|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 24, 2020 11:04:24 GMT -7
James Audubon, c1810, describing his host preparing to go raccoon hunting:
He blows through his rifle to ascertain that it is clear, examines his flint, and thrusts a feather into the touch-hole. To a leathern bag swung at his side is attached a powder-horn; his sheath-knife is there also; below hangs a narrow strip of homespun linen. He takes from his bag a bullet, pulls with his teeth the wooden stopper from his powder-horn, lays the ball in one hand, and with the other pours the powder upon it until it is just overtopped. Raising the horn to his mouth, he again closes it with the stopper, and restores it to its place. He introduces the powder into the tube; springs the box of his gun, greases the "patch" over with some melted tallow, or damps it; then places it on the honey-combed muzzle of his piece. The bullet is placed on the patch over the bore, and pressed with the handle of the knife, which now trims the edge of the linen. The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded. The rifle leaps as it were into the hunters arms, the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed. “Now I’m ready,” cries the woodsman….
Journals, Vol. 2, (1972 reprint), page 492.
OK, I mentioned to Brokennock this quote rates more discussion, so I decided to put it here.
First of all, I think it important to take note of the fact the hunter was going after racoon. I hunted many of those critters and took 47 of 49 of them with a single shot from a .22 long rifle cartridge in a Ruger Mark I Government Target Pistol, so it doesn't take a seriously heavy load to take them. I'm not entirely sure how much powder would have "just overtopped" the ball, though.
Next, there is no mention of a short starter. Instead, the ball is pushed down into the bore by being "pressed with the handle of the knife."
Next, he "trims the edge of the linen," or what we refer to cutting the patch at the muzzle.
Next he uses the ramrod "held with both hands" to push the ball down the bore.
Not sure why he "rebounded" the ramrod three times after pushing the ball "the ball to its bed." I wonder if instead the author meant to describe pushing the ball down a little ways and then repositioning the hands a couple more times as he pushed the ball all the way down? I know some people like to bounce the ramrod after the ball is pushed all the way down, but I never understood the reason for it.
This last part to me is especially telling, "the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed." In effect, the rifle has a large hole that some describe as a "self priming" touch hole. We don't often see touch holes that are either drilled way oversize or have "burnt out" to a large size, because we use Steel barrels that are much tougher than Iron Barrels still in use at this time. The soft Iron barrels wore out faster in the rifling/bore and of course burned out faster in the touch hole than modern steel barrels.
Of course keeping the feather in the touch hole ensured the touch hole would not be filled with powder from loading the barrel. I have never tried to "stop up" a touch hole this way to keep powder out of the touch hole. I wonder if plugging the touch hole came as a result of shooting/hunting in wet or very humid weather that could have cause the touch hole to be clogged?
What do you all think?
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 24, 2020 14:18:11 GMT -7
As an OT aside... you won't catch me blowing down a barrel I've just taken off the wall. I've blown down many, but only immediately after I have fired it.
Bouncing the ramrod was very common and popular when I got into the game in the 1970s. I did it for a while, because I was told that was the proper way, but soon decided I didn't think it worthwhile. The only idea I ever had about the efficacy of it was that possibly it swaged the ball a little, forming it into a short cylinder which would be stabilized by the rifling. That would be in a rifle, of course, but the only [very late] period reference I ever found mentioning it concerned a shotgun, which really makes no sense.
Many old authors cautioned against crushing the powder, and bouncing certainly would do that, it seems to me. Still, I knew a lot of crack shots who swore by it.
A Turkey Hunt, by David Dodge, Outing Magazine, Vol 27, October 1895 to March 1896
"The loading proceeded with the greatest deliberation. Matt had his own notions about loading a gun and believed that his way was the only sure one for turkey. The charges had to be measured with extreme nicety, a certain sized shot unmixed with any others, and hornet’s-nest wadding had to be used. The last wad had always to be rammed till the ramrod had bounced out of the barrel seven times."
BTW, that's also the only period reference I've ever found to the use of hornet's nest wadding.
The author obviously was familiar with hunting with muzzleloaders, but I have strong suspicions the tale is fiction, so what does that do to its worth as a reference?
I've run across a few mentions of plugging the touchhole with a feather, then removing it so the pan would fill. I would think that required a touchhole much bigger than optimal. I have an old original with a touchhole like that. I've never plugged it when loading, but it does require a larger than expected charge.
Spence
|
|
Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002 
|
Post by Keith on Jan 24, 2020 15:02:52 GMT -7
James Audubon, c1810, describing his host preparing to go raccoon hunting: He blows through his rifle to ascertain that it is clear, examines his flint, and thrusts a feather into the touch-hole. To a leathern bag swung at his side is attached a powder-horn; his sheath-knife is there also; below hangs a narrow strip of homespun linen. He takes from his bag a bullet, pulls with his teeth the wooden stopper from his powder-horn, lays the ball in one hand, and with the other pours the powder upon it until it is just overtopped. Raising the horn to his mouth, he again closes it with the stopper, and restores it to its place. He introduces the powder into the tube; springs the box of his gun, greases the "patch" over with some melted tallow, or damps it; then places it on the honey-combed muzzle of his piece. The bullet is placed on the patch over the bore, and pressed with the handle of the knife, which now trims the edge of the linen. The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded. The rifle leaps as it were into the hunters arms, the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed. “Now I’m ready,” cries the woodsman…. Journals, Vol. 2, (1972 reprint), page 492. OK, I mentioned to Brokennock this quote rates more discussion, so I decided to put it here. First of all, I think it important to take note of the fact the hunter was going after racoon. I hunted many of those critters and took 47 of 49 of them with a single shot from a .22 long rifle cartridge in a Ruger Mark I Government Target Pistol, so it doesn't take a seriously heavy load to take them. I'm not entirely sure how much powder would have "just overtopped" the ball, though. Next, there is no mention of a short starter. Instead, the ball is pushed down into the bore by being "pressed with the handle of the knife." Next, he "trims the edge of the linen," or what we refer to cutting the patch at the muzzle. Next he uses the ramrod "held with both hands" to push the ball down the bore. Not sure why he "rebounded" the ramrod three times after pushing the ball "the ball to its bed." I wonder if instead the author meant to describe pushing the ball down a little ways and then repositioning the hands a couple more times as he pushed the ball all the way down? I know some people like to bounce the ramrod after the ball is pushed all the way down, but I never understood the reason for it. This last part to me is especially telling, "the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed." In effect, the rifle has a large hole that some describe as a "self priming" touch hole. We don't often see touch holes that are either drilled way oversize or have "burnt out" to a large size, because we use Steel barrels that are much tougher than Iron Barrels still in use at this time. The soft Iron barrels wore out faster in the rifling/bore and of course burned out faster in the touch hole than modern steel barrels. Of course keeping the feather in the touch hole ensured the touch hole would not be filled with powder from loading the barrel. I have never tried to "stop up" a touch hole this way to keep powder out of the touch hole. I wonder if plugging the touch hole came as a result of shooting/hunting in wet or very humid weather that could have cause the touch hole to be clogged? What do you all think? Gus If you drop the ramrod on a ball that is not properly seated, it will NOT bounce, so this is merely a way of testing if the ball is properly seated or not. With a flintlock, if the touch hole is full of gunpowder, it can act as a fuse. When the powder in the pan ignites, you get a slight delay as the fire has to burn its way through the powder in the touch hole before it can reach the main charge. The quill stops the touch hole from becoming blocked with gunpowder during loading.  Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jan 24, 2020 15:07:16 GMT -7
Okay, I'm a li'l dense. "Pork brained," some would say. I never picked up on the phrasing being such to denote that the shooter was not taking the feather out, then, priming the pan, but was in fact plugging the hole to keep it from self priming too early. Having had a few of the ignition issues so common to new flintlock shooters, I started leaving my touch/flash hole plugged while loading, pulling the plug when ready to prime, and proceeding to shoot or hunt. I have not had an ignition issue since, and, ignition seems faster (but we all know the studies say this can be an illusion).
I've often wondered if the bouncing of the ramrod was once a test, for someone, that was subjective and comparative, t convince themselves that the ball was seated properly. Kind of of like bouncing a quarter on a freshly made rack/bed to make sure all is tight enough. So, old Ephraim bounces his ramrod off the loaded ball knowing that if the ball is seated just so, the rod bounces a certain height with a certain amount of force, maybe with a certain sound(?) And is satisfied his gun is properly loaded at this point. (Please note, I am not trying to lend credence to his practice, but, he thinks it works for him)
Well, young Josiah sees his mentor and idol, old Uncle Ephraim, doing this so he does it too. One day Josiah outshoots his buddy, who doesn't do this, while shooting at marks, his buddy adopts the practice. And from here it spreads. Maybe Uncle told Josiah what to look and listen for, but, at some point it became "monkey see, monkey do," and the practice went viral with no one else knowing what old Ephraim was about.
Just a theory.
(Always good to remember too, we shooters/hunters/fishermen, are a superstitious lot)
Note: apparantly I wrote all that as Keith was finishing his post. Some similar ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Jan 25, 2020 8:32:50 GMT -7
Bouncing seems to ensure the ball is fully-seated. I have had a few occasions when shooting (in hot, dry weather) that ramming the ball home until it stopped actually left the ball a little short of the powder due to a fouling ring. Doing a bounce test tells you whether or not you are fully seated. Admittedly, I don't bounce it a full 7 times - a single usually does the trick, but the sound tells me if I'm fully seated.
As to deformation, I'm not certain it makes too much difference if the round ball is slightly dented. If it was a pointed bullet, I'd be more concerned, but a roundball seems to rotate in flight due to friction on the ball surface and it is unlikely that what was the front when loading is no longer the front upon impact (other than by chance). I'm of the opinion that if one is consistent in loading and the ball goes where you are aiming, it really doesn't matter how or why something is done...
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 25, 2020 10:54:40 GMT -7
If you drop the ramrod on a ball that is not properly seated, it will NOT bounce, so this is merely a way of testing if the ball is properly seated or not. With a flintlock, if the touch hole is full of gunpowder, it can act as a fuse. When the powder in the pan ignites, you get a slight delay as the fire has to burn its way through the powder in the touch hole before it can reach the main charge. The quill stops the touch hole from becoming blocked with gunpowder during loading. Keith. Thank you. I never trusted "bouncing the ramrod" to ensure the ball was all the way down, so I didn't know that. Rather, I used not only the feel of the ball being down on the powder, but also marked my ramrods to ensure it. I agree a touch hole filled with powder or residue after firing a shot, will sometimes cause ignition problems. This is something I'm not sure modern experience truly relates back to the period or not? I have fired in "stake matches" where one fires a shot, moves back and loads as quickly as possible and then steps up again after other team mates have fired. This is a timed match where the first team to break the stake under a 90 degree angle and so speed is essential. In essence, this is about the shortest time period I know of where a flintlock rifle would be fired four or five times in a row. I have never experienced such a problem in those matches. Is it because we use better powder and/or smaller touch holes or something else? I just don't know. Gus |
|
|
|
Post by Black Hand on Jan 25, 2020 13:04:16 GMT -7
One might wish to remember that a straight-drilled touch hole and one coned on the inside likely function differently with respect to being occluded by powder grains. I could see the straight hole being easily plugged by a few grains while the bridging that happens between grains with an interior cone would prevent this from happening. The only time I've had an issue is when a grain of fouling has lodged in the actual opening of the liner...
This might be a plausible explanation for using a feather or pick while loading, beyond keeping powder in the barrel with an overly large or burned-out touch hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jan 25, 2020 18:06:30 GMT -7
The flintlock rifle I mentioned not having trouble with during the rapid loading "stake matches" was hand built in 1974 and does not have an interior coned touch hole. The hole is straight bored. Though I don't know the touch hole size offhand, it is not too large.
I think oversize touch holes, due to the wear on the period Iron Barrels, was more likely the reason the hunter used the feather to obstruct the touch hole until time to shoot.
Gus
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2020 8:53:32 GMT -7
I think that if one does not have the benefit of learning resource like a mentor, book or the internet, that much about shooting and loading a muzzleloader is intuitive and instinctual.
I think that if one doesn't have a powder measure, then he is going to load his gun with one load for everything.
I also think there is another reason for bouncing the ramrod. That is because when it is close to being fully seated there isn't much to firmly grab hold of sticking out of the barrel, so a little kinetic energy is used to get the job done with certainty.
Using a knife handle to start the ball, is using ball starter in my opinion. What wasn't mentioned was a loading block.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jan 27, 2020 11:43:17 GMT -7
I think there is a big difference between using a knife handle, or the flat of the blade, to start a ball, and using a "modern" ball starter.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2020 12:15:36 GMT -7
I think there is a big difference between using a knife handle, or the flat of the blade, to start a ball, and using a "modern" ball starter. Whether you use a ball starter or a knife butt or something else, what you accomplish is getting the equator of the ball past the muzzle plane. This makes loading much easier than trying to shove the equator of the ball past the muzzle with the end of your ramrod. Also, you said, " the flat of the blade". The original quote said, "and pressed with the handle of the knife". Not that it makes much difference. Starting the ball flush with the muzzle or slightly below makes cutting the patch with a knife a lot easier. |
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jan 27, 2020 13:38:07 GMT -7
I think there is a big difference between using a knife handle, or the flat of the blade, to start a ball, and using a "modern" ball starter. Whether you use a ball starter or a knife butt or something else, what you accomplish is getting the equator of the ball past the muzzle plane. This makes loading much easier than trying to shove the equator of the ball past the muzzle with the end of your ramrod. Also, you said, " the flat of the blade". The original quote said, "and pressed with the handle of the knife". Not that it makes much difference. Starting the ball flush with the muzzle or slightly below makes cutting the patch with a knife a lot easier. While the end result may be the same, using a modern ball starter means carrying an extra tool (and one that is good for only one purpose at that), that is questionably correct to not correct at all depending on one's time period and purpose (hunter/outdoorsman or shooting in the local shooting match), is a far cry from using a part of a knife that one would have on one's person anyway. Notice our shooter uses the knife to start the ball then cut the patch, 2 jobs that both needed to be done, but, done with the removal, use, and replacement of one tool. Later he can use that knife for many other purposes. And, we know that most everyone in all our chosen time periods had and carried a knife of some kind. I can't recall where I read it, but I do seem to recall reading an account of someone holding the flat of their blade against the top of the ball then smacking the other side of the flat with the palm heel of the hand to start the ball. NOT a practice I am willing to try or recomend. |
|
Keith
Hunter
Bushfire close but safe now. Getting some good rain.
Posts: 1,002
|
Post by Keith on Jan 27, 2020 14:21:40 GMT -7
Whether you use a ball starter or a knife butt or something else, what you accomplish is getting the equator of the ball past the muzzle plane. This makes loading much easier than trying to shove the equator of the ball past the muzzle with the end of your ramrod. Also, you said, " the flat of the blade". The original quote said, "and pressed with the handle of the knife". Not that it makes much difference. Starting the ball flush with the muzzle or slightly below makes cutting the patch with a knife a lot easier. While the end result may be the same, using a modern ball starter means carrying an extra tool (and one that is good for only one purpose at that), that is questionably correct to not correct at all depending on one's time period and purpose (hunter/outdoorsman or shooting in the local shooting match), is a far cry from using a part of a knife that one would have on one's person anyway. Notice our shooter uses the knife to start the ball then cut the patch, 2 jobs that both needed to be done, but, done with the removal, use, and replacement of one tool. Later he can use that knife for many other purposes. And, we know that most everyone in all our chosen time periods had and carried a knife of some kind. I can't recall where I read it, but I do seem to recall reading an account of someone holding the flat of their blade against the top of the ball then smacking the other side of the flat with the palm heel of the hand to start the ball. NOT a practice I am willing to try or recomend. To date I have not found any primary documentation of the use of a short starter or a priming horn in the 18th century. Keith. |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jan 27, 2020 15:14:06 GMT -7
I have two speeds when it comes to short starters. When I'm trying to be period correct I never use one, and that's most of the time. Frequently, though, I decide to carry/hunt with guns I have which are probably outside my chosen time period. I wear modern clothes and carry a later rifle, bag, horn, etc., and I use short starters then because I've proven to myself that with those guns in my hands best accuracy come with a really tight ball and patch. I always cut patches at the muzzle. Keith, you may have read my description of smacking the blade. I'm usually carrying a smoothbore when in my primitive mode, and then I use my belt knife. I still like a pretty tight ball. I put the side of the handle or the flat of the blade on the ball and whack it with the palm of my hand enough to move it level with the muzzle, then push it down a little more with the end of the handle, then ram it with the rod. I'm more comfortable holding the handle and smacking the blade than the reverse. I always place the edge of the blade away from me, and have never cut myself even a little after many years of doing it that way. Of course, there is always that next time.  Spence |
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 27, 2020 16:28:42 GMT -7
There is a picture of a ball starter Henry Beaufroy's 1808 book, Scloppetaria, or Considerations on the Nature and Use of Rifled Barrel Guns.
|
|
