinneach said:

Can anyone recommend an available tool to cone a .36 and .50 cal muzzle ?
I've never coned a muzzle before and dont want to lose accuracy .

Click to expand...

Contact Flintsteel here on the forum. He is in Amarillo, By God!, Texas and he makes them.

First class guy and excellent tool. No loss in accuracy and the cone resolves every issue that is being discussed here. Press your patched ball into the barrel with your thumb and ram it home.

Some people just like to argue or use their pile of toys I guess. Loading blocks aren’t HC either…so using them to prove your point is, well, anyway. Think about it…pour powder, then place patch and ball on muzzle, draw knife and cut patch, put knife away, draw short starter, put that away, draw ramrod, put that away. Then shoot. Really? Drop the knife? Drop the starter? Ever been shot at? Try clipping your finger nails while someone is shooting at you. But, what do I know?

springfield art said:

Having to use a mallet to seat a ball; imagine after 2 or 3 shots how hard it would be, esp. in the heat in summer, and the heat of battle. I think there's a "sweet spot" with the thickness of your patch, where you can run the ball down without having to use a pneumatic jackhammer to ram it!

Click to expand...

Although Austrian military rifles were made with a ramrod worn like a sword, precut triangular patches and a loading mallet

Banjoman said:

Tenngun,

In another thread about hunting bags, you posted a picture of your hunting bag and it’s contents. Between the bag and knife is what looks like a hand carved starter. If it is, I like it. I could see that being something folks in the 18th century might use more than a cue ball with a wooden dowel and brass cartridge case on the end.

Click to expand...

I based it on the one in museum of the fur trade, but if at a public event I don’t display it. I do use it for hunting and at the range shooting.
When folks ask me about my equipment at the range I tell them we know these were made by late 1840s but they may not have been used with a flintlock
The Spanish rifleman of the Napoleonic wars had a starter that was t shaped, a flat disc with a two to three inch dowel.
I’ve seen drawings of them but never a photo. It looks like it was cut from one piece

brazosland said:

Contact Flintsteel here on the forum. He is in Amarillo, By God!, Texas and he makes them.

First class guy and excellent tool. No loss in accuracy and the cone resolves every issue that is being discussed here. Press your patched ball into the barrel with your thumb and ram it home.

Some people just like to argue or use their pile of toys I guess. Loading blocks aren’t HC either…so using them to prove your point is, well, anyway. Think about it…pour powder, then place patch and ball on muzzle, draw knife and cut patch, put knife away, draw short starter, put that away, draw ramrod, put that away. Then shoot. Really? Drop the knife? Drop the starter? Ever been shot at? Try clipping your finger nails while someone is shooting at you. But, what do I know?

Click to expand...

And I think he does a you tube video on its use.

brazosland said:

Contact Flintsteel here on the forum. He is in Amarillo, By God!, Texas and he makes them.

First class guy and excellent tool. No loss in accuracy and the cone resolves every issue that is being discussed here. Press your patched ball into the barrel with your thumb and ram it home.

Some people just like to argue or use their pile of toys I guess. Loading blocks aren’t HC either…so using them to prove your point is, well, anyway. Think about it…pour powder, then place patch and ball on muzzle, draw knife and cut patch, put knife away, draw short starter, put that away, draw ramrod, put that away. Then shoot. Really? Drop the knife? Drop the starter? Ever been shot at? Try clipping your finger nails while someone is shooting at you. But, what do I know?

Click to expand...

I've been shot at. Clipping fingernails? Not so much. But given that we are hobbiests, you just made a world class argument for why using starters now is a moot point(and thus historically should not stop one from using one) historical or not, and why our ancestors would have vastly preferred an M4.

tenngun said:

I based it on the one in museum of the fur trade, but if at a public event I don’t display it. I do use it for hunting and at the range shooting.
When folks ask me about my equipment at the range I tell them we know these were made by late 1840s but they may not have been used with a flintlock
The Spanish rifleman of the Napoleonic wars had a starter that was t shaped, a flat disc with a two to three inch dowel.
I’ve seen drawings of them but never a photo. It looks like it was cut from one piece

Click to expand...

Upon reviewing an article about a 300yr old Jager rifle earlier, it was pointed out by the author that the ramrod was a very stout steel rod and that it led him to believe the original load must have been tight. Got me thinking: why do we use wood? There is only one reasonable answer: cost and availability. Okay, that's two reasons.

But, an iron rod would be a lot of metal to waste on a stick when they were growing all over the place from hickory trees. Hickory not being native to Europe, for the few who could afford Jager rifles in Europe, a metal rod, akin to musket rods in European armies, would be more likely. Jagers are also often shorter than the American rifle and the ability to ram home a load with a metal rod in a shorter barrel would possibly never lead to development of short starters to the degree of our own.

I posit, merely as a hypothesis, that short starters were developed as longrifles became commercially produced en masse and coning by individual smith's fell out of practice. Just as tapered and flared barrels fell by the wayside with mass manufacture, coning(if it is historical as posited in this thread) died off and flat crown guns required starters(or looser ball and patch combos). We can infer this easily from military rifles(Baker et al) which were not coned. We also know that the mass manufacture began earlier than we usually believe. The gunsmiths of Pennsylvania likely didn't taper and flare or cone the massive(relatively) number of rifles turned out at the beginning of the AWI, before the congress and Washington got their act together and called for imported muskets.