early short starter

[tenngun]

Spence you are using reason where none should be used. Some boys were siting around the campfire and decided starters were new inventions and not used here. They saw nothing that they could believe. One I n an old bag just proves it was added later or the bag wasn't really old. A drawing of one from England can't prove it was used here. The use in Portagaul must be misunderstood. There is no reason, there is no evidence. Thou speak herasey a pox on thy house.

 

[Claude Mathis]

A drawing of one from England can't prove it was used here.

That's correct. :thumbsup:

The use in Portagaul must be misunderstood.

No misunderstanding that it was used in Portugal. :thumbsup:

 

[tenngun]

Q.E.D orthodoxy confirmed Sic Semper Veriti. (cant spell in English cant keep track of the cases in latin...read varitas or tie as the case may be) :haha:

 

[Black Hand]

A drawing of one from England can't prove it was used here.

By golly, I think you've got it now! Correct and well-done!

 

[tenngun]

See above.. Thou foolish Heritcts we all know there was no truck tween America and potugaul and England

 

[Black Hand]

See above.. Thou foolish Heritcts we all know there was no truck tween America and potugaul and England

Quite honestly, sometimes I haven't the faintest idea what you are going on about.

 

[BrownBear]

The bullet is placed on the patch over the bore, and pressed with the handle of the knife, which now trims the edge of the linen. The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded.

All debate of short starter authenticity and origin aside, this method has come to the front for me since I started cutting patches at the muzzle. Just a whole lot easier to do it all with my knife, rather than juggling a short starter into the mix.

With small cals and skinny ramrods, tight balls, or cold greasy hands, the old "do it all with the ramrod" method is pure bunk for me too. Just doesn't work out. If you're cutting at the muzzle you have to start the ball with the rod, drop the rod, grab your knife for the cut, stow the knife, grab the rod.... Nah. Place the ball and patch on the muzzle, push or smack with the knife but, cut, stow the knife, then go to work with the rod.

One thing for sure. Using your knife to start a tight ball will certainly put the lie to teeny patch knives! :wink:

 

[cynthialee]

hmmm....it was in use by the Brits in 1808 and likely before that

So it had to be here. The Brits were every where. If the soldier was using a short starter in England I am pretty sure that when he got stationed overseas his short starter came with him. This is no giant leap of faith here. It would be silly to assume that these soldiers would use this piece of equipment at home and not abroad.

Technology/tools are traded or appropriated constantly in history. It would be an act of denial to imagine that no American rifleman of the bygone eras used this tool. My guess is that it was not uncommon even if it wasn't used by most.

 

[Black Hand]

hmmm....it was in use by the Brits in 1808 and likely before that

So it had to be here. The Brits were every where. If the soldier was using a short starter in England I am pretty sure that when he got stationed overseas his short starter came with him. This is no giant leap of faith here. It would be silly to assume that these soldiers would use this piece of equipment at home and not abroad.

Technology/tools are traded or appropriated constantly in history. It would be an act of denial to imagine that no American rifleman of the bygone eras used this tool. My guess is that it was not uncommon even if it wasn't used by most.

Wishful thinking and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks...

 

[George]

It suggests the "over-sized bullet" scenario to me. As to what was used or whether it was the iron rammer that was hammered upon, is unclear from the passage.

Yes, I think there's no doubt of that with that reference. Beaufroy was also discussing the "over-sized bullet", when he spoke of the "bare ball", and his rammer was apparently used for both that and the patched ball.

Think a bit about what is actually involved in the idea of hammering on the ramrod. Not with it... on it. You have to support the rifle, muzzle up, keep the oversize ball on the muzzle, keep the head of the ramrod centered on the ball, keep the long ramrod straight up over both, hold the upper end steady and pound on it with a mallet. The top of the ramrod is almost certainly above where you can reach with your free hand. How are you going to keep all that chain of loose, disconnected elements lined up while pounding on it? I couldn't, but I'd buy a ticket to see anyone else do it. :grin:

Spence

 

[Black Hand]

Spence,
I don't disagree, but then again a good solid rap with a mallet would do much to get the oversized ball in the barrel. From there, the process would be much simplified in hammering the ball home as the hard part of forming the bullet to the barrel was done.

Personally, it think the oversized ball was an anomaly, which was replaced by the patched undersized ball (after a little careful thought), much to the relief of shooters everywhere.

 

[tenngun]

Spence you are arguing people think. This is just common sense. Thought, common sense, resoned argument has nought to do with it. No documentation can overcome the more hc then thou attitude. We can show it existed but since no one stopped to write in a letter home " I loaded my rifle today just like you seen me doing it every day of my life these last 8 years. First
I poured my powder from my horn in to my antler powder charger then down the barrel then I put my ball over a precut square patch greased with bear oil and deer tallow started with a short rod, drove the ball home with the rammer, primed the pan with 1/2 full powder shut the hammer then I was ready to go deer hunting. how's the weather at home?" Then it could not have happened. You do know the frontier was settled by a bunch of Howard Hueges don't you?

 

[Black Hand]

No documentation can overcome the more hc then thou attitude.

Only you seem to be feeling the pressure, and it is purely self-imposed. You wave this around as if people were forcing you to comply against your will. Guess what, nobody is forcing you to do anything.

Evidence still trumps conjecture.

 

[tenngun]

Then I give you the drawing of one from 1808.Damn little sci fi in 1808. I think this fellow drew what he saw. I have an 1808 date when it was used. Do you have a date it was first used in America?
Or does your stated dependence on documentation end in "Gee I think it was later 19th century maybe early 20th, all an all I don't have a clue, I just don't think it was that early"

 

[Black Hand]

Is that that sound of your knickers twisting again?

 

[Claude Mathis]

Then I give you the drawing of one from 1808.

We all agree, according to the writing, you have an 1808 date for the Military in Britain.

Do you have a date it was first used in America?

No. Do you? :wink:

People are free to do as they please, based on how they think things should be, but others require more evidence than, "It existed in one location, therefore is must have been universal and used prior to the date of documentation."

Imagine if we actually taught history this way?

 

[hanshi]

Claude, I seated prb exactly the way you described for years. It's not that difficult, either. But my hands no longer allow me to do this.

No doubt there were as many ways of loading and shooting a rifle as we see today. Riflemen are a gimmicky group, anyway.

With that taken care of I realize I've been making a terrible mistake for years. I understand everyone is speaking of "coning" the rifle muzzle and NOT "corning" it. Maybe that's where my barrels delicious aroma comes from. :hmm:

 

[George]

It's always interesting to extrapolate from what actual documentation we have to what we think it might mean. Fun to do, but must always be considered as speculation, and not something to base your impression on. That must be limited to what we know, to my way of thinking. and then stay busy looking for additional evidence to bolster your hunch.

Here's another "short starter" of sorts, same book. It is the immediate continuation of what Beaufroy had to say in my original post. It's ingenious, but something useful only in target shooting.

An ingenuous invention has been made by Mr. George Tyers, of Hackney, for forcing down the ball without injury to its upper surface, to be adapted in fine firing, as for matches, and dollar shooting, and which consists of a lever of the second order, the purchase of which is procured by fixing one end into the sword-loop, and in fact, according to its present construction, it will do with no other guns but such as have sword-loops; ...

With it, however, a ball, let it be ever so tight, may be forced down with comparatively trifling exertion, and that without making any indent on the ball, which is considered a point of great importance, where great accuracy is required; ...

Spence

 

[tenngun]

O k We have one in 1808 in England, what looks like one a century before in portugul, You could get port wine in 1730 Detroit or fort chartes. You could get chezch beads in vancover in 1820,L and C carried Italian beads across the country 1804.You could drink chocolot at rendezvous and Virgina belles could get the lateist fashion dolls in 1650in the tidewater.
I do my best to be as hc as I can, and I am always trying to improve. Been trying to do this since the 1970s Until I see an argument as to why something used in Europe could not make it across the pond, when so much else did, as part of my outfit I shall use it. If I meet some one who thinks that their inturpatation of history is better then mine based on ideas they can't prove
I will give them an argument. As yet in the whole of this passage I've not read one argument that supports the idea that short starters weren't used here. And I think my quest to be h/c is as valued as the next guys

 

[George]

Personally, it think the oversized ball was an anomaly, which was replaced by the patched undersized ball (after a little careful thought), much to the relief of shooters everywhere.

And history proves you correct, but it didn't happen quickly, apparently.

Just as today, the way the old boys went about their shooting was directly because of what they believed about the way guns and projectiles worked. Did all the powder burn immediately? What twist rate was best? And a thousand others. One common belief during this time period concerned the rotary motion/spin of the ball. They didn't understand, as physicists do today, that spin is "conserved", continues until forced to stop. They also didn't even understand what caused it, even with the spiral rifling in their hand. This author, Beaufroy, believed that the air acting on the indentations of the spiral rifling on the equator of the ball was the cause. In another book of the same period, "A handbook for riflemen;", by William Duane, published 1812, the same belief was stated: "The operation of the air upon a rifle ball, will be clearly understood, by viewing the spiral motion of an arrow, which has three feathered wings; the air passing between the feathers causes the arrow to spiral along or move like a screw; the same effect is produced by the impression made in the sides of a bullet by the grooves of the rifle."

So, to their way of thinking, loading over-size balls and hammering them into the lands and grooves made certain those indentations were there and guaranteed that the air would keep the ball spinning all the way to the target.

This idea was already coming under suspicion. In his book in 1814, Gen. George Hanger praised Beaufroy's 1808 book, but spent quite a bit of time explaining that he was wrong about spin, gave him experiments to prove it was the spiral rifling which caused spin, not the air.

They believed a lot of weird stuff. I'll have to admit I'm impressed how much of it still believed, today, in spite of evidence to the contrary. :haha:

Spence