• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

History of The Loading Block

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

David W.

70 Cal.
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
4,233
Reaction score
16
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.
 
Grant's book is about the most authoritative source we now have. However, there is at least one loading block know with a date of 1754(?) on it.

The dispute over this block is that there is NO way to know when this was carved into the wood, nor whether the date indicates the year the block was made, or perhaps an earlier date of significance to the maker.

"Carbon Dating" cannot be specific enough to establish an exact year something was "made".

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.

I don't think we have a consensus, today, on what these blocks are called. Some call them "Ball Blocks", or "Bullet blocks", while others call them "Loading Blocks". That certainly doesn't help doing research. :shocked2: :( :idunno: :surrender: :hatsoff: :hatsoff:
 
I can see the wood lasting if it was made from hard wood, and it wasn't beat on too bad.

After all. The gun stocks last.
 
Every well studied person I have seen post on this puts them at post 1800 many items show up in collections that have no provenance to the period, written descriptions/mentions of any item is the best "proof" of its usage in that period. The tendency is for folks to take an item the like and use every/anything possible to validate it rather than looking for or requireing solid documentation the "woulda if they coulda" or "proove they did not have it" line of thought is often applied, it just depends on what level historicaly one resides.
 
Loading blocks are the subject of debate by historians and serious reenactors. Many simple items such as plain horns and homemade bags are almost impossible to date and their association with a dateable gun is no certainty that the association is historical. Well known people in the field (Wallace Gussler and Mark Baker come to mind) disagree on the historical use. The urge to give objects the earliest possible date and to justify the use of items that we personally like is very strong and has been known to cloud vision. To be on the safe side, I would not include a loading block in an 18th century impression. No one is going to fault such an impression for not having a loading block.
 
Coot said:
Loading blocks are the subject of debate by historians and serious reenactors. Many simple items such as plain horns and homemade bags are almost impossible to date and their association with a dateable gun is no certainty that the association is historical. Well known people in the field (Wallace Gussler and Mark Baker come to mind) disagree on the historical use. The urge to give objects the earliest possible date and to justify the use of items that we personally like is very strong and has been known to cloud vision. To be on the safe side, I would not include a loading block in an 18th century impression. No one is going to fault such an impression for not having a loading block.


I guess you are saying Madison Grant is wrong when he dated hunting bags, bags that show loading blocks attached to them? I will say that out of all the original bags I have seen, none of them contain a short starter, but that is a different topic.
 
The vast majority of the history students question many dates put on bags and blocks found in them, reguardless of Grants writings often after a work is done more info or ideas come to light, not all writers hold the same level of documentation when dating thigs,the lack of any written mention of the blocks when every other thing used in loading the gun is mentioned is the thing that causes me to question them, again it only matters if one is seriously into re-enacting or making a public presentation but generaly the best thing to do with any questionable item is to error on the side of caution than prefernce.Pre cutting patches at the muzzle is another thing that was likely not done circa 18th and certainly not with a "patch knife" the later in time the more items survive for use with rifles and we often figure they were always used but the rifle culture as the norm does not go that far back into the 18th century in the colonies. I found that using looser patch/ball combos thumb statable,I found no noticable increase in loading speed using a board over loose balls and patches in the bottom of the bag.How many use the ramrod to push the ball out of their block?if you have to take the block and position it then get out the shortstarter and then the ramrod.....the clock is ticking, and all sorts of dangling things on the outside of the bag is another questionable practice from a historical perspective, lots to think about on this and many similar issues.
 
tg said:
The vast majority of the history students question many dates put on bags and blocks found in them, reguardless of Grants writings often after a work is done more info or ideas come to light, not all writers hold the same level of documentation when dating thigs,the lack of any written mention of the blocks when every other thing used in loading the gun is mentioned is the thing that causes me to question them, again it only matters if one is seriously into re-enacting or making a public presentation but generaly the best thing to do with any questionable item is to error on the side of caution than prefernce.Pre cutting patches at the muzzle is another thing that was likely not done circa 18th and certainly not with a "patch knife" the later in time the more items survive for use with rifles and we often figure they were always used but the rifle culture as the norm does not go that far back into the 18th century in the colonies. I found that using looser patch/ball combos thumb statable,I found no noticable increase in loading speed using a board over loose balls and patches in the bottom of the bag.How many use the ramrod to push the ball out of their block?if you have to take the block and position it then get out the shortstarter and then the ramrod.....the clock is ticking, and all sorts of dangling things on the outside of the bag is another questionable practice from a historical perspective, lots to think about on this and many similar issues.


In the numerous photographs I have seen, not only in Mr, Grants book, but others, as well as seeing original bags found in museums, why are there knives sewn onto shoulder straps, if there were no cutting at the muzzle? There are also a few bags that ARE dated and there is also documentation in a few instances associating a particular bag to an individual.

If there were no loading blocks, what are those things i see attached to the original bags? Were they put there at a later date? Were the knives used to perform tasks other than cutting at the muzzle? How about all the vent picks and the powder measures? I wonder what they were doing attached to a bag? The lack of express written information on any of these things must be scrutinized heavily in that case. One could say that even though there was a powder measure attached to the bag, doesn't mean it was used to measure powder, couldn't they? I guess one could dispute whether the hunting bag itself was ever used. After all, not too much documentaion there either.
 
So if you can't prove it wasn't then it is ok.....not how the game is played, as for knives and blocks attatched to bags we just do not know but with no surviving dated examples that are known to be complete and unaltered we just rely on the safe choice, I used an old 1950 wicker creel of my granfathers in the late 70's and little of what was in it was of 1950 vintage, one can believe what they want,I look to a certain standard which requires solid dating and or written period descriptions and the combined knowledge of many I follow on forums dedicated to history and you will find virtualy no one that supports the attatchment of small knives or blocks to bags and their use in the 18th century, the rule of thumb is if not certain or without a great deal of circumstancial evidence don't call it correct, like I said believe/do what you want in the long run those who follow uncertain paths only fool themselves.Enjoy the reat of the thread it has gone past the point of any reasonable exchange.
 
tg said:
So if you can't prove it wasn't then it is ok.....not how the game is played, as for knives and blocks attatched to bags we just do not know but with no surviving dated examples that are known to be complete and unaltered we just rely on the safe choice, I used an old 1950 wicker creel of my granfathers in the late 70's and little of what was in it was of 1950 vintage, one can believe what they want,I look to a certain standard which requires solid dating and or written period descriptions and the combined knowledge of many I follow on forums dedicated to history and you will find virtualy no one that supports the attatchment of small knives or blocks to bags and their use in the 18th century, the rule of thumb is if not certain or without a great deal of circumstancial evidence don't call it correct, like I said believe/do what you want in the long run those who follow uncertain paths only fool themselves.Enjoy the reat of the thread it has gone past the point of any reasonable exchange.

So all the bags I see with loading blocks, knives, powder measures and vent picks are bogus?

You sway there are no dated examples. Were these I have seen WITH dates forgeries?
 
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.
 
All I can say is I hope your rifle and its accouterments are with complete, unfailing documentation, otherwise you would be a fool to use them. :v :surrender:
 
I do not use a rifle, and your comment was really pointless as the use and claim of authenticity on the objects here is only of importance to someone doing historical re-enacmant and when I do use something I cannot document I have no problem saying so and explaining about it, I have no idea what you are doing or where you are comming from I nor anyone else is trying to make you cry by taking away your bullet board or patch knife, you can use and call anything whatever, whenever you want, anyone looking for the HC/PC factor can weigh the evidence and choose for themselves, it certainly does not rate a ridiculua rant.
3..2..1.,. ignore
 
I was confused when you said you didn't use a rifle. Then I got the answer when I looked under your name.

Kind of tough lugging that around when you hunt?
 
Its pretty easy to date a horn (if its not a fake and there are probably as many fakes as originals even in museum collections) that has a date on it and horns are actually pretty durable. Rifles were sometimes signed and more rarely dated and there are styling and construction factors that allow rough dating to with 20+- years maybe.
Leather goods were unlikely to survive so the pouches "died" and often are empty of part or all contents if they survive.

The loading block is totally guess work. They were not dated or signed and there was no style to change.
Nor is a short starter needed to use one.
So the trying to date the short starter to the bullet board is pointless as well.
The board may have been a ball and patch holder so the patch and ball could be popped out and then placed on the muzzle. A friend uses his this way.
We have a tiny fragment of surviving rifles and their loading equipment left over from the 18th century. Most of the guns are modified from their original form. From this tiny fragment and the even rarer accounts of loading rifles "serious re-enactors" try to throw holy water on one thing and damn another. But they are largely GUESSING.
Since it takes no special tools to make a bullet board its not likely a "bullet board making tool" will show up in some gunsmith estate inventory nor would "bullet board blanks" be mentioned.

My question is do we really think that the rifleman, the rifle being in use for over 100 years by 1750-1770, never figured out that a piece of wood with a hole in it could be used as a holder for patched balls?

THEN. There are people who don't use them, like me. I tried one when I was a kid and did not like it. What if 90% of the riflemen did not use them even if they were known? This would leave 10% of a very tiny original sample. Then we have the grandson inheriting the rifle, having it freshed .02" larger and the balls won't fit the board so he pitches it and never makes another since he sees no need.
Yeah its supposition. BUT ITS ALL SUPPOSITION. Some suppose that there were none. Others suppose there were.
If you like a bullet board use it. Trust me if you go out to hunt with your flintlock you will not be struck by lightning for mixing modern gear with old.
If you go someplace to re-enact populated with serious thread counters leave it home. Its not going to be needed at re-enactments anyway.
Problem solved.

If I need to speed load a rifle I used a paper cartridge no patch needed and accuracy will be very close to a patched ball to at least 65 yards since the paper grips the rifling. Paper cartridge are not "documented" to rifles though.

Dan
 
Dan............. I'm a bit surprised at the mention of a patch knife not being PC/HC. I thought that was used. Did they precut all their patches?

In my case. I'm interested in the mountain man fur trading era.
 
"Kind of tough lugging that around when you hunt"

The Fusil I use weighs just under 8 lbs 44" barrel and is not difficult to carry at all,and if you talk to most historians you will not find many in agreement with Dans view on the whole concept.Having patches precut is the fastest/easiest most logical way and there are at least a couple of mentions of this practice one being from Germany using roundish patches another shows a drawing of a person cutting a strip into individual patches, again this is solid evidence not speculation of what was done. I have seen nothing supporting cutting at the muzzle in the 18th century
 
tg said:
"Kind of tough lugging that around when you hunt"

The Fusil I use weighs just under 8 lbs 44" barrel and is not difficult to carry at all,and if you talk to most historians you will not find many in agreement with Dans view on the whole concept.

I was just trying to lighten the mood on the cannon. :grin:

As for what's PC/HC? I really want to get it right for the era i'm interested in. I'll do lots of study and asking questions before i'm happy that I got it right.
 
There are always grey areas one must decied for them self whether to take the maybe route or the safe choice that is about as simple as it can get I think.You will not be wrong using precuts and having no board,can't really support the opposite way. it is a matter of choice.
 
Back
Top