History of The Loading Block

[pargent]

Most of the if it is not written it is not real crowd would say NO to the loading block. As apoint of interest most Colonial Americans could neither read nor write , therefore they could not leave a written text for the future generations to debate over.However their cousins from Europe had been using powder flasks, wooden bandoliers with individual powder and ball in ready to use wooden containers (matchlock period ),in the flint period paper cartridges were carried in a leather box with a wooden board with holes bored into the wood so that each cartridge had its own space and was reasonably protected.All of these things are well documented and examples still exist in collections etc.SO given all the evidence available to me at this point I can quite safejy say that no Colonial Americans would not have had or used loading blocks. :haha: :hatsoff:

 

[David W.]

Most of the if it is not written it is not real crowd would say NO to the loading block. As apoint of interest most Colonial Americans could neither read nor write , therefore they could not leave a written text for the future generations to debate over.However their cousins from Europe had been using powder flasks, wooden bandoliers with individual powder and ball in ready to use wooden containers (matchlock period ),in the flint period paper cartridges were carried in a leather box with a wooden board with holes bored into the wood so that each cartridge had its own space and was reasonably protected.All of these things are well documented and examples still exist in collections etc.SO given all the evidence available to me at this point I can quite safejy say that no Colonial Americans would not have had or used loading blocks. :haha: :hatsoff:

I suppose I should throw my books away that shows pictures of original bag WITH said loading blocks. I have already been straightened out that thay are all fakes and the author simply wanted to add some "spice" to his publication by purposely attaching item to the outside of the bags which NEVER belonged there. Figments of one's imagination.

Anyone want to buy some useless, but interesting books! :rotf:

 

[paulvallandigham]

Yes, but who cares what those Germans( Hessians) used in Europe? They weren't British!

And, you can't PROVE that these items were "TYPICAL" or " COMMON", two undefined-fuzzy--Standard if I have ever heard of one! Those are the Additional hurdles you have to overcome to get around the "We-didn't-think-of-it-first" crowd. :grin: :cursing: :blah: :shocked2:

A couple of well-read friends of mine were REAMED out by some busybodies at a major Midwest Rendezvous, and told they could not use this, or That, because they could Not PROVE it was historically correct. The next year, they took a car load of books from their libraries with them, and publicly shamed these same guys in front of all the attendees. They were later approached by dozens of people who thanked them for putting these two bullies into their place- finally- and for the benefit of all of the participants.

The Bullies were local, and were trying to stack the deck against "outsiders", so that they would be assured of winning their shooting matches. It was not good enough for them that they were shooting on their own ground, where they had an advantage of knowing the terrain, the targets, wind direction, etc. No, they had to try and prevent anyone that seemed to have a better gun or equipment from being able to compete with them.

Since that event, I have talked to Mlers all over that part of the State who had stopped going to that particular rendezvous years before my friends took these guys on. The harm done by these guys is like pebbles thrown into a pond: The initial splash is not impressive, but the ripples travel long distances. You can never calculate how many other shooter who were interested in attending that rendezvous never went, after hearing how their friends were being treated. I don't know anyone who wants to drive 5 hours or more to get to an event, only to have the club bullies run you off.

I know of one club that would not allow T/C rifles to be used in their club shoots, because of a "fixed sight rule", even when the owners of those rifles put a wedge under the T/C adjustable sight to fix it in place. The club didn't last long, and the same people who drove outsiders off were heard to whine about the fact that no one from other surrounding clubs were coming to their shoots anymore! How about that? :shocked2:

You can draw a circle to keep people out, or you can draw a bigger circle to bring everyone in. Standards are important, but educating people is even more important. You can't educate people who are not there. :hmm:

 

[David W.]

Very well put, Paul. :applause:

 

[LaBonte]

Very well put, Paul. :applause:

So once again some one asks a question and when he gets an answer he doesn't like.........oh well or maybe it's time to read more than two or three books like real researchers do.....

and NO one ever said that Grant faked them just that his dates were and are in question and with out SOLID proof then the rest is speculation - informed speculation perhaps but still speculation.

this is EXACTlY why so many of us who do have info to offer quit posting here - besides MR V always has the RIGHT answer so why bother and waste our time ....... :cursing:

so as Miss Emily used to say Never Mind! :hmm:

 

[David W.]

Very well put, Paul. :applause:

So once again some one asks a question and when he gets an answer he doesn't like.........oh well

and NO one ever said that Grant faked them just that his dates were and are in question and with out SOLID proof then the rest is speculation - informed speculation perhaps but still speculation.

as Miss Emily used to say Never Mind! :hmm:

I truely misunderstand the statement, "didn't like". Dates are in question by whom? By people with their own formed personal opinion, museum curators, or from a qualified professional historian of Colonial America? Names, please! I am not yet convinced from hearing only a layman's view point. I need proof Grant's dates are wrong.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Dates are in question by whom? By people with their own formed personal opinion, museum curators, or from a qualified professional historian of Colonial America? Names, please! I am not yet convinced from hearing only a layman's view point.

Not with personal opinion but with existing information to date in both written documentation and surviving examples with a trail of provenance.

Some of the most respected and "qualified" as well as some "professional" people have stated their case and shared their research on websites that deal with colonial American history. Some may have even answered in relation to loading blocks on this very website. Perhaps one or two regrettably replied in this thread.

Names will not do any good. People only believe what they want to believe. If someone wants to believe that automobiles were used in the F&I war then Col. Washington's word face to face may not suffice. The FACT is to date there is NOTHING to show the loading block was an 18th century item for loading the gun. An OPINION is that they COULD HAVE had them.

I am convinced the very people who have a problem with this do not reenact or do living history to the public anyway. They have never been excluded from an event because of a block.

Go hunting with one. Run around your backyard with ten hung on your neck. Take them and use them at the rendezvous gatherings. You will not be ousted. Just do not do a public presentation with it or try to convince other sheeple on the internet of their 18th century use without some proof. If you do, you will be taken to task to prove your stance. Yes, the burden of proof is on the the ones who present hypothesis instead of fact.

 

[ohio ramrod]

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

I won't name the club because I don't want to start a flame war. But about twenty years back a local club disqualfied a woman on the trail walk because she was wearing a bra and it wasn't "primative dress". Later one of the club officers came to our camp and apoligised for the incident and stated they did not realize she and her husband had joined the club. They just thought they were there with me! :idunno: :idunno:

 

[David W.]

You still haven't proven Grant's dates are wrong.

 

[David W.]

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

I won't name the club because I don't want to start a flame war. But about twenty years back a local club disqualfied a woman on the trail walk because she was wearing a bra and it wasn't "primative dress". Later one of the club officers came to our camp and apoligised for the incident and stated they did not realize she and her husband had joined the club. They just thought they were there with me! :idunno: :idunno:

That was post was meant to be a joke, but that does not surprise me.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

You still haven't proven Grant's dates are wrong.

This is quite contrary to logic. Grant gives a date with nothing to solidify his reasoning for the date. It is up to him (or you if you believe the date) to supply where he came to that conclusion. The burden of proof lays upon the fellow who states "automobiles were in use by 1776", not upon those who say "there is no evidence of same, please provide your proof of that".

I would think after much talking with him that his dating was not to deceive but just a guess based on unresearched assumptions. He collected these things and had great love for them and the unknown history behind them.

Unfortunately for many an unfounded romanticism is often confused with historical fact or lack thereof. This thread attests to that.

 

[LaBonte]

So do your own research - but that means you HAVE to go beyond the internet and the two or three books that you are so adament about as some how being the holy grail.
I'm not going to waste my time looking up and giving you the research for free that has taken me years to gather and that I spend at least 10-20 hours a week doing in order to stay current with the research.....but the fact is most folks just are plain too lazy to bother and would rather argue based on their own persoanl like and dislikes.
As for names of pros who have questioned the dates on Grant - Wallace Gusler, Gary Brumfeld, are just two and both are HIGHLY regarded professional historians who have worked at Williamsburg for years.....but even then that probably tain't good enough for folks who have their mind made up.....fact is most of us would be more than happy to see SOLID proof of loading blocks usage prior to the mid-1800's, we don't just dismiss them out of hand, but look at the facts and so far there is no such proof.....

On the other hand believe what you wish and do as you wish NOBODY will tell you no except in those cases of certain gatherings that set the rules and then it is still your choice to abide by their rules or just dont go there if you don;t like it.
As for all of this talk about stitch Nazis - I've been doing living history for over 45 years and in all that time I have run into exactly three people who were total a-holes, most by far have been helpful.......make me wonder just how many re-enactment events you guys have actually been too???

At one time everybody thought the world was flat too - even the scientists and professionals of the era but it still didn't make it flat......

 

[tg]

Probably falling on deaf ears capt. I think at times some miss the point that one needs to research the research, Grant is a good example many who knew him and have studied his work and sources see items put together to make sets of gear with no intention of fraud but also no level of study we have available today,and as stated he or anyone must provide evidence that the items are contemporary to ne another and to the time claimed remember(sketchy documentation) and this is from the author, and the existance of cartridge boxes means nothing about the existance of ball boards, what may have been used in German target commnities has no bearing on the use of ball boards here, and we have heard much about the European use of things to justify many items but no source to validate the European use let alone the seemingly automatic conection to use in the colonies, the fact that one must provide valid data to support a theory goes farther than using one book by a collector, at this point you will not find any of the top students of gun history who will provide any positive evidence for the use of boards in the 18th century they may have been used but there is nothing substantial enough to say they WERE used here, the fact they had the technology is not relevant, you cannot read between the lines to arrive at a predetermined comclusion about any item,and Capt is correct about all the strong stand for the use of boards being correct comes from the nonhistorical faction on this forum, you guys take this question over to the Frontier or Trekking form and they will chew you up and spit you out so fast your heads will spin, if history really is of no interst to the point you cannot grasp the basic function of the research. exploratory and theoretical dynamics of the subject just let it go,the embarresment certainly does not fall this way.If you want names of those who are at the top of the heap historicaly speaking and have not found what theey feel is evidence of the use of boards fo to the forums above and ask or check the archives.It think we is fertin' in the wind Capt :idunno:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Looks like I won't need to make a ball board.

One less thing to drag around. :grin:

 

[tg]

It all depends of what level you want to play at,the jump from bandoliers and cartridge boxes as proof of boards was a real Duck fert in shallow water, like I mentioned I found no advantage in them myself with a thumb startable load and no shortstarter, which could be an indicator from the past but not proof of anything, there is certainly nothing wrong with using them if one wishes no one has suggested this, it just amazes me how some folks choose to dodge the reallity of the proof of such items like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

 

[Timothy Gregory]

Understanding these limits, and the fact that these devices were WOOD, and easily broken, and burned, Its amazing that a block dating to the 1780s exists. These kind of blocks were never made for military use, which is another reason that you find No written records about them.

For these reasons, I personally feel that these (and other articles) may have existed. I guess there is two sides to the coin, prove it exited Vs prove it didn't. However remember I am a heretic; I have facial hair, carry ball blocks, a haversack, heck, I even have an "Indian" musket! Sometimes I think we put to much thought into this hobby and not enough fun. :shake: Now I guess I set back and wait for the hate mail. :redface:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

To be honest. I don't even like them.

Plus, i'm not sure how to use one without a ball starter. Which appears to be another item out of my era.

Make that two more items I don't have to drag around. :grin:

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Understanding these limits, and the fact that these devices were WOOD, and easily broken, and burned, Its amazing that a block dating to the 1780s exists. These kind of blocks were never made for military use, which is another reason that you find No written records about them.

For these reasons, I personally feel that these (and other articles) may have existed. I guess there is two sides to the coin, prove it exited Vs prove it didn't. However remember I am a heretic; I have facial hair, carry ball blocks, a haversack, heck, I even have an "Indian" musket! Sometimes I think we put to much thought into this hobby and not enough fun. :shake: Now I guess I set back and wait for the hate mail. :redface:

Another way to look at it is we don't all have fun in the same way. Only we know if we're having fun. :wink:

 

[tg]

" I guess there is two sides to the coin, prove it exited Vs prove it didn't."

Well...no, whenever dealing wuith the sciebces of the past be it history, archeology, paleantology or whichever the theory, hyposethis that something was used/did exist is the side which requires proof, it is just the way the world turns.Proove it didn't is for those who have no valid support for their position to share.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Au Contrare! I want to have the Best and Most information shared on this forum- not limit research, or cut people off with insults, and claims of superior knowledge. The only way that occurs is to let everyone express their opinions, and knowledge. I too don't like broad blanket statements that someone's book is questioned. By Whom? Why should I believe them??

I have been subjected to peer review on primary scientific research I have done, and published in the past. I wanted and hoped that the Experts would tear it apart. I was exhausted in the kinds of questions to ask to find a different answer than I did reach. My co-author was of the other mind, not expecting any criticism at all. There was none. Since that article was published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences we have sent copies all around the world. Our work has been cited in footnotes in other books, and articles. Its been used by teachers to instruct students on Statistics. :barf: :shocked2: :surrender:

As much as I dislike some of the subject areas mentioned, I still look forward to someone re-checking my work, and blowing it up. That is my personal feeling about even my own hard work.

I was trained to do historical research in college. I have in fact chosen a few areas to research, and can bore to tears anyone who asks. :blah: :grin:

But, I think you answer your own question. One or two books don't cut it. Often you stumble on new evidence in a totally unrelated subject area, or in another country. Dr. Natalia Belding, Professor Emeritus of the U of Illinois spent a sabatical in Paris doing research in French, going over the archives on early Illinois history. One fact she share with The Exchange Club of Urbana was that instead of the Raid on Kaskaskia being a big secret, she found letter from the Mayor( French) to the Governor of Virginia, begging him to send an expedition to seize the island and the Colony from the British. The mayor kept contact with the forces as they approached, and actually made provisions for all the small boats, canoes, etc. to be taken over to the Illinois side of the river, the night that the raiders arrived, so they could boat across the Missisippi River en masse, and quickly seize the British forces without a lot of bloodshed.

In English( and American) accounts, there is mention of the forces crossing the river in boats, but no mention of how the boats were conveniently present at the right side of the river, for their use. It only took 230 years for that truth to be known by historians.

So, I welcome more research. My only complain is the arbitrary cutting off of comments based on logic, whenever we get into a subject area where we have NO reasonable expectation of there ever having been much written records about the subject.

Immigrants often didn't speak or write English, well. They were largely scattered, and NOT living in cities. Transportation was by boat, or horseback on poor trails. Much of daily living for the very poor was never written down- and is largely unknown outside of Europe, where distances from cities was shorter, and the percentage of the population that could read and write was higher, than in the colonies. Knowing that, from my training, I find it quite plausible that we will never find letters, or diaries, or books long lost, that describe how everything was done by early settlers.

The same frustration greets researches in every area of colonial life. Just ask the folks that have been rebuilding Williamsburg, or some of the other Forts and towns around the Eastern U.S. They are literally scratching the truth from the ground, with spatulas, as archeologists.

Its also quite plausible that the only written records we will every find are obscure reference that have found some way to survive all the European wars, and tell their story. If something is known to have been done, or used when Matchlocks were the dominant firearm, surely its not outrageous to believe that these ideas carried over to the Flintlock era.

I know this disturbs some people. I am sorry about that. But, it is also the truth. If there is anything historical research seeks to expose, it must be the truth. And that truth sometimes changes as new information comes to light. Live with it. The rest of us have no choice. :thumbsup: