early short starter

[George]

I guess we'll never know for certain if or when the old boys used short starters in their loading, but here's an interesting, fairly early reference I found. It's from 1808, in a book by Capt. Henry Beaufroy, Scloppetaria. It's not about American longrifles because he's British, writing about the use of rifles in their military, but it's the only mention I've found of them, so maybe there is some interest.

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.

And this is the drawing of the rammer:



He explains that they sometimes load with patch and sometimes with an oversize bare ball, but whichever, says it's vital that the lands and grooves be engraved on the equator of the ball, so starting the ball requires moving some lead. The need for a mallet or rammer would seem obvious in their situation.

Spence

 

[BrownBear]

There you go again, spoiling everyone's fun! :rotf:

 

[George]

There you go again, spoiling everyone's fun! :rotf:

Yeah, but what's a body to do? That's my fun. :haha:

Spence

 

[tenngun]

Omg you put this on line now thou shall suffer the wrath of "the more authentic then thou" club.Doom ...Doom...abandon hope yea who enter here.

 

[George T.]

The Ball and patch fit was either looser or they had some kind of starter. If not they coned the dickens out of them. If you were under attack with a plains rifle the way I patch you would be scalped half way thru the first reload! Geo. T.

 

[dbutch]

Spence!!! Now Ya Tell Me! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

Just want to "THANK YOU" for all the time you spend digging into the past.
Can't wait to be a retired "Old Fart" and do the same.
Keep it coming for I am thankful.....Dan....trbs...(the round ball snob)...
Now where the %#@* did I put my glasses????

 

[Dean2]

After reading thousands of posts denying the remote possibility that our ancestors were smart enough to figure out how to make and use short starters this post gave me a huge belly laugh. No longer is it a matter of conjecture or opinion, it is now proven fact, at least from the date of publication, and realistically for quite some time prior.

Great work, thanks a bunch. Guess I can now wip mine out in public going forward. Till now it was less dangerous to wip out the mid starter and have a pee in public. :haha: :hatsoff: :thumbsup:

 

[cynthialee]

yep, that thing is a short starter, no way to argue it

1808 publication date, so they musta been around for a number of years prior, with the way he casually speaks of the device.

 

[Billnpatti]

I'm getting a real kick out of this posting and the one with the combination patch knife/ short starter that appears to be from sometime in the early 1800s. To those H/C, P/C folks who insist that short starters are a modern invention I say Mua ha ha ha :blah: We now have proof that short starters are not a recent invention. Hee Hee Hee Ha ha ha :haha: To those know-it-all H/C, P/C types out there who deny the existence of early short starters I say "Poke this in your "Stitch Nazi" pipe and smoke it!" :rotf:

 

Yep, this one reference by a guy in England, talking about the English Military, proves that they were used all over North America, by everyone, on any date in history. I'm sure the people who sell them will be glad to hear this. :rotf:

 

[LRB]

I've seen that reference years ago, and another to their use by English or German riflemen in the rev. war, but still no reference to 18th c. American use. I use one myself, but it stays out of sight when its use would be inappropriate. I can load my rifle without the use of a starter, but it is much easier with one.

 

[Rod Lassey]

I'm sure that everyone who uses the good Captain's quote as documenation for short starters will also carry that other accoutrement he mentions, a mallet....

Rod

 

[nkbj]

People used whatever they knew to make happen what they wanted. Does anybody think they couldn't figure out a mallet or a stick to poke in a hole? Rethink your estimation of their abilities.

 

[Billnpatti]

May I offer this in to evidence? Something a bit closer than Merry Old England.

Post#1300290

My H/C clothing include jeans, T shirt and short starter.............on yes.......and my P/C cell phone. My persona is a 2013 old fart who is a hunter-gatherer. I hunt a shady spot to sit and gather up a glass of iced tea between relays. It's a valid persona, it's one that I took on at Friendship on many occasions. :haha: :haha: :hatsoff: Hand me my short starter and mallet. :blah: :rotf:

 

[Black Hand]

From what I've read (in the past), some early guns had oversized balls pounded down the barrel with a rammer and mallet (to engage the rifleing). IIRC, this was before the concept of the patch was "discovered".

So, ultimately this isn't the long sought-after and mythical short-starter from the 1700's...and still does littel to address the idea of 'commonality in use".

 

[nkbj]

If what I had on hand was big balls then I'd make it fit and go bang. What in the corn bread is the big problem? Uh, unless I didn't have the muzzle coned that is.

 

[Black Hand]

The difference is between larger than bore-sized vs. smaller that bore-sized balls. The concept of the patch in conjunction with and under-sized ball seems to have revolutionized rifle shooting.

And yet, there still doesn't seem to be any evidence that short-starters were commonly used in the colonies(if at all).

 

[Zonie]

"Long sought-after" ?
No doubt about it and people are still looking for documented proof that short starters were used.

"Mythical" ?
Using that word presupposes a short starter was never used.
IMO this is a rather arrogant assumption and being based only on the lack of documentation to the contrary it is vary weak.

Now, if someone finds a document written in the 1700's or early 1800's saying to effect,
"Using a device other than a thumb or finger to start the patched ball into the muzzle was never used by riflemen." then they would have a reasonably good argument for their assumption.

Personally, I have no doubt that there were thousands of things commonly done in the 19th and 18th century that were never written about by anyone due in large part to the fact that they were commonly done and unworthy of being mentioned. :v

 

[nkbj]

Ever think that a coned muzzle made up for using what you could find? I think that a stick to put a patched ball down the muzzle was just common sense.

 

[Black Hand]

"Long sought-after" ?
No doubt about it and people are still looking for documented proof that short starters were used.

"Mythical" ?
Using that word presupposes a short starter was never used.
IMO this is a rather arrogant assumption and being based only on the lack of documentation to the contrary it is vary weak.

Now, if someone finds a document written in the 1700's or early 1800's saying to effect,
"Using a device other than a thumb or finger to start the patched ball into the muzzle was never used by riflemen." then they would have a reasonably good argument for their assumption.

Personally, I have no doubt that there were thousands of things commonly done in the 19th and 18th century that were never written about by anyone due in large part to the fact that they were commonly done and unworthy of being mentioned. :v

All one can do is FALSIFY a hypothesis, and the current hypothesis is that short-starters were not ([strike]commonly[/strike]) used in the 18th century colonies. Until evidence comes to light to the contrary, then one should presume that short-starters were not in use.


The "they were commonly done and unworthy of being mentioned." argument doesn't hold water, as they wrote down all sorts of things even more insignificant and we have period descriptions of shooting/loading.