|
Post by spence on Jan 27, 2020 17:21:00 GMT -7
Yeah. And this a little later in this country: “Practical Instructions for Military Officers, for the District of Massachusetts”, Epaphras Hoyt, published 1811 pg. 112 As the thickness of the barrel necessarily renders the rifle heavy, the wooden rod is recommended in preference to the iron one; this, with a small wooden mallet, the handle of which must be suited to the bore of the rifle and about twelve inches in length, with which every rifleman should be provided, will enable him to load his piece with facility. Manual of Arms Loading Instructions: VI. Drive Ball! One Compound Motion Bring up the mallet, flipping the finger from the ball, and with one or two strokes drive the ball into the muzzle; with a quick motion, place the end of the handle upon the ball and grasp it with the thumb and finger of the left hand, and with a few smart strokes upon the mallet with the right hand, drive the ball down the full length of the handle; instantly return the mallet to its sheath … Spence
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2020 23:10:35 GMT -7
Yeah. That's the one I was referring to, I was having trouble uploading the picture.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 30, 2020 8:54:16 GMT -7
Though a foot long "mallet" or short starter would work well, it sure wouldn't fit into the extant 18th century pouches.
Is this the answer to why there is no evidence of short starters used in the 18th century and this example of early 19th century, purely because they didn't need one?
Prior to his untimely passing, Chuck Edwards mentioned on the other forum that he used "modern" fitting balls of only .005" to .010" under bore size and brain tan buckskin as patches. He said he had no problems getting the ball started with them and without a short starter.
Gus
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 30, 2020 11:50:37 GMT -7
Guns vary, balls vary, patching varies. The one thing that seems to be obvious is that in the 18th century they didn't load their patch/ball combinations as tightly as we do today. Thereby eliminating the need for a starter.
I know from my own shooting, hunting and plinking that one can sacrifice a lot of "tightness" and still make his shot count.
|
|
Keith
City-dweller
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 990
|
Post by Keith on Jan 30, 2020 16:47:45 GMT -7
For practical reasons I don't think that woodsmen would have used a tight fitting patch & ball. Smoothbores did not use a patch, rifles in the early days did not use a patch. A tight fitting lead ball was driven down the barrel with rod & hammer. The following information is taken from AN ESSAY ON SHOOTING 1789. There is mention of driving an unpatched ball down the barrel using an iron rammer, but there is no mention of using anything but the ramrod for loading a patched ball.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 30, 2020 22:21:18 GMT -7
Ah, Cleator's book, it does answer the question about round pre-cut patches though.
|
|