Short Starters?!

[taylorh]

I'm not meaning to start a fight here, but I'm going to ask anyways... are short starters really historically accurate? I know there are examples of them existing. But really when it comes down to it, I just can't see many of our forefathers using ammo that was so close to the bore diameter when they had an enemy bearing down on them. I've heard losts of folks comment that they carried two sizes of ball. One for first shots, and another size for second shots. Sounds reasonable, but how many pioneers really practiced this. It would require two molds (not cheap), and a cool head to remember which ball was which, in the heat of battle. I think that if you are needing to hammer your balls down the shoot, than your probably experiencing a level accuracy not enjoyed by many of our predecessors. What do you think? Is it time to send short starters down the same path as blue enameled plates and all other historically inaccurate camp gear?
Taylor in Texas

 

[Swampman]

"Is it time to send short starters down the same path as blue enameled plates and all other historically inaccurate camp gear?"

Yes, it is. They cannot be documented and they aren't necessary.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

I think the tight patch craze has carried over form ML target shoots. IMHO, After the first shot, they simply would not have been practical in the real world of the era.

I have came around from the short starter route, no longer have or use them. Same with priming, use the same powder for main and priming charges.

 

[Ridge]

I've heard losts of folks comment that they carried two sizes of ball. One for first shots, and another size for second shots. Sounds reasonable,

Why would they go through all that trouble when they could just load a naked ball? (no patch)

 

[Swampman]

Lewis Wetzel would put several in his mouth and spit them down the barrel on the run. He killed a bunch of folks and lived to be an old man. :winking:

 

[twsteven]

I'd be interested in your source for Lewis Wetzel living to be an old man . According to the reading I have done, he died of yellow fever while in his early 40s.

 

[taylorh]

I tend to agree Swampman. I can see their place at black powder bench-shooting contests. Its not hard for me to believe that country gentlemen, shooting for a prize, would use such a device to give them an edge. But I thought the purpose of buckskinning was to relive history. I can't see the purpose of using them at all, in an effort to relive history, if they wern't in common use. I tend to think they probably shouldn't be used at all at any kind of buckskinning event. Sure, everyone would have to go to using a looser fitting ball, but no one would have any unfair advantage if we all gave them up, and we would be more accuratly be portraying our ancestors. What do you think?
Taylor in Texas

 

[Zonie]

From my readings, I must agree that the short starter was appearently not used in the old days.

I suspect the original guns were patched with a rather thick patch around a very undersize ball.
The thick patch would fill fairly deep grooves while the undersize ball would make ramming the ball easy.

I am not PC. I am not HC.

I enjoy precision target shooting with my roundball guns.

The best precision seems to be directly connected with tight fitting patch and ball combinations. This is especially true with most commercially made guns which have shallow rifleing grooves.

Do I use a short starter? Yes.

Do I like the accuracy I get with tight fitting patches and balls? Yes.

Am I going to stop using my short starter? No.

Am I going to keep recommending the use of tight patch and ball combinations and starting these with a short starter? Yes.

 

[Swampman]

"The best precision seems to be directly connected with tight fitting patch and ball combinations."

A lot of people think this. I've found it not to be the case.

 

[Swampman]

"In 1805, his name (Lewis Wetzel)reappears in the records as living with or near his cousin Philip Sycks in the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi. While there, in 1808, he fell ill and died, probably from yellow fever. He was just short of forty five years old."

45 was old for the time, trade, and location.

 

[charcloth]

Hey Swampman,

I must say that I am happy to have some one who agrees on this! I often shoot undersized balls with a thick patch and often shoot regular sizes without a patch. I have seen no difference in performance. Of course I shoot mostly at steel targets and game. Maybe one day I'll get bored of shooting and break out a dial caliper and a divider and go over old targets (but probably not).

Charcloth

 

[taylorh]

Agree...
Taylor in Texas

 

[JOHN L. HINNANT]

Greetings Texan and All,

I agree that in most cases, short starters were not GENERALLY carried by the old timers, but I have seen and have been told of some original short starters, by men whom I believe.

I think it would be very inaccurate to state that short starters WERE NEVER used.

Walter Cline in his book talks about the old riflemen using "bore size" balls and coned muzzles.

This is the one factor that seems to be commonly missing from todays modern muzzle loading rifles. After spending years examining original flintlocks and caplocks, I am of the opinion that most of the old rifles had coned muzzles.

For some time now, I have been experimenting with coning cut-offs of muzzle loading barrels in various calibers.

I have absolutely no doubt at this time that a bore size ball with tight patching can be easily loaded with only the wooden ramrod, if the muzzle is properly coned, and a well greased patch is used. A spit patch is considerably more difficult to load.

As I have already stated, I believe that muzzle coning is the one factor we are overlooking in the discussions about using or not using a tight patch/ball combination.

If the stories of the shooting skills of the old timers are to be believed, then I do not find it possible to believe they were shooting a ball several thousands of an inch under bore size, while using thick patch material to make up the difference.

The late William (Bill) Large stated more than once that most of the old original barrels that he rebored and rifled had coned muzzles.

By the way, in Lewis Wetzel's time. 40 to 45 years of age was considered to be elderly.

Best regards and good shooting,

John L. Hinnant

If you are not an NRA Member, why not? I am carrying your load.

 

John, I could'nt agree with you more!

 

[Swampman]

In this months Muzzleloader Magazine, Mike Nesbitt wrote an article called "Let's Not Get too Technical". It's really worth reading. Coning a muzzle is really easy and the tool cost $38.00.

 

[JOHN L. HINNANT]

Greetings Mr. Swampman,

Thanks for the tip. I will get a copy of that MuzzleLoader Magazine and read that article. It will probably end up in my files. Good information like that should be saved.

Some years back, I started going through my files, pulling out all of those saved magazine articles, putting them in plastic sheet protectors, and filing them by subject in 3-ring binders.

This has proven to be much handier than a folder in a file cabinet.

I have read Mike Nesbitt's material for a goodly number of years, and he generally has good information.

Again, thanks for the tip.

Best regards and good shooting,

John L. Hinnant

If you are not an NRA Member, why not? I am carrying your load.

 

[weirdjack]

In this months Muzzleloader Magazine, Mike Nesbitt wrote an article called "Let's Not Get too Technical". It's really worth reading.

And a great article is is too!
Personally, I plink. I load what many consider undersize balls and usually use .018" Walmart ticking lubed with olive oil. I do not use a short starter, nor have any difficulty loading round after round wihtout wiping the bore.
But then, five-shot-cloverleaves in the target are not my primary goal in shooting. I shoot to relax.
And since I can't shoot well enough to make any 5-shot pattern in a target any better with a tight ball/patch and short starter than I can with my normal easy loading combination....why bother? I get the same results from both and enjoy the easy-loading more.
Jack

 

[roundball]

In this months Muzzleloader Magazine, Mike Nesbitt wrote an article called "Let's Not Get too Technical". It's really worth reading.

And a great article is is too!
Personally, I plink. I load what many consider undersize balls and usually use .018" Walmart ticking lubed with olive oil. I do not use a short starter, nor have any difficulty loading round after round wihtout wiping the bore.
But then, five-shot-cloverleaves in the target are not my primary goal in shooting. I shoot to relax.
And since I can't shoot well enough to make any 5-shot pattern in a target any better with a tight ball/patch and short starter than I can with my normal easy loading combination....why bother? I get the same results from both and enjoy the easy-loading more.
Jack

That's sort of my take on it...I spent years doing all that with CF handloads...personally I just want to enjoy the simplicity of shooting flintlocks & PRB's for the sake of shooting them.

Mt benchmark is all shots in a 3" aimpoint sticker at 75yds while sitting as if I'm deer hunting...not going to get all wrapped up in applying modern reloading principles...can't imagine that was done "back in the day"...just my personal view
:v

 

[CrackStock]

It all comes down to what you want out of your shooting experience.

I understand that some get passable accuracy from a loose ball and thick patch, but if you are trying to attain Dutch's 50 point certificate, I think that you will find that a bigger ball is a better choice.

On the other hand, that would be a royal pain for a woodswalk or casual plinking. I mould both and then label them so I can grab what I need when I need it.

CS

 

[weirdjack]

I understand that some get passable accuracy from a loose ball and thick patch, but if you are trying to attain Dutch's 50 point certificate, I think that you will find that a bigger ball is a better choice.

Dutch smutch :smile: ... With all due respect to those who's life goal is to attain the hallowed 50P certificate for punching precisely placed holes in a piece of paper, I shoot my flinters to get away from the super-details I have to deal with daily in the real world.
The term "passable accuracy" seems to be used at times as a jab at those of us who have no desire whatsoever to attain certificates in order to validate our shooting enjoyment. Whacking a tin-can can be validation enough. Perhaps someone should make up a "50 Can Certificate" for us so we'll feel better about ourselves? :grin:
I actually get far more personal pleasure from the zen of the process of loading and firing a flintlock than I do from any score on the paper down range. I leave that sort of thing for the hammer whackers and peepsighters. Truth be told, the main reason I atttend club shoots is just to support the club by buying the targets. I don't keep score.
You know, the older I get, the less important "keeping score" in most areas of life becomes to me.
Jack