History of The Loading Block

[rich pierce]

Maybe Egyptians were important in the Rocky Mountain fur trade and nobody noticed. Could be. :rotf:

It all depends on what individuals want- documentation or the possibility that something could have been used, something in between, or to just do what they want to do. When people start asking for accurate information, it always starts the same old debate, and there is little exchange of information. Obviously, we don't know when and where loading block were first commonly used by riflemen here. I will note that the patchbox has been called the patchbox for a long time, and later became known as a capbox. What does that mean? It may mean that patchboxes were used to carry patches, and that by the time percussion came around, folks were not needing to carry patches (perhaps using loading blocks). Or not.

 

[Coot]

Whoever says that something was done or was used (in this case a loading block but it applies to all things claimed to be PC) is the one required to prove it was so. As admitted, you cannot prove a negative, so it is the positive statement of "yes it was used at this time & place" that must be proven. What could have been is always an interesting way to start a discussion or even better, to narrow one's research but is in itself, not proof, just a weeding out of the impossible. If an event is not PC, then anything goes. If the event claims to be PC, then it it the event organizers who set the standard (high or low) and rule on what is acceptable documentation for things to be included in or used at Their event.

 

[roundball]

When people start asking for accurate information, it always starts the same old debate, and there is little exchange of information.
Obviously, we don't know when and where loading block were first commonly used by riflemen here.

Thank you...my point exactly...just comment, opinion, speculation...

 

[tg]

"Thank you...my point exactly...just comment, opinion, speculation..."

This is quite common RB I think the key is to base the above on as much solid research which shows as possible when absolute evidence is not avaliable, that is all that can be done in the event of positive proof, and you may be correct about the amount of usage much of the non-typical stuff, that is why the who, where and when is so important when discussing/evaluating evidence of anything, and putting personal preference and longtime unsubstantiated views even if they have wide acceptance on the back burner for a fresh clear look at things, again not a real question of right or wrong on most things but a question of how much reliable evidence is really behind ones perspective on something, it reminds me of the typical horned Viking helmet that is nearly always associated with that culture from the 8th thru 11th centuries.nearly any Victorian and later casual reference will show this to be the norm, and above all keep an open mind as history often changes.

 

Whoever says that something was done or was used (in this case a loading block but it applies to all things claimed to be PC) is the one required to prove it was so.

Exactly right. This notion that, "they probably did, becuase they were smart" doesn't work.

Take TGs reference to the Viking helmet. Would you wear one to a Rendezvous and expect others to prove that Longhunters didn't were them? Obviously that's over the top, but you get the idea. There's no way to prove that something didn't happen.

 

[LaBonte]

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.

1) they were smart - etc.
example 1: based on your logic - they COULD have had the percussion sytem in say 1750 - all of the materials were available as was the technology to make such a system work, but tit was not even invented until some 60 years later and was not widely used until the late 1820's-early 1830's.
example 2: they could have used flint patent breeches in say 1750, again the materials and technology to make such a system were in place but the system was not developed until 1787. And while in many ways it was a superior ignition system it was never widely used anywher except in England and then mostly on smoothbores or pistols. While the sytem did exist in America ALL Of the info we currently have regarding American made guns, both written and remaining examples, shows that it was not widely used except on very high end pieces. ThHat does not make it less traditional for use on say an American longrifle, just that it was not particularly common.

As to info - actually there is a LOT of info both written and material culture, but one has to dig for it beyond the Internet and especially forums, keep on top of the constantly emerging info, and then cross reference to see what other info is available to verify it as much as currently possible. Yes there are unknowns and there is much questionable, but there is still a lot more info than most who make you claim realize, but it takes a LOT of time and on going research to keep up.

As always it has to do as well with who when and where and that goes for what we can prove as well as what was traditional - it all depends on context........

 

[BillinOregon]

It would be enlightening to know the date of the oldest documented bullet blocks. Anyone out there have any sources or citations? Wonder if the Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron, NE, has any in its collection. One also would think they might have seen use in the Civil War, especially among Confederate irregular forces using their hunting rifles.

 

[David W.]

It would be enlightening to know the date of the oldest documented bullet blocks. Anyone out there have any sources or citations? Wonder if the Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron, NE, has any in its collection. One also would think they might have seen use in the Civil War, especially among Confederate irregular forces using their hunting rifles.

I have Grant's book on Kentucky Hunting Pouches dating a block to near 1780, but his credibility has been questioned.

I guess one needs a Phd in loading blockology! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[David W.]

It would be enlightening to know the date of the oldest documented bullet blocks. Anyone out there have any sources or citations? Wonder if the Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron, NE, has any in its collection. One also would think they might have seen use in the Civil War, especially among Confederate irregular forces using their hunting rifles.

I have Grant's book on Kentucky Hunting Pouches dating a block to near 1780, but his credibility has been questioned.

Wonder if the Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron, NE, has any in its collection.

Even if they did, its existance, dates, purpose would be questioned.

I guess one needs a Phd in loading blockology! :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 

[Dphar]

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?

Nor have I but I have been PMed on other forums with just such behavior cited. From the posts one gets from the "perps" if anything is questioned or put out for discussion they don't like I have little doubt its true. If pushed too far with facts they don't like they are prone to rants that are reminiscent of a 12 year old's temper tantrum. If they cannot refute the facts they have to belittle them. THIS I have seen at least in postings.
I would also point out that where I live most activities are "pre-1840" so you see Mtn men and colonials mixed. We still seem to have a good time. Its not about recreating some specific event, like shooting blanks at each other to reenact some battle for tourists or some other fool thing. Its to get together with kindred spirits and have a good time.
But its hard to have a good time if people are running around with their panties in a wad and this apparently happens in the east a lot.

If, for example, I were to arrive at a "1758 Ft. Edward" event dressed as a British infantryman with an interpretation of a British ISSUE service rifle (probably a German made rifled "carbine" that was fitted with a bayonet) some people would likely have a fit. Even though its DOCUMENTED that 10 "riffled pieces from the store" were issued to each regiment, its not something that fits with their preconceived and poorly researched notion of what went on during this campaign at least as far as firearms go.
So it has to be wrong. After all there were, according to some, "no rifles in New England before the American Revolution". Or so they claimed until other facts were presented.

If attending an event like something at Ft Edward (I am not properly outfitted for this so I would not) one must conform to what is correct for the period and be prepared to prove its correct. So its up to the individual to inform themselves of the rules and comply with them.
If one cannot document then leave the questionable stuff home or don't attend. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

If the theory about the bullet board being in the pack as a patch cutter is correct and could be dated to 1750 or 1720 or whatever, then it still need not be hung on the hunting pouch and may never have been carried there but may have been left home if hunting or in the pack if on campaign. This would explain their not being found in hunting pouches. If we want to suppose things.
I suspect the landed gentry in Europe did not cut their own patches and likely had a punch for the purpose. This is the stuff that is most likely to survive in some manor house or Royal Collection. The same is true here. So its not likely Washington owned a bullet board even if they were known. Its survival if used by someone on the frontier? No way to know at this date unless some "smoking gun" documentation can be found. But its not likely its going to turn up if it ever existed in the first place. But I think its unlikely that it suddenly appeared in 1800 but its possible.

Comparing something that can made from a board using common tools in any backwoods cabin in America with something that requires chemical experimentation like the percussion cap is silly.

Dan

 

[David W.]

If attending an event like something at Ft Edward (I am not properly outfitted for this so I would not) one must conform to what is correct for the period and be prepared to prove its correct. So its up to the individual to inform themselves of the rules and comply with them.
If one cannot document then leave the questionable stuff home or don't attend. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

And that is what is killing our sport. If it is THAT hard lined, nose in the air attitude, then my choice is the highway.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

It hasn't killed my love for ML, but it has killed my desire to get involved in reinacting.

Too many grey areas and anal attitudes for me.

I'll just stick to hunting and using what I believe to be proper for my era.

 

[DutchmanDick]

If attending an event like something at Ft Edward (I am not properly outfitted for this so I would not) one must conform to what is correct for the period and be prepared to prove its correct. So its up to the individual to inform themselves of the rules and comply with them.
If one cannot document then leave the questionable stuff home or don't attend. ITS THAT SIMPLE.

And that is what is killing our sport. If it is THAT hard lined, nose in the air attitude, then my choice is the highway.

Yeah, the "hard core" guys do tend to make re-enacting less fun for the rest of us. I'd like to get into Civil War re-enacting some day, but I'd rather not get involved with a bunch of "stitch-nazis" who insist that everything must not only be hand-sewn, but must have the proper number of stitches-per-inch, and be made of 100% authentic fabric including thread-count, etc. I've even heard of some guys playing Confederates who deliberately starved themselves practically skeletal to make their persona more "authentic". Me, I just want to have fun! :grin:

 

[George]

Not really related to your original question, flintlock62, but for future reference in case anyone is interested, here is a late 18th-century reference. From "Travels Through the States of North America and the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, During the Years of 1795, 1796 and 1797", by Isaac Weld, Jr.

" The best of powder is chosen for the rifle barrel gun, and after a proper proportion of it is put down the barrel, the ball is enclosed in a small bit of linen rag, well greased at the outside, and then forced down with a thick ramrod. The grease and the bits of rag, which are called patches, are carried in a little box at the butt-end of the gun."

Loose pre-cut patches. In at least one instance. Not pre-lubed.

Spence

 

[David W.]

I wonder if one has to show he/she has the correct underware when attending such events? :shake: :redface: :shocked2:

 

[DutchmanDick]

I wonder if one has to show he/she has the correct underware when attending such events? :shake: :redface: :shocked2:

The "stitch nazis" INSIST on it. And no red flannel "union suits", either - they're "farby"!

 

[tg]

I think the extreme juried events are pretrty rare comoarexc to the less demanding ones and I alwasy see several complain about the stitch counters and such biut how many have ever been denied entrance at an event or club due to lack of proper gear? This PC/HC police ruining the sport is blown way out of proportion, by the same crowd who try to argue the questionable stuff into reality and by the same methods, unfounded remarks, no evidence, rumors and such.Anyone can pick a time in history and find a place/group tp play with and not have to be in the top percentile as to historical accuracy, it would probably take less energy and research than all that is spent trying to put down the historical standards that have been put in place and trying to shoot them down with no bullits.Some of the comments are now getting to the point of ridiculis.

 

[David W.]

I wonder if one has to show he/she has the correct underware when attending such events? :shake: :redface: :shocked2:

The "stitch nazis" INSIST on it. And no red flannel "union suits", either - they're "farby"!

At least some people are trying to maintain a sense of humor about these things! :thumbsup:

 

[tg]

"At least some people are trying to maintain a sense of humor about these things!"

Oh, I have ...I have been laughing since the thread began :grin:

 

[Stumpkiller]

{Not directing this towards tg, but I know he's good at ducking incoming.}

If the big boys, those rascally stitch nazies you've probably never met, won't let you play you could always get off your butt and start your own event.

Kwitcherbitchen and put some sweat on the table to go with the whine.