History of The Loading Block

[Stumpkiller]

In defense of Grant - pouches don't last as long as firearms. So, a pouch in a family associated with a rifle may not be anything near as old. Also, they were no sealed or encased in amber. A pouch 220 years old has had how many hands inside or been passed to how mant generations with things removed and added?

Also, if you read his preface or Carroll's forward in the book (The Kentucky Rifle Hunting Pouch) they acknowledge the pouches have in many cases been "restored" and the dates are "tentative".

Apparantly no one carved a date into their loading blocks.

PS - I have a small three-shot block on the strap of my horn and I just use my rammer to push the ball into the muzzle. No short starter necessary.

 

[LaBonte]

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:

And that truth sometimes changes as new information comes to light.

Exactly Paul and that new info by people like Wallace Gusler, et al shows that Mr Gant's dating is at times questionable and as note above even in the book itself states that many of the dates are tentative, but apparently that's no good enough for folks here

As for logic yes one does need to include Logic but without solid proof to back it than even the best of logic is supposition and that is all it is even as I stated before that supposition is just that and not proof of anything

As for the lack of info - no many of the frontiersman did not write, but those frontiersman did not live in a vacuum and there is in fact a lot more info out there than many here seem to realize - ever read Dodderidge or Cresswell for instance? The book Seedtime on the Cumberland which deals with the So Appalachian frontier has a list of excellent period resources as doe the books by Mark Baker. We also have lots of newspapers from the era, that include info on the frontiersman such as Morgan's Rifleman.

and as for superior knowledge - well based on many of the answers here there are definitely some of us who are at least better read regarding the subject at hand - whether that means our knowledge is "superior" or not is up to others to decide.......
I would ask though just how many hours a week do you spend doing research of primary documents and material culture as regards American History? As you said if you want to keep on top of it you have to continuously keep up with the most current research which as regards history is constantly being updated and much older info being refuted........

And yes Paul I too have gone to college (studied aeronautical engineering at first and later switched American History) and fully know what peer reviewed means.

 

[pargent]

Hey you guys didnt you detect the passive agressive sarcusm. Of course they used loading blocks,

 

[David W.]

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......

Thank you for the other names. That is MUCH better than chiding someone when this could have been said in the first place. I do not expect you to WASTE your precious time for anything on my account. You did deem it necessary to waste your time answering posts on this topic, however. Saying things about the world once believed to be flat, and other belittling statements does go a little too far, and rubs one's goat the wrong way. :v

 

[tg]

"Saying things about the world once believed to be flat, and other belittling statements does go a little too far, and rubs one's goat the wrong way"

So does the continual dissmisal of the standard, accepted(by scientific community in general) methods/definitions of how we accept of reject items/practices from the past, after a while some folks just get the feeling that others have no real wish to learn or have a avalid understanding of history and how we study it.With ML's and their gear their are a handfull of things that continue to start the fire everytime they arise as topics, I see that fewer and fewer of the history students here (or used to be here) even bother to respond anymore to many of these topics.

 

[Claude Mathis]

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.

I don't care about the ball block issue, but...

I think most people would agree that you cannot prove that an event did not occur. The burden of proof is always on the person who says that an event did take place. You cannot prove a negative.

FWIW...

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false.

A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

 

[Coot]

Thank You! :hatsoff:

 

[groundhoginwv]

I read this thread with great interest as I come from the "future" as a former Civil War Reenactor. I watched very similar disagreements ruin a hobby. I became interested in an earlier period and have followed that path, I hope it does not lead me to the same place.

 

[tg]

". I became interested in an earlier period and have followed that path,"

If one stays grounded in reality and accepts the standards that keep the hoby grounded in reality then I do not think anyones hoby will be ruined, what I see as what can ruin ones taste for any hoby that is history oriented is the inability to let go of what "does not fit" and embrace the best options that are available, welcome to the past and enjoy the journey it can be qite rewarding and more so if one trys to experience things as close to how they were done in the past.

 

[LaBonte]

Thank you for the other names. Saying things about the world once believed to be flat, and other belittling statements does go a little too far, and rubs one's goat the wrong way. :v

Despite what you may feel it was in no way intended to be belittling - it was trying to make the point that "belief" in something alone is not proof. And yes absence of evidence is not evidence of obscene - but facts not supposition in so far as the subject of historical documentation is what counts when trying to prove something.
As good friend Mich Archer is wont to say all of us are somewhere on a sliding scale of imperfection when it comes to trying to recreate the past - some are perfectly happy at number one, but other reach for that number ten - neither end is better just different.
as a a final note and using the words of some one much better than I with words-
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
François-Marie Arouet aka Voltaire

 

[roundball]

"...all of us are somewhere on a sliding scale of imperfection when it comes to trying to recreate the past - some are perfectly happy at number one, but other reach for that number ten - neither end is better just different..."

One of the more profound statements made here in a while...if everyone could / would grasp this concept, it would probably minimize the amount of contention that's demonstrated in some of these threads.

Speaking only for myself, I couldn't be more committed / dedicated to 100% exclusively shooting & hunting Flintlock rifles and smoothbores year round.
BUT..."I" decide where I am on that sliding scale beyond the Flintlock I'm carrying on any given day...I might carry a couple pocket reloads in a shirt pocket instead of using a bag & horn for a quick morning deer hunt...or keep my lock out of the rain up under a Gore-Tex rain jacket instead of a home made hunting shirt hand stitched by candle light...or experiment with a jug-choke in a turkey barrel, etc, etc.

My decisions, nobody elses, no matter how much a few don't like it on the basis that in their personal viewpoint of history it might not be just right, its my decision...this is just a hobby to me and frankly I suspect most of us...my commitment is to the Flintlock as a firearms
technology, not to a whole associated raft of other things that might or might not have been made/used 200 years ago.

IMO, your quote was spot on.
:hatsoff: [/quote]

 

[colmoultrie]

Like others, Rob, I'd love to see the source for your statement on the ball blocks. That would clinch it for me - at least where I am on the sliding scale. Actually, I've only used one once and found no advantage in it, but it seems funny that a simple device that suddenly springs up commonly in the nineteenth century had no antecedents. A block like you mention would form the "missing link."

 

"...all of us are somewhere on a sliding scale of imperfection when it comes to trying to recreate the past - some are perfectly happy at number one, but other reach for that number ten - neither end is better just different..."

One of the more profound statements made here in a while...if everyone could / would grasp this concept, it would probably minimize the amount of contention that's demonstrated in some of these threads.

Speaking only for myself, I couldn't be more committed / dedicated to 100% exclusively shooting & hunting Flintlock rifles and smoothbores year round.
BUT..."I" decide where I am on that sliding scale beyond the Flintlock I'm carrying on any given day...I might carry a couple pocket reloads in a shirt pocket instead of using a bag & horn for a quick morning deer hunt...or keep my lock out of the rain up under a Gore-Tex rain jacket instead of a home made hunting shirt hand stitched by candle light...or experiment with a jug-choke in a turkey barrel, etc, etc.

My decisions, nobody elses, no matter how much a few don't like it on the basis that in their personal viewpoint of history it might not be just right, its my decision...this is just a hobby to me and frankly I suspect most of us...my commitment is to the Flintlock as a firearms
technology, not to a whole associated raft of other things that might or might not have been made/used 200 years ago.

IMO, your quote was spot on.
:hatsoff:

[/quote]
As it should be. If you're doing something by yourself (with friends, etc.), the question of PC/HC isn't an issue. Nobody cares (but you).

If, on the other hand, one is attending an event, then there may be rules set by the promoters that need to be adhered to.

That's where people get confused. Some think that everyone has to be at their level when doing anything. Unless I'm attending your event - everyone should butt out.

 

[tg]

"Like others, Rob, I'd love to see the source for your statement on the ball blocks"

As I read that description it seemed to be a way of preparing prepatched/lubed balls and not the use of a ball board as we generaly view it?

"My decisions, nobody elses, no matter how much a few don't like it on the basis that in their personal viewpoint of history it might not be just right,"

I don't see it as what others like or dislike what someone is doing/using only the evidence that the thing was done at a specific time and place. I personaly do not care what others use, but like to see things presented as correct or not for a period/place based on more than personal likes or dislikes and rather vague, questionable references.As has been mentiond many times if one syas that an item was around in 1770 the burden of supporting data/information to show this to be a fact is theirs.

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

I am in the process of finding the source I based my comments on. As this thread is getting clogged up I will start a new thread.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

One of these threads is enough.

 

[David W.]

Does anyone have accurate information on when loading blocks were first used? I have a book, "The Kentucky Rifle Hunting Pouch", by Madison Grant which may date the loading block to around 1780.

I've thought about it....and smoked on it....and have come to the conclusion that I was all wrong about attempting to present evidence of existance on ANY accutrement without proof positive documentation.

I also ask forgiveness on anyone's feathers I've ruffled.

P.S. Stumpkiller, I like your set up and will make one of those for myself! :thumbsup:

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

My Friend Bryan Brown sent me this. Like I said in my first post these are little three hole blocks, carried in their packs not hanging on their shooting bag. My point is, these little blocks were over here with the arrival of the first Germanic riflemen. Let us remember during the French and Indian war we were fighting with the Jaegers ( unless you were fighting with the French ) During the Revolution when a Jaeger was
killed or captured all of his gear fell into the hands of the colonists. It is documented after the British moved out of Charleston SC in the spring of 1780, during the Battle of Huck's Defeat
in July 1780 one of the Militia was using a captured Jaeger Rifle. If you capture the rifle, you capture the gear.

From Bryan Brown

You can find them in the Jadgt und Waffenamt museum in Munich as strongcards (schwerekarte) and sometimes as the ball card (kugelkarte) used for making strong ball (schwerekugel ) the presewn balls. They are NOT in any way shape or form the loading blocks as used by many reenactors today. They are also mentioned in Teutonische Jäger and in Jäger im Wald
One of the late 18th cent early 19th cent German military manuals mentions them too but I am drawing a blank on which one at the moment

 

[tg]

". They are NOT in any way shape or form the loading blocks as used by many reenactors today."

Thanks for the clarification, this is what often happens with "evidence" that can be taken out of comtext from the original question or theory.Taking in only part of the story can give a false sense of validity to things.

 

[Bobby MacAlphin]

As I tried to say we do not know how many bags had items added later when the use of boards/shortstarters came into use during the evolution of rifle shooting, experimentation shows no advantage of the block without the short starter, dating the bags is very questionable in the first place let alone the accesories, my point is not to so readily accept what something may look like on the surface, if you want some more detail go over the the Historical Trekker Forum and get some info from these guys some of them have spent a lifetime studing these issues, maybe they can get the point across.

I have used a loading block for years now with my flintlock rifle , I have never used a short starter only my ramrod to load from my loading block never have had a problem doing this but I don't use ultra tight ball and patch combination either , I try to do everything as period correct as I can but none of us will ever be completely no matter how hard we try !