early short starter

[Capt. Jas.]

The handful remaining have cast their pearls. Nothing more can be done it seems.

 

[Black Hand]

If your are going to make an argument that something I use is not hc the burden of proof shift to you.

Ummm, no.
The premise is that they were not in use, not whether they were HC or not. We know they are HC at very specific times and in very specific places, but not in the American colonies in the 18th and most of the 19th centuries.

 

[Claude Mathis]

Since they are mentioned in England and Portugal on this thread I see that as proof.

If that is all the proof you need to show that they were used elsewhere, that is your prerogative.

In any case kodiac 13 is not lying or misrepresenting the facts when he said he saw big foot. I don't know about big foot, I don't know what he saw, but I'll be damned before I would accuse him of misrepresenting the facts... the ( other) pc way of calling someone a lier.

I have to call you on this - no one has said that he is lying and for you to suggest that is a gross misrepresentation. Please do not misrepresent what people are saying here. I strongly suggest that you quote people before commenting on their remarks.

Maybe we should change this to something we can settle... right to life vs choice, best way to help urban poor, how to get peace in the near east, life on mars.

Posts that are off-topic will be deleted. Please stick to the topic and the facts.

 

[tenngun]

No if I was to tell you that you should use a starter and if at a public event tell people ss were used then I would have the burden of proof.
When ,based on the way I see the evidence, that an ss is right and I spread that info to public and you tell me its spreading misinformation then the burden of proof is on you.
When you say then why don't you use a center fire I can say its easy to look up the first copper cartridge with internal primer and see when it was invented. The same with zippo lighters ect. Ss have no solid starting point, we cant point to a first one. Those of us who argue for them think ,opine, that it was earlier then those that opine it wasn't.
This argument comes down to holding that ones persons view of the past is better then an other.
The person that says "you need to" or "you need not to" is the one that has the burden of proof.
I have never tried to convince any one that he needs to use one or tell the public they were used. Please give me that same coutesy.

 

[Black Hand]

When ,based on the way I see the evidence, that an ss is right and I spread that info to public and you tell me its spreading misinformation then the burden of proof is on you.

Sorry, but you are incorrect.
You use one, you represent to the public that they were used, then the burden lies with you. All I say is that there is no evidence for their use. I can't provide evidence that they DID NOT exist, because there is NO evidence yet come to light to support their common use in the American Colonies in the 18th and most of the 19th century (I still can't prove a negative, though you can disprove a negative).

The burden still is yours...

 

[Bon Sauvage]

Gentlemen; what say we all just drop the subject?

 

[Claude Mathis]

Gentlemen; what say we all just drop the subject?

Anyone wishing to drop it, can simply not post. That's how you drop it. :wink:

 

[flm_shooter]

I just got through looking through the 1813 Handbook For Riflemen.
Link Handbook for Riflemen

This was a military guide for the rifle corps in The United States Army. This is the earliest known instruction manual that I know of concerning rifles in the US Army. In detail it describes movements, loading and carry of the rifle. It describes the patch in great detail. It describes the pouch, cartridge box, cleaning brush, knapsack, flask, measure,ball,tool punch for wads and patches,loading from the cartridge and loading loose ball. Nowhere does it mention the short starter or the use of a tool of any kind in the loading steps or any provision of such as equipment. This manual gets down to socks and underwear but does not mention a tool deemed by many as essential. :hmm:

Wow, great link. I just started reading it.

I've been on the fence, 'cause I like short starters. But man, if the military manuals don't mention it, (in triplicate, with carbons, by number...) I find it very hard to believe it existed.

 

[Zonie]

Interesting reading, that "Handbook for Riflemen".

So far I've made it to page 75 but so far I only found loading and firing instructions for the "rifle" on pages 40-42.

These were addressing loading from a paper cartridge and beyond the powder and a wad there was no mention of using a patch of any kind.

Of course loading without a patch that would interfere with starting the ball does allow them to simply ram the load with nothing more than a ramrod. In fact, they instruct the shooter to grab the ramrod at the upper end before ramming the load and driving the wad (and ball?) down the bore.
As we all know, this is not the way to load a patched ball with even a moderately loose patch fit in the bore.

I did get a chuckle out of the idea that the target should be at least 5 feet wide X 5 feet tall so the shooters wouldn't get depressed about missing it. :grin:

Perhaps there is more information later on in the book? If so, please let me know so I can jump over all of the parade marching instructions.

 

[54ball]

Zonie,
It's the last chapter, chapter VIII pages 95-98.

 

[Wes/Tex]

I've been on the fence, 'cause I like short starters. But man, if the military manuals don't mention it, (in triplicate, with carbons, by number...) I find it very hard to believe it existed.

Just to cloud the issue further, I've got the first American translation of the Danish book "Alverdens Uniformer I Farver" by Politikens Forlag which illustrates a "carabinier" (Swiss Cantons in the west still used French military terminology) from the Vaud Canton as he would have appeared in 1847. He wears the traditional green uniform of 'light troops' and has a brass trimmed, wooden mallet slug in loops on the outside of his cartridge box. Some early German "jeagers" did likewise, but they were hammering bare lead balls down rifle bores without the benefit of patch...whether the Swiss were doing likewise isn't specifically noted. Appears the mallet handle could sub for a short-starter while the mallet allowed Jean-Fritz to pound away on any stubborn ball. Given that fact, plus it not being an American military source just adds to the confusion but proves it wasn't exactly an unknown behavior with rifle troops.

 

[roundball]

Of course loading without a patch that would interfere with starting the ball does allow them to simply ram the load with nothing more than a ramrod. In fact, they instruct the shooter to grab the ramrod at the upper end before ramming the load and driving the wad (and ball?) down the bore.
As we all know, this is not the way to load a patched ball with even a moderately loose patch fit in the bore.

:hmm:
Pretty strong generalization there...it must be based on an assumption that they (and everybody) uses weak, flimsy wooden ramrods. They may have been using strong metal ramrods (as I do) and seat the load right on down (as I do).

 

[Black Hand]

The military guns were known for ther metal rammers...and were primarily smooth-bores.

 

[Black Hand]

These were addressing loading from a paper cartridge and beyond the powder and a wad there was no mention of using a patch of any kind.

The paper of the cartridge served as the wadding/patching/gas seal. A separate patch was unnecessary.

 

[Coot]

There is a natural tendency to bias our opinions based on our personal experiences and interests which may or may not be typical. In the case of ramrods (since this is historical thread, we will ignore modern range rods) the two choices for material in British North America are wood -typically hickory, and steel. Military arms were going over to steel ramrods well before they were being rifled - Brown Bess muskets going to steel ramrods in the later 1740s I believe. The first production US military rifle was the 1803 which had a steel ramrod as did the Springfield musket which preceded it in 1795. I am unaware of any issue military rifles equipped with wood ramrods. Therefore, it seems pretty safe to assume that any US or British military muzzleloading manual from the 19th century is basing loading instructions on the use of steel ramrods. On the other hand, I have not seen any original American longrifles made to carry anything but a wood ramrod. Thus I assume that descriptions of loading a longrifle are addressing the use of a wood ramrod.

 

[Dean2]

I agree with Claude. If you aren't interested don't read or post. that said, this is about as useful as arguing over how many angles can dance on the head of a pin, but it is HIGHLY entertaining to see the verve and passion displayed on such an innocuous bit of historical trivia.

i am really enjoying reading this and the book link posted was well worth the time. Great reading.

 

[Black Hand]

...innocuous bit of historical trivia.

The devil IS in the details...

 

[roundball]

Forums have become all part of the hobby and most would agree that's a good thing.

Yet human nature being what it is, it's always interesting to find such strong passionate opinions on various historical issues such 'short starter use' or 'ramrod material'.....yet while all along building or buying our long guns consisting of components made from our modern day high tech manufacturing such as our barrels, locks, triggers, sights, furniture, stains, varnish, using power saws, power drills, dial calipers, micrometers, etc.
:hmm:

 

[Black Hand]

Minor distinctions at best. A saw still saws, a drill still drills, a caliper still measures, a stain still stains and a varnish still varnishes. The issue of materials is irrelevant as well, i.e. whether modern steel or wrought iron, a barrel (lock, etc.) still functions as a barrel (lock, etc.). The parts were manufactured by specialists (as they are today), purchased and assembled by specialists (as they are today). I'd have a problem if the guns were totally built and assembled by robots, but they aren't. The only thing that the modern methods have truly improved upon are with respect to manufacturing/labor time (and some materials).

 

[jdkerstetter]

Yet human nature being what it is....

....you can't help going off topic to :stir: again on what has proven to be a very contentious topic here in the past. One that has resulting in some getting themselves banned as the resulting fire was continuously stoked by others until it grew out of control.:shake:

Perhaps we should just abandon even trying to reproduce historical artifacts since the suppliers of the raw materials refuse to cooperate by operating their factories with no OSHA standards and forgoing the water whell for electricity. The cotton, hemp and trees harvested by machines, etc.

Perhaps we should just give up reenacting because we drive to events in modern vehicles. After all we can't be properly reecacting the past if we don't live that way everyday.

Perhaps we should abandon all aspects of historical recreation because the written history is incomplete and slanted by the bias of the period recorders.

Perhaps it's fine to keep inner thoughts on the irony of a subject bottled up when you know, or should, how they will be received. :wink: Enjoy, J.D.