Help, I am in desperate need of ' context'

[Loyalist Dave]

The small priming horn filled with ffff powder was first used in 1930 because it is not historical.He also states that the 'short starter' has no historical context because none have ever been found

So you have a lot of advice about that particular book's paraphrased statement. Folks have not pointed out what a lot of us understand as obvious, and authors often omit the obvious as well...., here's what I would "understand" from whatever the author wrote that you paraphrased...,


The small priming horn filled with ffff powder was first used in 1930 because it is not historical. [as far as the author knows at the time of publishing] ..., the 'short starter' has no historical context [in the flintlock era] because none have ever been found [so far as folks know.... at the time the book was published].

Books are "static". What is published is frozen, while history and archaeology are not static in that more information comes to light as time passes, and further, old information gets re-interpreted. Alas sometimes, especially these days, folks re-interpret a LOT of history with a political agenda, which to my opinion is actually skewing the information rather than helping..., but that's for another thread in a different area of the forum.

But things thought wrong were later found to be correct. Two examples:
"Yellow was not color fast so yellow clothing faded over time" (Then why was it used in the Maryland flags over time? Flags fly during the daylight right?) They found some colorfast yellow dyes, available in Maryland made from vegetable materials and so the conclusion changed.
"The twisted wire two-tined fork isn't authentic as very few have ever been found" (Until somebody unearthed a large pile of the things at an historic site..., probably a box or bag of the things got dropped and covered by the mud).... conclusion changed.

The other thing to remember is there is a HUGE HUGE difference between "it's not Historically Correct" compared to "do you guys use X item".
For example. So far there is no accepted bullet board from the AWI or before. I use one anyway, AND although it is sacrilege to some..., I use it when I talk to tourists at historic events. It does a great job of holding a patched ball so the tourist can see what is meant when I explain how the rifle works to be so accurate over such a long distance AND it also illustrates to them as I explain that...,

..., the bullet board is NOT historical..., but it could be.... the tech was there, and there was nothing else needed, BUT we have never found any even though they are a good idea, but they are also wood and could've been damaged over time, but still, some we think should've survived, so even though we think it's obvious, sometimes folks just didn't invent the obvious. However, somebody could, tomorrow, find a bunch of them and voila, we'd change our conclusion...

So you can use something that's not right, if you place it in the right context.

LD

 

[tenngun]

Going along with that I came across a reference to patched ball in a smoothbore in 1847. It was in Russell’ Firearms Traps and tools of the Mountain Men.
Turns out Russell changed the quote. It didn’t change the meaning, but in spite of the quotation marks it wasn’t what the original author said. Russell paraphrased him.
While not unacceptable historians works are not gospel.
I have read several historians writing about battles that stated words to the effect that past one hundred yards Brown Bess balls fell uselessly to the ground. The historian writing the book confused lack of accuracy and effectiveness beyond a hundred yards for a lack energy.
A little research would have rendered these statements false, but even historians can get lazy.

 

[Historian]

I agree tenngun. As a historian too many do not question properly when it comes to primary and secondary source material let alone 3rd tier source material like Wikipedia. They simply accept. You can accept but one should make an attempt to verify. Especially if one intends to publish. That lesson was stressed and ingrained into to me early in my academic career.

 

[Celticstoneman]

I agree tenngun. As a historian too many do not question properly when it comes to primary and secondary source material let alone 3rd tier source material like Wikipedia. They simply accept. You can accept but one should make an attempt to verify. Especially if one intends to publish. That lesson was stressed and ingrained into to me early in my academic career.

Historian,
I remember a quote about Academia " publish or perish" . I believe that the pressure to publish or merely earn A living can force sloppy work or lax research.
John

 

[FishDFly]

Well deserving of a very large "like".

 

[Historian]

Yes, Publish or Perish, so true and in today's Revisionist History culture that actually means the Mob Rules.

 

[Red Owl]

Oh boy, now we're in it. I am a big fan of commonality. There was a loading block found with '1776" scribbled on it. EVIDENCE that loading blocks were used. I've also seen small "priming" horns. Did they actually hold "Priming" powder or were they just small horns for a day's shooting. Who knows?
I like the mountain man era and one thing I have found is a huge variety of rifles. Not a situation of Remington, or Winchester, or Ruger. Every firearm found seems to be a one of a kind item. YES there are some major makers that show up more often but the vast majority of firearms are these one of a kinds. Does that mean I support running off and making whatever you want and put it under a "one of a kind"? No, we ought to copy what was (IMHO) but there is a huge amount of unknowns. Try finding original pre-1800 pocket knives- not many.
So...back to your question. From my reading, it seems reloading was done MOST COMMONLY with the horn (not safe), same powder in the pan, and a "thumb" pressure to push in the ball- must have been a looser fit.

 

[Notchy Bob]

That bullet board has 12 holes by my count. Why would a hunter need that many bullets in his bullet board? My speculation it was for hunting squirrels as that's the only game I've ever heard of one could get that many shots fired on in a single day. Now by my speculation, this also means the bullet board dates to when both powder and lead became cheap enough to shoot squirrels that much. That would mean the early 19th century at the soonest and probably from around the 1820's onward.

Gus

The bullet board that Gus mentions here is the one shown with the David Cooke collection pictured in post #25. Gus makes a strong point with solid reasoning based on historical knowledge and personal experience, and I would not contest it. However, I guess the bottom line is that we are engaging in "informed speculation," which is a term coined by the late Farley Mowat. We could take that speculation in a different direction.

In looking at the David Cooke collection, I see a very large hunting pouch. It is my understanding that all of the associated items were found within it. The write-up on the Contemporary Makers Blogspot (link provided in post #25) tells us Mr. Cooke was a professional hunter, and his rifle (which was kept with all of these accoutrements, and is still in its original flintlock configuration) was .45 caliber. This was considered fully adequate for big game, including deer and bear, and possibly elk. What I'm getting at is that as a professional hunter, Mr. Cooke may have spent days at a time away from home and in the woods. If he carried all of that plunder in his pouch, the purpose of the bullet board may have not been "fast" reloading, but just a way to keep his ammunition supply organized while he was out. Pulling that block out of the sack would have been a lot easier than groping around for a single round ball and a single patch. He could also "inventory" his ammunition supply at a glance. I have read original accounts of hunters being surprised by running out of balls, either due to spillage (less likely with balls in the bullet board) or failure to keep track.

For fast reloads, at least some old-timers would use a bare ball. J.R. Mead, an old-time plainsman who hunted big game in the 1850's and 1860's with muzzleloaders shooting patched round balls, specifically mentioned reloading with bare balls in his memoir.

Getting back to Mr. Cooke, we wonder exactly how he used that bullet board, if he just rammed through it with his ramrod. With a nod of acknowledgement to @tenngun , we know now that the "straight starter" was not invented until 1974.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[kje54]

You can think that if you want. But you'd be wrong. There are plenty of people who thoroughly enjoy the research and process of trying to experience as closely as they can, the experiences of our forefathers.

The only disillusion is from all the critics who say it's impossible so why try, who make up b.s. excuses to encourage new people with the interest to accept items that have no support for use in the time period.

Does this mean I can't use an 1873 Springfield trapdoor carbine to fight Confederates? They did it in The Horse Soldiers............

 

[Artificer]

What I'm getting at is that as a professional hunter, Mr. Cooke may have spent days at a time away from home and in the woods. If he carried all of that plunder in his pouch, the purpose of the bullet board may have not been "fast" reloading, but just a way to keep his ammunition supply organized while he was out. Pulling that block out of the sack would have been a lot easier than groping around for a single round ball and a single patch. He could also "inventory" his ammunition supply at a glance. I have read original accounts of hunters being surprised by running out of balls, either due to spillage (less likely with balls in the bullet board) or failure to keep track.

Notchy Bob

One can't rule out different ideas that have a plausible explanation and I very much agree it looks like this kit was set up for a numbers of days in the field at a time.

However, it appears that bullet block was still attached to the strap and there was an additional bullet pouch in the bag that looks to have carried as many or more bullets than in the bullet block. So the balls in the bullet block seem to have been there for use as a "ready supply" for hunting during the day, while the balls in the pouch were his back up reserves.

OR, the article does not say if there were actually any balls found in the bullet pouch, so is there another reason for it? Could Mr. Cooke have filled it with bird shot to use in his rifle along with the Quail Call shown to take Quail for his supper when out for a long period? While a rifle barrel might not have given the best pattern for bird shot, it would have been adequate at short range and especially if the Quail was sleeping.

One thing we might say is Mr. Cooke won the historic award for the best known example of "everything in the pouch EXCEPT the kitchen sink." However, there seems to be an important thing missing?

Others have suggested all that "Stuff" in the pouch was not actually carried by Mr. Cooke in the pouch in the field, but rather he kept all his "huntin' stuff" in the pouch at home to keep everything together and took a lot of items out and carried them in his waist coat and jacket, or perhaps an additional bag or poke, while in the field. To me that is very plausible because I'm not so sure one would want to be in a hurry jamming one's hand into that pouch with all the pointy things inside.

Gus

P.S. Anyone guess what seems to have been obviously omitted in all that stuff in the pouch?

What about a flint and steel kit or even a box or container of "Lucifers" (matches) that came out well before Mr. Cooke passed away, to start his cooking fire/s?

 

[Grenadier1758]

Mr. Cooke didn't need a flint and steel fire starting kit. He had one on the side of his rifle.

 

[Artificer]

Mr. Cooke didn't need a flint and steel fire starting kit. He had one on the side of his rifle.

Good point and I know we have read of folks using a feather or thorn to block the vent hole to start a fire with just the lock and pan, and with a load still in the barrel. I'm not so sure I would ever do it, but it was done.

Gus

 

[longcruise]

Getting back to Mr. Cooke, we wonder exactly how he used that bullet board, if he just rammed through it with his ramrod.

Many of those old guns were coned. Many a present day shooter loads a coned barrel without a starter.

A loading block with 1776 whittled in it could have been whittled in 1976 or 1933 or ????. It could have been whittled as the owners idea of commemorating that year.

I love all this history stuff. I love reading and hearing speculative explanations for the known and unknown. But I'm a skeptic regarding everything in life, past present and future.

That's why I don't engage in re-enactment.

 

[Celticstoneman]

Mr. Cooke didn't need a flint and steel fire starting kit. He had one on the side of his rifle.

Grenadier,
I like your comment but it gives me pause. Several times in our forum I have read comments about spare flints being carried or the flint in the musket needing replacement or even that a frizzen was wearing out flints quickly. Then there seems to me that one considers the normal rate of wear on a flint. Would a fella in the field say, Mr. Cooke, risk using his musket flint to start a fire?
John

 

[Artificer]

Grenadier,
I like your comment but it gives me pause. Several times in our forum I have read comments about spare flints being carried or the flint in the musket needing replacement or even that a frizzen was wearing out flints quickly. Then there seems to me that one considers the normal rate of wear on a flint. Would a fella in the field say, Mr. Cooke, risk using his musket flint to start a fire?
John

You hit on something else missing from the pouch, at least one or two spare flints. However, it is possible the spare flints were used up or thrown away later on by Mr. Cooke's descendants.

Edited to add: With at least one or two spare flints, there would not have been a problem starting one or a few day's fires with his lock.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

BTW, my comment about shooting a sleeping Quail was not in jest. A hunter who lived by his rifle or gun didn't worry about being sporting when he was hungry or a different meal was offered by nature.

Though I lost the documentation two computers ago, there was an interesting story I had from about 1760 from one of the New England States. I think it was Connecticut, but not entirely sure. It seems the farmer spotted turkeys roosting in a tree after sun down. He returned home to his cabin, got up before light the next morning, got his gun and went back to the tree. At first light he took the Turkey while it was still nesting in the tree and had it for supper that evening.

Gus

 

[Sidney Smith]

BTW, my comment about shooting a sleeping Quail was not in jest. A hunter who lived by his rifle or gun didn't worry about being sporting when he was hungry or a different meal was offered by nature.

Though I lost the documentation two computers ago, there was an interesting story I had from about 1760 from one of the New England States. I think it was Connecticut, but not entirely sure. It seems the farmer spotted turkeys roosting in a tree after sun down. He returned home to his cabin, got up before light the next morning, got his gun and went back to the tree. At first light he took the Turkey while it was still nesting in the tree and had it for supper that evening.

Gus

Hunting turkeys like the man in the above story, still takes place today. It's not illegal, at least here in Pa to shoot a turkey off its roost, but it's also frowned upon and considered unsportsmanlike.

However, I can fully understand the decision of the man in the story. If it meant bringing the family home a meal, or going hungry, most I think would vote for the former, and take the same action. I know I would.

 

[Brokennock]

Does this mean I can't use an 1873 Springfield trapdoor carbine to fight Confederates? They did it in The Horse Soldiers............

Wouldn't know. Almost 100 years later than my period of interest.

 

[kje54]

Wouldn't know. Almost 100 years later than my period of interest.

**sigh**

 

[Stantheman86]

My theory which is basically worthless, is that tight fitting ball/patch combos weren't used in the original period and rifling was cut by hand, not like todays' reproductions so the ball and patch was started with the rod and either cut or a precut square patch was used.

The Mississippi rifle was used with balls with a patch sewn around them and I have never read about the Riflemen using any short starters, the ramrod was heavy steel and designed to be used to push the ball down .

Some people stress about absolute Historical Correctness while shooting modern Italian made reproductions. I can only see an absolute desire to adhere to HC if you're shooting an original rifle and you want to do it "right" but no one knows what is actually "right" anyway.

I've never seen an original cased Pistol set that included a Short Starter