History of The Loading Block

[Pete Gaimari]

One advantage of cutting at the muzzle is the patch is always centered perfectly.

I can center a precut patch, but I usually have to fiddle with it, and sometimes it ends up being slower than cutting at the muzzle.

I might have more of a problem centering a patch from not having depth perception. (blind in one eye) If I could look right over the barrel it would be easier, but that's dangerous.

So, now i'm worried that they didn't cut at the muzzle during the fur trade era.

Capper, I wouldn't worry about it too much, cutting at the muzzle had to start at some point. I would like to believe that at least a few target shooters cut at the muzzle. I am sure at least someone thought of it back then. I still can't help but look at pictures of original pouches and seeing knives attached to the bags. They were there for a reason, even if the sole purpose was to skin game. We don't seem to know that either because IT WAS NOT WELL DOCUMENTED!

If I was just hunting I would only have to satisfy myself. As long as I thought it was right.

The problem is I plan to join a club. They're pretty strict about being authentic to pre 1840. The mountain man era I like fits in perfect, but I have to be careful to not go past it. I don't want to use one method for club events, and another to hunt with. I'd like to stick to doing everything the right way.
If the right way is known. :idunno:

 

[Capt. Jas.]

This issue is so polarized in our hobby I doubt it will ever be solved but I have my cup on lets stir the pot.
:hmm:

What has polarized reenacting is bigoted experts who look at reenacting as a religion and any deviation from their dogma must be excised. Burnt at the stake so to speak.
They will whine about things being over represented at some event or lack of participation. Be it clothing or anything else when in reality they have only the foggiest idea of what the same even would have looked like in 1777 or when ever. There are no photographs or video.
While whining about participation they will stand around like cloths horses admiring what they think is correct and snickering at people they feel are incorrect. Then they wonder why people, whose research is as valid as theirs, won't attend "events" where these people are likely to turn up.
Even documentation, in writing, from the time, must be either ignored or spun to fit their "18th century".
Only documentation that fits THEIR dogma is acceptable. If it is otherwise it must be mentioned by at least 2 other sources and carry George Washington's signature with a notary's seal to be "real". Lower ranking officers and ordinary people might have some axe to grind and apparently just wrote things to mislead 20th century researchers into polluting the "true faith" and thus their comments are irrelevant. People who would mention any such heresy are attacked.
But if its something they use or have come to accept then any casual mention is gospel.
As a result its has gotten to be looney tunes out there in some cases.
The counter argument for the bullet board even if documented in Germany would be, or example, "just because a block for cutting patches was used in Europe is no proof that any German ever brought one over here" unless 3-4 people specifically wrote it down. Fat chance of finding that. So they are verboten.
I would really like a citation on the board used as a patch former/cutter.
Sewn patches were used with the Baker Rifle and I doubt the British invented the idea.

Yes, there must be research and documentation. But to disparage one citation from the time in question and accept another for arbitrary reasons is not historical research its "my way or the highway" and this has hurt reenacting and converts the era in question into something it was not.

This would make them a little more watchful and perhaps a little less likely to want to insult people or fight over trifles.

Dan

I have never witnessed this snickering you present as being rule as opposed to an exception. You have stated you do not reenact so what are you basing this on, heresay?

 

[David W.]

One advantage of cutting at the muzzle is the patch is always centered perfectly.

I can center a precut patch, but I usually have to fiddle with it, and sometimes it ends up being slower than cutting at the muzzle.

I might have more of a problem centering a patch from not having depth perception. (blind in one eye) If I could look right over the barrel it would be easier, but that's dangerous.

So, now i'm worried that they didn't cut at the muzzle during the fur trade era.

Capper, I wouldn't worry about it too much, cutting at the muzzle had to start at some point. I would like to believe that at least a few target shooters cut at the muzzle. I am sure at least someone thought of it back then. I still can't help but look at pictures of original pouches and seeing knives attached to the bags. They were there for a reason, even if the sole purpose was to skin game. We don't seem to know that either because IT WAS NOT WELL DOCUMENTED!

If I was just hunting I would only have to satisfy myself. As long as I thought it was right.

The problem is I plan to join a club. They're pretty strict about being authentic to pre 1840. The mountain man era I like fits in perfect, but I have to be careful to not go past it. I don't want to use one method for club events, and another to hunt with. I'd like to stick to doing everything the right way.
If the right way is known. :idunno:

I think that is part of the problem, is the right method really known? If I see something I have been led to be as correct, and someone says "that is not right", I want to know HOW they know they are right. I only have afew books to go by, and if I have been duped, what can I say? I have no clubs in this area to get a concensus on anything. I have shot smoke poles for years, but have learned a lot by joining this forum.

I guess get with the club and see if there is a "code of conduct" and do your best to go with that.

 

[roundball]

This thread has gone the way of my earlier thread asking about help trying to define criteria for what is considered traditional. There were comments, opinions, beliefs, and supposition...but none grounded in unimpeachable facts.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone's basic overall attempts are obviously geared towards the pursuit of a traditional sort of undertaking, then so be it.
In some of these threads, some go so far as to disdain the use of jug chokes or ball blocks, yet advocate the use of paper shot cups or paper wraps, or cutting at the muzzle, or patch knives, or prelubed, etc, ad naseum...its simply hypocritcal and that kind of ridiculous infighting doesn't help the sport or the brotherhood.

So I'm setting up my own club and all of you may join if you like...but there is one rule:
You MUST use what YOU want to use...not what anybody elses THINKS you should use...or THINKS is right or wrong. Because its obvious nobody knows.......NOBODY!

( now I'm going to go get a cold coca-cola out of my Coleman cooler which I have hidden inside an old wooden crate that I've antiqued to look like its 200 years old :shake: )

 

[David W.]

:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: Roundball, I agree 100%!

 

[tg]

This is not really about bickering or chest thumping or you is right and I is wrong or visy versy but just an exchange of different ways to view the aurthenticity of an item and in the ML history comminity thereare some "norms' that are accepted as the probable way and some as being questionable and each can do what they wish with the information, be safe or take they maybe approach, and it is very important to try and leave 21st century mindsets behind as well as trying to avoid saying "they" were smart enough to figure it out so they musta done something, precut patches can be loaded good enough to maintain accuracy that is acceptable for hunting(personal experience)we do not know when many accesories were added to old bags, much like the old 1940'S wicker creels I have seen with plastic worm proof containers in them, some prefer to avoid as much speculation as possible others feel common sense and logic are the only tools required,there are just some things that we cannot for sure say YES they were used here/then really nothing to get upset about and someone who does not re-enact/study history should not even have a bone in the fight wouldn't you think Dan.No one has yet told someone they are wrong or incorrect only that the evidence has different levels and some are very low to the point that by any kind of standards things must be looked at very carefully before saying "yeah they did this or that" but someone always has to make a fight out of it.I have always thought that if someone is really interested in authenticiy then the higher standard would be the norm not the personal preference.Any hows I see this going no where constructive as usuall when it pops up, probably just a waste of bandwidth.

Let's take a look at the original questuion,

"Does anyone have ACCURATE information on when loading blocks were FIRST used?"

The bold print is mine,to me this sets a higher standard than "tell me information about when loading blocks were being used"

 

[roundball]

This is real...London museum...1725 break action / breech loading Flintlock with interchangeable speedloaders / cartridges...

 

[tg]

This is a good example, some would point to this as validation for the plastic speed loaders we use today, others not, the Muguls hunted/wared from Elephants in the 17th century so we could say the this is period correct for colonial America, extreme examples but the point is there as to the importance of where, who and when with many items/practices that we duplicate in an attempt to recreate someone from colonial America.

 

[roundball]

This is a good example, some would point to this as validation for the plastic speed loaders we use today, others not, the Muguls hunted/wared from Elephants in the 17th century so we could say the this is period correct for colonial America, extreme examples but the point is there as to the importance of where, who and when with many items/practices that we duplicate in an attempt to recreate someone from colonial America.

Its an example of exactly why I was hoping to get criteria better defined about 'what is traditional' when I tried to scope the discussion to "the early american (civilian) traditional muzzleloading era"...and...if something needed to have been commonly used/representative of...that era to qualify as being 'traditional'.
But I need to stop as I don't want to totally hijack FL62's thread, so this is the last post of photos:
Flintlock 'Speedloaders' from the early 1700’s...used with a different break action / breech loading Flintlock smoothbore 'fowler'.

 

[tg]

A non-typical design for sure but I would consider it doable in the context of what traditional has come to define to most (non-modern) just the glass I see it thru.

 

[BillinOregon]

I'd say TG and others have firmly but gently been trying to make the point that if you want to accurately portray a pre-1800 hunter or shooter, you should leave the loading block at home. If the accuracy of your portrayal is not a priority, and you just want to have fun, the bring the block along if you wish.
To play the re-enacting game, you need to decide where on the 10-point scale you want to be, with 1 being absolutely uninterested in historical authenticity (heck, carry an in-line and 209 primers) and 10 being "just stepped out of the time machine of best available research."
It's up to each person to pick his point on the line and live with the choice.

 

[R.M.]

Well stated Bill. :thumbsup:

 

[hoochiepapa]

That's my point, roundball, and thank you for those pics. Were they not as intelligent as us? They didn't have plastic or epoxy etc., but they had ingenuity to solve problems, and they could have thought of loading blocks, patch knives attached to the bags, come on! There have been staements that I believe, and that is that they were smarter than we give them credit for. They had lathes, and boring machines, and much more modern things than people realize.
That's why I don't do the reenacting thing. Because there's no, or very little proof one way nor the other about this stuff. A person finds a bag with a patch knife attached, and that's gospel. They all did it that way.
'Nuff sed on my part.

 

[tg]

No one who studies history has ever said they were not smart,this is only to identify specific items and practices that can be reletively proven to be valid , woulda, coulda, shoulda do not enter the equation what they might have done or might have made because the ability was there is not even a part of the point, it is not how the study of history is done, quite a simple concept if one let's reallity take reign. I do not see why people who obviously have no interest or understanding about the study of history even bother with these posts.

 

Were they not as intelligent as us? They didn't have plastic or epoxy etc., but they had ingenuity to solve problems, and they could have thought of loading blocks, patch knives attached to the bags, come on!

If you want to base your persona on the premise that they could have invented something, because they were "as intelligent as us", go ahead. That's one way to look at history.

 

[David W.]

TG, you have a valid point. My intrest is the historical aspect of it. I guess I can't believe in the accuracy of the authors I mentioned though. I believe more research is need on my part.

 

[paulvallandigham]

No, I think the issue is one of WHO has the BURDEN OF PROOF? Those who say this item was used or could have been used back when, and those who insist that they were NOT used.

It seems to me that with so much of the wood culture in N. America undocumented, and the only references known to exist date to European practice, proving that such items were KNOWN to be in use earlier, The Burden of Proof rests on the "Naysayers", not those who would use a ball block in their re-enacting.

This is one case where its up to those who claim ball blocks WERE NOT USED to document their claims. Ball blocks were used in Europe and we do have surviving documents that describe them, in various forms.

Its normally not "fair" to ask anyone to prove a negative. However, when we know that many of the early gunsmiths in the colonies immigrated from what is now Germany, taking their guns, tools, and ideas with them to the colonies, it defies common sense that they would not also see the advantage of making simple ball blocks of the abundant wood here for use by their customers. And, many of their customers also were immigrants from the same German Principalities, and would know of these conveniences, too.

I tire of all the self declared Experts, who bully others by telling them what they can't have or use, for a particular time period. When its done at matches, or rendezvous, it leaves a very bitter taste in not only the victims of this kind of nonsense, but also with the other people present. It has ruined this sport, and actually impeded historical research.

By no means am I asserting that this is a settled issue, and that one side is wrong, or right.

I don't know.

But, I am seeing enough posts here noting European origins that predate the 18th century for these blocks, that I am having a harder time believing that such a simple item was not in use along the frontier at that time. :hmm: :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

here are many historical research written works that are not completely accurate based on the nature of the beast it is normal and new evidence comes to light everyday, and some authors out their own beliefs in a stronger context than they may deserve, it is the nature of people,this is certainly not something to fight about though,so much is interpretation that is why the "safe" path is considered the most correct in many cases, they no doubt could have made bullet blocks an may have in the 18th century but I have wondered "why" after going to a looser ball/patch combo, loosing the short stater and synthetic rod, my experience was that there was no advantage in using one over loose balls and pre-cut patches kept in a pocket or the bottom of the bag, many things we do/use now are from the rebirth of MLing in the 30's and alot of the ideas likely came from what was held onto by those who still used ML's in the late 19th or 20th century, or simple folk rumour, some think the widespread use of vent liners is a result of many caplocks being "put back" to flintlocks during this time,an again no one is telling anyone to stop using something just to look at the historical evidence for it in the most complete manner possible before claiming it to be correct,but it always turns into something else...again hunam nature likely at work.If strong rules at a juried rvent limit the usage of an item that is one thing but other than that one can use most anything just be prepaired and willing to suggest it is not proven but plausible or in some cases even likely, but with the who.where.when caveat which is often left out here from the begining of many posts asking for dates and documentation, and these three things are paramount to any kind of historical accuracy (hunting from Elephants)

 

[roundball]

"...A non-typical design for sure..."

And to take that a bit further...what's non-typical vs. typical...if I'm understanding your choice of words, its basically the same as saying non-traditional and traditional...and I agree with you if that's that case.
I think its another great example of what I was trying to get at in my "what is traditional" post.

I assume you made your comment above based on the fact that the items I showed in the photos...while clearly substantiated as being from back in the Flintlock era...were not common-place, not "typically" used, therefore not representative as a bone fide symbol of that era, like a powder horn is clearly a common-place symbolic, representation of that era.

But maybe the above Flintlock items were more typical (more traditional) than we here on the MLF might know about...and were commonly used among the wealthy, lasting for a number of years...just that the volumes of their numbers compared to the whole were apparently not captured, or didn't survive, or haven't been easily discovered / published yet.

:idunno:

 

But maybe the above Flintlock items were more typical (more traditional) than we here on the MLF might know about...and were commonly used among the wealthy, lasting for a number of years...just that the volumes of their numbers compared to the whole were apparently not captured, or didn't survive, or haven't been easily discovered / published yet.

Aren't many of the surviving items from "wealthy" collections?