Pre-cut patches, or cutting patches at the muzzle?

[Robby]

Charlie, If you go back, there are some quotes from the past. Both methods are historically acceptable.
Robby

 

[tg]

I thought I saw several references to period practices as well as things that remained in the boxes that were sugestive, bias is normal and acceptable as long as it is in relation to an interpretation of period information, for a question as the OP's personal bias or preference or opinion as to what is best really has no bearing or place in the equation, it comes back to the "why" folks feel the need to respond when they have nothing relevant to the question to add to the exchange.

Original question for poll

"Which saw more widespread use, was more commonplace on a country wide scale back in the day?

Pre-cut patches or cutting patches at the muzzle?"

Nothing here is soliciting personal opinions on the matter, or which was more accurate or easier, yet probably 90% of the replys were of the non reference/period information type.Is there a problem in understanding the concept of a question that requires some period/historical information base?

These post can take on a life of theri own as the subject matter is hammered here is one description of the original question, which i have posted abovem check out thetwo for comparison...

"Precuts may be quicker if you have them already in hand but the original question was about "patch boxes"."

How does that old song go? "is anybody out there?"......

Things would run a lot smoother if when historical based questions arise that those with no historical interest of knowledge find another topic to envolve themselves in. :idunno:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

You better go read the first post again. A patch box was never mentioned.

I didn't bring it up, or accuracy, or anything else I seem to be getting blamed for. The thread wandered away, because it was answered in the beginning.

Which is both methods were used, but nobody knows for sure which was used more. That was the original question.

For the record, I didn't vote for cutting at the muzzle as the most popular, because NOBODY knows that. I simple said I like doing it, because I like to do it, and it's easier for me than trying to line up a precut.

When it went to accuracy. I simple quoted Dutch. If you don't think cutting at the muzzle is more accurate. Take it up with Dutch. I didn't say it.

I will say one thing for the record. I can cut at the muzzle faster than fiddling with a precut. That doesn't mean you all can. I only speak for myself.

Some need to read the whole thread to see how things evolved. I almost always respond to being quoted. Even if it goes off topic.

 

[LRB]

Their left hand, and sand! Very common among peoples in dry country with no vegetation.

 

[David W.]

I have read that cutting the patch at the muzzle will make perfectly round patches. I don't belive that.

Actually, a better term would be perfectly surrounded, not perfectly round.

 

[DanC]

This was not a "history" poll, as it is too general and asked in a way that solicits opinion more than "history." History is speific, the OP was vague to the point of no boundries. Most of us who answered based on our opinions labeled it as such. I (as I suspect most) answered in the spirit of what we percieved to be a light hearted post. Guess I (we) were wrong ...

So here is a suggestion- if you want historical accuracy, say so. Give us a specific time (or period) and place (or region), and ask what they did.

Now, if you want to know what happens when you cut at the muzzle, here is another suggestion- do as I did today and go try for yourself. I actually did go out today and shoot some reduced loads to see just how some of the things said here panned out. Not to prove me or them right or wrong, just to see. The truth of the matter ..., well, that's another post.

Dan

 

[DanC]

No, you won't get a round patch by cutting at the muzzle. A flat cannot be formed into a half sphere without wrinkling and folding. Recovered patches are more like a square with rounded corners. But I wouldn't carry those in a patchbox either. :haha:

You're gonna make me work for this, aren'cha?

OK, so "cutting a patch at the muzzle will make a rounded patch, perfectly centered on the ball."

Well, I been workin', lookin' for patches in gusting winds and intermittent rain. The truth is the patches , while rounded, are pretty square. I shot a reduced load (30 gr T7) so the patches did not fray away as bad as usual (80-90 gr) so I got a good look at the shape, as well as how centered and how jaged the cut.

I didn't flatten them out, so there is some distortion in the pic. But clearly, while the corners are well rounded the patches are decidedly square.

They are not, however, flat or jagged edged, hacked or otherwise malformed. With a sharp knife and reasonable care you can get a good patch every time.

As to the "fuss factor" cutting at the muzzle adds, I'd say it is minimal at most. It's a fussy thing shooting smoke polls, any way you do it. I find it just as fussy to precut a bunch as to slice individuals at the muzzle (and I do both).

So, in the midst of all the arguin' and distortions of facts and opinions, there is truth to be found. Not sayin' I'm the "True Guardian of Things True", just that I went and tried it and found out a few things- and adjusted my view of what is really happening accordingly. Found I was right about some things, but danged if I wasn't
(strains really hard) "wro-n-n-n ... not really all the way right" about at least one thing.

Dan

Edit: that top left patch was with a heavier (still not full) load, 60 gr. Forgot to say that ...

 

[LRB]

One can make about 400 pre-cut round patches in less than an hour using a modified hole saw blade in a drill press. I fold my material to get 8 to 10 per stroke. Very easily done, and less waste than cutting at the muzzle.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Patch material is probably the cheapest item in ML for me. The little extra used to cut at muzzle is really a non issue.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

WOW! Who'd have thought this could run to seven pages and still going? :haha:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

That's what happens when we can't hunt Joe.

I'm getting tired of just scouting.

 

[tg]

"This was not a "history" poll, as it is too general and asked in a way that solicits opinion more than "history."

It seemed petty much aimed at asking how it was domne in the past raher directly I saw no confusion in the wording of the question, but you will most often find that no matter how specific a queation is asked with PC/HC as the focal point most replies are opinion or the favorite standby ( they had to be smart enough to know/do that?)anywhos, enough for me now, I would not venture to put my meager understanding of these things in the same realm as the majority of those who reply to most of the history based questions, I do not have the background or data base to compete with "woulda,coulda" I can only say with some certainty that we are not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy, and TOTO is Monkey poop.

 

[CoyoteJoe]

One can make about 400 pre-cut round patches in less than an hour using a modified hole saw blade in a drill press. I fold my material to get 8 to 10 per stroke. Very easily done, and less waste than cutting at the muzzle.

Less waste? I doubt it. I'm the frugal sort, waste not want not. I cut my patching into strips only slightly wider than needed. Hang the strip from my pouch strap so that I don't have to dig into the bag for it. I pop the end of the strip into my mouth while pouring powder. Lay the wet end across the muzzle, start a ball and after cutting the patch there is little left of the cut end of the strip strip but random threads. With your percuts you must cut the patch considerably larger then needed and that is wasteful. Your method of mass production is nice but if you mess up one cut you've wasted 8 or 10 patches. If you leave extra room between cuts you've wasted more. I do believe it is more convinent for me to cut at the muzzle than to dig into the pouch, seperate one patch from the stack, pick off the loose threads, etc.
But I might try the "Hawkeye" method as demonstrated in "Last of the Mohicans", just need some silk, "silk? What the hell is silk?" :haha:
I not only can't believe this has gone on for 7 pages, I can't believe I'm still adding to it! :haha:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I don't see him asking how it was done. He asked which was used more often.

So, the assumption is, both methods were used.

Since I don't know which one was used more. I voted "I don't know".

I am sure that both methods were used though.

 

[David W.]

This was not a "history" poll, as it is too general and asked in a way that solicits opinion more than "history." History is speific, the OP was vague to the point of no boundries. Most of us who answered based on our opinions labeled it as such. I (as I suspect most) answered in the spirit of what we percieved to be a light hearted post. Guess I (we) were wrong ...

So here is a suggestion- if you want historical accuracy, say so. Give us a specific time (or period) and place (or region), and ask what they did.

Now, if you want to know what happens when you cut at the muzzle, here is another suggestion- do as I did today and go try for yourself. I actually did go out today and shoot some reduced loads to see just how some of the things said here panned out. Not to prove me or them right or wrong, just to see. The truth of the matter ..., well, that's another post.

Dan

I'm really having to scratch my balding head over that remark. I am looking for historical accuracy?????
Maybe you should go back and re-read my comment. Where did I mention history????? Did you confuse me with someone else, perhaps?????

What I said was, cutting at the muzzle will cause the patch to be even 360 deg around the ball. It will not be off centered as can happen when using a pre-cut patch. I think that's all I said.

Try cutting at the muzzle and see what happens for myself? I don't need to.

Yes, this post is (was) light-hearted, and still can be. :surrender: :thumbsup:

 

[DanC]

tg, a really smart man once said "if all you have is a hammer, then every problem starts to look like a nail."

Everything is not history. This was posted in an accessories area, not one of the history areas, and was so broad as to encompass more than a continent and several hundred years of shooting- including yesterday.

You are also putting statements on those who clearly labeled our answers as opinions that we never made. We are all aparently lumped together in your thinking, and what someone somewhere in the past said to you we are all guilty of.

I am glad you, and many others here have found a niche, a time and place in history that you focus on. The knowlege and experience all of you have is awesome, as well as interesting. But everyone isn't there. Some havn't found their place yet, others of us (like me) want to get closer to "traditional", but don't want a specific place in history. I'm like the original post- pretty broad based. I like to experiment, try different things. And I just love shooting BP.

So, please, don't just pigeon-hole me with everyone else that has ever disagreed with you. You'd be doing me, all of them, and possibly yourself a disservice.

Dan

 

[DanC]

I'm really having to scratch my balding head over that remark. I am looking for historical accuracy?????
Maybe you should go back and re-read my comment. Where did I mention history????? Did you confuse me with someone else, perhaps????? ... Yes, this post is (was) light-hearted, and still can be. :surrender: :thumbsup:

Apologies, flint. Wasn't intended to respond to you; you just happened to be the last poster. Was intended for those that have been railing at those of us who posted opinion instead of "history".

Dan

 

[DanC]

One can make about 400 pre-cut round patches in less than an hour using a modified hole saw blade in a drill press. I fold my material to get 8 to 10 per stroke. Very easily done, and less waste than cutting at the muzzle.

Don't know if I'd agree on the less waste part. Really good shootin' fabric is hard to come by here, and when I find a good rag you'd be surprised how many patches I can get out of it. But I'd shore be interested in the details of how you modified that hole saw. I'd suspect you ground the teeth down a bit and filed it sharp so you got a serrated blade??? Sharpen inside, outside, or both???



Dan

 

[lonehunter]

"I'd suspect you ground the teeth down a bit and filed it sharp so you got a serrated blade??? Sharpen inside, outside, or both???"

Grind flat, no serration. I believe just the outside is sharpened. Put it in a drill press with a piece of wood under the fabric and go to town, You can have hundreds of patches cut in no time.

I just started cutting mine square, still cant hit nothin so I can say that accuracy has not changed a bit! :wink:

 

[LRB]

You fold the material until you have 8 or 10 layers. Lay a piece of wood under the blade chucked in a drill press. Place the material on that, and lay another piece of wood on top that has a hole in it just larger than the saw blade. This keeps the cloth from moving when you cut. And then start cutting patches. You can cut as close as a quarter inch from your previous holes. The saw blade has the teeth ground off, then is beveled with a grinder, from the out side of the edge, then sharpened to a knife edge with a stone while spinning in the press. It helps to iron the cloth to make creases in the folds where you can get tight folds. The cheapo Chinese hole saw kits from Harbor Freight work fine for this. As I said, I can do around 400 in less than 1 hour. Any scrap large enough can stacked or re folded to get it all. Not my idea. Someone on this board posted the how to a few years back. I had tried before without much success. The top board with the hole is the secret to make it work. It is almost too easy.