Speaking of "Short Starters"

[Swamppanther]

There might not be any evidence that they actually used them but makes loading kind of easy. I just watched that YouTube video -
"Flintlock squirrel hunt - 59 yard head shot" and was wondering if the folks back then used a "short starter" like he uses (a stick).
I have some 5/16 slate call strikers that I have been using as shortstarters.  Turkey season is over and now its range time for them.
That Vid also got me thinking of next hunting season. The maple with hickory shaft from Tylersburg Yelpers looks like it was made for
my rifle.

[Ohio Joe]

Just watched the video and posted a link at the bottom of my comment.

My thoughts are that just because they've not found any "short starters" as yet, does not mean they didn't have something that they used. This young man on the video - he's got it figured out I think.  Also remember,,, it was said they didn't use loading blocks / ball blocks.  Well there's a post here on the TMA that shows that they did exist and they found some in old shooting bags.

This is a good video, and the young man has good hunting ethics for sure IMHO. Two squirrels were enough for him as that's normally all he eats at one time. I like his thinking - it was refreshing. There's to much of this "kill as many as you can" stuff that goes on with many of today's hunters who many seem to have no respect for nature - so it's nice to see we have ethical hunters who respect nature, and her ways.   

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Flintlock+squirrel+hunt+-+59+yard+head+shot+youtube&view=detail&mid=A9A94EE10476C54147E2A9A94EE10476C54147E2&FORM=VIRE

Here you go - a link to finding ball blocks; Check out all three links once you get here;

http://tradmla.org/tmaf/index.php?topic=23203.0

[prairie dog]

Short starters and ball blocks have been found in original shooting bags.  The question is "when did they first come into use?" As far as I know no one can document them prior to 1840.  There is documentation of military use of "mallets" which by description served as starters.  It remains a cloudy issue. 

Personally, I agree that lack of evidence does not prove anything.  If it solves a problem, and is constructed from materials available at the time, how can anyone say it was never used?

[Two Steps]

Personally, I agree that lack of evidence does not prove anything.  If it solves a problem, and is constructed from materials available at the time, how can anyone say it was never used?

You can't say it was never used...you can't prove a negative like that...the problem is trying to prove the positive.  Several old bags have been found to have a starter and/or a ball board...but the question is...were they added at a latter date.  And...the search continues. 

[JB67]

There is plenty of evidence for coned/relieved barrels, though. The right patch/ball combination helps, too. In my coned .50cal, I could not start a .490 ball and 0.018 lubed patch without a starter, and it was difficult to drive home with the ramrod. Using spit-lubed 0.012 patches, I can start them with the ramrod. It may not give "ragged hole" shot placement accuracy, but it is plenty accurate for the intended use of most firearms.

I think for the most part, a starter just adds another step, lengthening the load time and complicating both equipment and process. If it was anything truly practical or needed, we'd have period examples or descriptions of them, and our battlefields would have been littered with them.

"If it solves a problem, and is constructed from materials available at the time, how can anyone say it was never used?"

Then my Winchester 1873, which was designed as a black powder rifle, is perfectly appropriate for the 1820s fur trade.

[Nessmuk]

That begs two questions. Are  most antique  rifles "coned" and how many 1820s built Winchester 1873s have we found?

If I  had been born in 1755 instead of 1955, and I  was still shooting at 63 years old. I'm  sure  I   would have figured out how to make and use a short starter to save my old hands.

[Ohio Joe]

I do recall reading that the British Military Baker Rifle of the early 1800's had two different loads that they carried. One was a fast loading paper cartridge, and the other was a "tighter" loading ball for long Range accuracy. Now IMHO, and I'd have to do more research - I think they were able to load both without a short starter, just as I can load a patched .433 ball and a patched .437 ball in my .45 GMB Rifles without a short starter and the .437 by all rights produces the better grouping... However, they will never produce the groupings that a patched .440 and .445 ball will produce in those same .45 cal GMB Rifles.

When one thinks about it, a frontiersman / homesteader / soldier, who was raised on the smoothbore and carried it into adulthood, the littlest increase in accuracy from smoothbore to a rifle even with a loose fitting  patch and lead ball combination which loaded easy just like their smoothbore did, well,,, to them this had to be an improvement from their point of view at the time I would think.

And I'll add (just my opinion),,, who from that/those time periods would be willing to give up that little extra time in loading / reloading with a short starter (especially if you were in an Indian fight or any other kind of conflict you may find yourself in) - as speed is everything. Now I'm not saying that our frontiersmen carried two different size balls - but I bet they carried the largest ball they could that would still slide down the bore with a patch with ease,,, and I expect that when target shooting time came around that same undersized ball they normally used may very well have found a second patch around it going down that bore - and at that point they'd have to have some sort of way getting that combination started, be it a short starter of some sorts or the handle of their knife (like I've seen done before).

Just all conjecture of course - but reasoning is sometimes all we have to go on. 

[JB67]

That begs two questions. Are  most antique  rifles "coned" and how many 1820s built Winchester 1873s have we found?

If I  had been born in 1755 instead of 1955, and I  was still shooting at 63 years old. I'm  sure  I   would have figured out how to make and use a short starter to save my old hands.

I don't know how many were coned, but there are quite a few examples where it is obvious. I've read that the cone could be anywhere from a half inch to 4 inches deep, depending on how it was formed. If the deeper coning were the norm, how obvious would it be to the casual observer, or even the archivist? It would certainly be an interesting study and involve a lot of hands-on examination.

[Nessmuk]

I think JB and Joe have probably come up with a   very likely  scenario. A coned rifle would load fast enough in a fight and double patching would make the same rifle more accurate  for the hunt.

There's  some pretty smart fellas on this forum .

[Ohio Joe]

Something else I was going to mention in my post above but completely forgot.

The subject of lead used today for balls -vs- the pure lead used 200+ years ago for balls.

Now I'm no expert on lead - but was the lead softer 200+ years ago through no additives as I understand we use today and yet maintain a soft enough ball to fill today's modern barrel grooves?

If their lead was a softer lead through no additives - that would fill the grooves very effectively and even make loading a patched ball easier to load as well.

Do we have a lead expert that could jump in here and give us some thoughts on this?

[Winter Hawk]

Now I'm not saying that our frontiersmen carried two different size balls - but I bet they carried the largest ball they could that would still slide down the bore with a patch with ease,,,

and at that point they'd have to have some sort of way getting that combination started, be it a short starter of some sorts or the handle of their knife (like I've seen done before).

Joe,

Wasn't it Simon Kenton who loaded his rifle while on the run from an Indian intent on killing him, then turned around and shot him, thus saving his own skin?  One of those long-ago guys did it, at any rate.  I bet he didn't bother with a patch, or powder measure either.  Just dumped a handful of powder down the bore with the ball on top of it, somehow while running primed the pan and was able to get it to go off.

And I regularly use the pommel of my knife to start the patched ball, as do Rob and several others on this site, thus negating the need for a short starter.  Not that I don't have one, but it mostly stays at home.  Actually, I started loading muzzleloaders that way and did so for years, finally bought the short starter after reading how much easier it was using one.  I guess I have regressed!

~Kees~

[Ohio Joe]

Wasn't it Simon Kenton who loaded his rifle while on the run from an Indian intent on killing him

I have read this before and am in agreement that I doubt he patched that ball.

My comments are more directed towards riflemen behind stockade walls or from some form of cover, be it rock, tree, hill, or any combination mentioned.

Now in Kenton's case - we don't know if he threw some sort of wadding down the bore on top the ball to prevent it from rolling forward, be it even a few leaves off a tree as he ran from those chasing him. I think we must assume that in Kenton's day - those frontiersmen were much more in touch with what nature provided, then what we are in this day and age.

As I understand it, Kenton was every bit the equal of Daniel Boone - and even saved Boone's life in an Indian attack [ https://www.boonesociety.org/saving-private-boone ] outside their Stockade walls. I believe Boone had been shot in the ankle.

 

[rollingb]

Wasn't it Simon Kenton who loaded his rifle while on the run from an Indian intent on killing him

I have read this before and am in agreement that I doubt he patched that ball.

My comments are more directed towards riflemen behind stockade walls or from some form of cover, be it rock, tree, hill, or any combination mentioned.

Now in Kenton's case - we don't know if he threw some sort of wadding down the bore on top the ball to prevent it from rolling forward, be it even a few leaves off a tree as he ran from those chasing him. I think we must assume that in Kenton's day - those frontiersmen were much more in touch with what nature provided, then what we are in this day and age.

As I understand it, Kenton was every bit the equal of Daniel Boone - and even saved Boone's life in an Indian attack [ https://www.boonesociety.org/saving-private-boone ] outside their Stockade walls. I believe Boone had been shot in the ankle.

No patch, or wad, was really necessary.

When "loading on the run", one would only need to dump (some) powder down the bore, followed by a ball, and bump the gun's butt on the ground (to "settle the ball" on the powder), then whirl and shoot whoever is running closely behind you.
All could quite easily be done if the touch hole was large enough to self-prime the pan (as the powder was dumped down the bore), and a fella probably wouldn't even have to "shoulder the rifle" (or even take time to aim), in order to hit a man-sized target when in a close range situation.

By all accounts,.... Louis Wetzel (Death Wind), was a master at "loading on the run". 

"Buffalo runners" on the plains often used a similar loading technique, when loading their guns and bumping the gun's butt on the saddle's pommel, or horn (to settle a ball on the powder charge), all while riding at a full gallop along side a buffalo on horseback. 
Of course some barrels were also known to "rupture" if the ball moved off the powder charge while tipping the gun's barrel downward for a lung-shot on a buff, so one had to be pretty "quick on the trigger" when attempting such a thing. 

[Nessmuk]

 I read about these historical figures  and think "WOW!" Then I  think a little more and wonder how many  guys tried it and misfired and were cut down by their pursuers. I give it a little more thought and determine I'm  never going try loading on the run, loading on a galloping horse, or riding a horse in a buffalo herd.

Safety First. 

[rollingb]

I read about these historical figures  and think "WOW!" Then I  think a little more and wonder how many  guys tried it and misfired and were cut down by their pursuers. I give it a little more thought and determine I'm  never going try loading on the run, loading on a galloping horse, or riding a horse in a buffalo herd.

Safety First. 

I'd try it if my life depended on it,.... as their's sometimes did.