of ball starters and muzzle coning

[RobD]

as a buff of sorts of all things 18th century, and from all the research i've done over the years, i'll ask yet again - is there any clear evidence of a "ball starter" used for rifles, fowlers, muskets during that era?  i've yet to find reference to such a device, let alone be shown physical evidence.

looking for the good scoop on muzzle coning  ... anyone, please?

[Keb]

I don't know of any "proof" of ball starters but some people believe they were around only by way of logic. I use em even though they may not have existed and I've never been asked not to use it anywhere I've shot. I also have coned a few muzzles. It's pretty easy to thumb start a ball with a sloppy spitty patch and push it down with the ramrod if it is started just a tad below the muzzle. I have a tapered brass coning device that has a 8-32 tapped hole in one end for a cleaning jag to keep it centered in the bore while spinning it with a hand drill. It's about 6" long and tapered. I duct tape some coarse grit sand paper on it and spin it. It's slow going but it does the job for a slight taper allowing a thumb start.

[RobD]

thanx for your comments, keb.

using or not using a short starter doesn't matter a bit to me one way or the other, just curious if definitive proof of its use in the 18th century was every found.

i did just find info over at ALR about muzzle coning/funneling, and the feller that sells the tool.  interesting.  don't know that's for me as i have no problem loading any ml without a starter or coning.  if it ain't broke ....

[rollingb]

I've never seen mention of "ball starters" in anything I've read,... but maybe I haven't read the right books.
I think our ancestors loaded a patch and ball that started easy and rammed home easy.  I also suspect our modern ways have changed us into thinking we have to load as tight as we can.

Here is Audubon's account of watching Dan'l Boone load and shoot his rifle while squirrel hunting,... he gives good details about the procedure used, including wiping between shots, but doesn't mention anything about using a "starter".
Audubon and His Journals - John James Audubon - Google Books

[RobD]

rollingb, that's my take, too.

[rollingb]

Pure lead balls "bump up" (a little) upon firing, so I think that takes care of using a pure lead ball that loads fairly easy,... since wheel weights are harder than pure lead, yet often easy to come by for most modern scroungers, accuracy with easy loading round balls cast from WW's may be a bit less than when using pure lead balls of the exact same size.

Just my thinkin' on the matter. LOL

[RobD]

i only use pure lead for ml's and a tin:lead alloy for bpcr's - no ww stuff for me.

[rollingb]

i only use pure lead for ml's and a tin:lead alloy for bpcr's - no ww stuff for me.

[Keb]

Wheel weights are harder than pure lead so they seem to pour a little bigger out of the same mold as used for pure lead. Some guys will use it to pour a ball for their trade gun that they can't get a mold for. It's a teensy bit bigger, maybe .001" to .003", than the mold will cast pure lead balls.
The biggest problem with wheel weights is they will bounce back at you or some innocent bystander when they hit something hard like steel clanger targets used on woods walks. I've seen guys get hit by shrapnel when shooting at steel targets. They are quick to blame the shoot organizers when they caused it themselves by using hard lead. :/

[blackpowderbill]

IMO:
Ball Starters were invented for two reasons:
1. Guys didn't know how to use a ram rod , hold it properly.
2. Targets shooters wanted the tightest bullet/patch fit possible.

Remember military muskets and rifles had steel ramrods you're not snapping one of those off half stroke.

Coning a muzzle, I can't justify spending two hundred dollars and more on a nice fresh barrel then tapering the muzzle.

[RobD]

from what i've read and seen done, there's coning and then there's CONING.  

real deal coning will chamfer and taper the rifling down quite a way, such as 3/4" or double that.  not for me.  

since i got the coning tool, all i'll do is taper the that flush cut rifling for about 1/8"+ so that it won't cut into the patch material.  that has made press fit loading better for me and i can still cut off patch strips at the muzzle and no need for pre cut patches that are required for real deal "muzzle coning".

[Sir Michael]

Regarding Ball Starters.

In 1800 the British Army equipped its first Rifle Regiment with a loading mallet.  Not much of a connection until 1811 when this was published in the US:

Practical Instructions for Military Officers, for the District of Massachusetts, published 1811

Equipment

The balls attached to the cartridges are enclosed in a linen or milled leather patch well saturated with grease; when the powder is emptied into the rifle, the ball is to be separated from the paper, placed upon the muzzle and driven in with a stroke of the mallet, as will be described in the exercise of the rifle.

The bayonet must be slung on the left side, in a scabbard, the belt of which buckles round the waist.

The pouch is worn in front like those of the cavalry, and the belt also buckles round the waist.  To this belt a case is fitted for the handle of the mallet, which must hang down the right thigh.

Loading from Cartridge

V.  Load!  One Compound Motion
Turn up the right hand and shake the powder into the barrel, pressing the cartridge with the thumb and finger, to force out the powder; instantly bring the paper to the mouth and with the teeth separate it from the ball and, patch, which place upon the muzzle, the stitched side up, and instantly slide the left hand to the muzzle and place the fore finger upon the ball; at the same time, with the right hand, grasp the mallet, draw it partly out, and seize the handle.

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 and seize the ramrod with the thumb and finger of the same hand, the thumb up.

Loading Loose Ball and Powder

V.   Load! One Compound Motion
Pour the powder into the barrel, drop the measure and grasp the rifle with the left hand a little below the right; disengage the right hand, carry it down to the pouch, take out a ball and patch and carry them to the muzzle, place the patch upon the muzzle and the ball upon the patch, flip up the left hand and place the fore finger upon the ball, the other fingers round the muzzle, and with the right seize the mallet as in loading with cartridge.

VI.   Drive Ball - As explained in Loading with Cartridge

I believe that the loading mallet issued by the British Army in 1800 was essentially the same as that issued in the US in 1811.  I also don't think that the British Army invented the loading mallet (short starter) in 1800.  They most likely adopted it from ether British or German sportsmen or German Jagger units which were equipped with rifles and maned by men that were typically game keepers or hunters.  The exact origin I have no idea but I'm guessing some time during the 18th C.  

One last point:

U.S. Patent, #1565 for the invention of a false muzzle.
Alvan Clark
April 24, 1840

… thus more effectually saving the patch from injury, facilitating the loading, enabling the shooter to load as tight as desirable, and at the same time to dispense with the use of the mallet and stick in loading; and also preserving the barrel from injury and wear.

Apparently from this approved patent there were a sufficient number of shooters using a two piece solution for a "short starter" that the patent office thought it was a good idea.

Just for what it's worth.

[Uncle Russ]

Good post Sir Michael!  
I think maybe CB will have something to say about all this, should he see it?
Anyway, it all makes for great reading.

Uncle Russ..

[Sir Michael]

Thanks Uncle Russ.

Its been awhile.  As for this subject.  The usual response I get when bringing up what I've found is "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."  or "That's the military and not applicable to civilians."  My only thought is that I don't think it was a brand new invention in 1800.  The US Army most likely was imitating the British Army since most the rest of that 1811 book follows British Army documents very closely.  And the patent indicates that by 1840 there were enough folks (non-military) using a "loading stick and mallet" that the patent office thought the idea of a false muzzle attachment for muzzle of a rifle was a good enough idea to warrant issuing a patent for it.

But that's just me.

[RobD]

i think it would be unthinkable that there weren't any short/ball starters prior to the 20th century.  i'd heard before about the military starter mallet, nothing new at least for me.  

however, and as i stated in my opening thread post, i'm focused on the 18th century, not the 19th ... any indications of short starters used in pre-colonial times, the settlement period, the F&I War, the Rev war?  

my thinking, albeit per my limited historical reading, is that the fowler was the prime tool for the three most important functions of both colonist and native american - sustenance, protection, war.  while accuracy is important, speed of loading for protection and war trump exceptional accuracy over "general" accuracy.  a short starter would just be a speed bump and hindrance when loading a patched ball.  there were, and still are, many different payload choices - i.e., tow held unpatched ball, patched ball,  shot and sundry other projectiles, etc - so the speed of load, enhanced by some measure of thumb pressed prb into a coned muzzle, could also be dictated by the choice of both ball diameter and patch thickness.  perhaps a tighter prb that could still be rammed down the tube with just the gun's ram rod.  who knows any of this for sure?  not me.