History of The Loading Block

[Pete Gaimari]

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.

Did they just cut them with scissors? Round-Square?

How about lube? Prelube?

 

[tg]

It seems the round one would be hard to cut with a knife it did not say specificaly, I suspect the square was more common but there is little evidence of either so we do not know which was more common, some tend to discredit stuff from Europe others feel they would have brought their practices with them. I think many animal fats were used for lube many here have various mixes that would likely pass muster.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Did they prelube?

It seems that's a big issue here. Kind of funny if that's PC.

 

[David W.]

Capper, all I can say about the patch knife (and other accourerments) is my source is from three allegedly credible sources, Madison Grant, T. C. Albert, and Steven Dodd Hughes. All three authors show alleged patch knives attached to the shoulder strap or the main portion of the bag itself. If the knives (too small for skinners) wern't used to cut patches, its possible they were used to peel apples. :idunno:

I do not pretend to be an expert, in fact I am far from it and I know some who will agree. Why are these items found in so many pictures from different sources? I will say that the aformentioned authors have fooled a lot of people, including me.

As far as lube goes, whale oil was a favorite. It was used in their lamps, for lubrication of farm equipment and as a patch lube. My guess is that this will be disputed too.

The fact is though, I will not go home crying about it.

 

[Grizzled Roberts]

This subject is more partisan than American Politics! So I might as well jump in.
I think most people agree that our rifles evolved fro earlier Germanic hunting rifles ( I know there was no Germany at this time )In the 17th century every " German " rifleman carried a small wooden block with three holes the same diameter as their rifle bore. There were carried in their packs not hanging on their bags. There was plenty of lead in Europe. These blocks were used to make the "Strong Ball". A piece of patching was placed over the block and a round ball was pushed into one of the holes with the patching wrapped around it. The excess patching was drawn up at the top of the ball and sewn lightly. The patching was then cut off over the top of the stitching. Then the patch with the ball sewn in was pulled out of the block and dipped in tallow. These riflemen carried a bunch of these greased patched balls in a pouch or in wesket pockets. When the Jaeger Riflemen came over here during the F&I war, they had one of these blocks in their pack.
So these wooden loading blocks were in this country prior to the F&I war. During the Rev war
lead was very scarce in the southern colonies. In Europe where lead was common the military riflemen
would make up 60 of these Strong Ball. In the Colonies is it a far leap to assume they would use an existing piece of equipment and due to the lack of lead, simply put the patches and balls on the block and cut them off at the top of the block instead of sewing them, Leaving the block loaded for quick reloads?

I go to a couple of events where wearing one could cause a fistfight. So I don't wear them there. Every where else I have no problem wearing my loading block.

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:

 

[flintriflesmith]

This subject is more partisan than American Politics! So I might as well jump in.
I think most people agree that our rifles evolved fro earlier Germanic hunting rifles ( I know there was no Germany at this time )In the 17th century every " German " rifleman carried a small wooden block with three holes the same diameter as their rifle bore. There were carried in their packs not hanging on their bags. There was plenty of lead in Europe. These blocks were used to make the "Strong Ball". ... :hmm:

Documentation for these blocks?

Gary

 

[LaBonte]

While I have great respect for Mr Grant (a folklorist not a trained historian, who collected such items at later date), Mr. Albert (a good friend), and Mr. Hughes, most of the bags illustrated by them cannot be positively dated prior to the mid 1800's.
Mr Grant's dates for instance dates mostly come from family "histories", which are far too often in error due to lack of historical knowledge. GOOD doumentation is just like taking evidence into a court of law - it must be cross referenced and backed up with other good evidence. While it's true one should generally not make absolute statements such as loading blocks were NEVER used pre-1800, the burden of proof, just like in a court of law, is on those trying to prove that something existed and that takes verifiable eveidence not assumptions and supposition.

As to loading blocks generally the best solid dates we have begin in the 1840's. Knives on pouches can be documented for sure to around 1800 via some verified written resources, but we don't know for sure what size knives were attached.

As for the knives being too small to be skinners all depends on context - how big a blade do you need to skin a squirrel or rabbit for instance.
And that leads to my opinion on the subject of loading blocks, patch knives, priming horns, etc.(as far as I know the latter two are 20th century terms when applied to muzzleloaders - priming horn for instance in the 1883 Imperial Dictionary of the English language is noted as being a miner's or quarryman's powder horn - with no reference to it's use by shooters.)
IMO these were all items more or less "invented" for use by local "civilized" farmers and towns men not the long hunters or mtn men - not everyone was living on the edge of the frontier and needing to protect themselves from enemies.
Example: as such a farmer one wishes to go hunting for smaller game such as squirrels or rabbits one does not need a full sized knife so for convenience one attaches a knife to his pouch - all shooting accoutrements are thus in one place. Attaching one's horn to the pouch rather than on a separate strap also becomes more common during this time period, making for even more convenience.
Or in that same situation one may not even need a pouch or a full size horn - the so-called priming horns are plenty big enough for a few shots, especially in the more popular smaller bores of the later era, a ball block with 3-6 shots included would be plenty, and for a knife a good pocket knife is more than sufficient under the circumstances. All items can thus be easily carried in ones pockets rather than in an extra bags. Alternatively one could also carry the day horn, the smaller knife, and some loose balls, along with a strip of unlubed patching in his pocket and then use a spit patch cut at the muzzle.


Capper - for the RMFT/mtn man era there is little documentation of how exactly they loaded there rifles, but overall for the period pre-lubed patches were used. As to how they were cut - round is PC for sure since there is good solid evidence for patch cutters in use during the period, but simple square patches or the bit more complicated octagon are also documented and require only a sharp knife and chunk of wood to cut them out and they shoot just fine - I've been using them that way for 40+ years and have never found a spits worth of difference between them and round ones.

As for lube - yes whale oil was used by some during the day, but it would have been more common in the "civilized" areas and it cost money where as animal fats bear grease, deer tallow, hog lard, coon fat, etc. were all available and were a by product of the hunt, making them virtually free.

As always it depends on who, when, and where and EVERY ONES' mileage will vary - i.e if you want to use a loading block or a "patch" knife, etc. knock yourself out and go for it - but it should not be presented as a factual historical tool without the proper documentation.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

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.

To date there is no evidence found that I am aware of for 18th century use of a loading block. If one of the above posters can provide the 17th century information about the German block, it will be a milestone.

Grant was a collector. Any serious historical student has NEVER considered his books as "authoritative". They are just a gathering of collected folklore in one place. I knew Mr. Grant when I was a teen. Super guy but I have been told many of his bags had other old stuff added by him to make sets. His books provide a great deal of collected items for us to sort thru. Most of his collection was 1800's with a scattering of early 20th century stuff.

The OP's question was concerning 18th century historicity of the blocks and not if he needed permission to go hunting with one or carry one on his pouch. When a post is made saying there is no evidence of something being used, it is not a decree to prevent anyone from running thru their backyard wearing one or carrying one. :thumbsup:
It also does not mean those posting those facts do not want some evidence to surface to the contrary. :hatsoff:

 

[David W.]

grzob: Yes, I would like to know your source of information as well.

LaBonte and Capt. Jas., Thank you both for your input. This is the type of answers I am looking for. As previously stated, I am not a historian. When I see pictures (such as Grant, Albert, and Hughes), of aledged original accoutrements, I take it at face value until otherwise proven false. Mr. Grant did state in his book that documentaion is very scarce.

Your answers are far better than accusing me of being on a rediculous rant. I do not think this topic is rediculous. Whether or not some the items discussed here are PC or not makes no difference for my own personal use.

 

[Dphar]

I would have to agree with the idea that collectors are not historians.
While I know little about the collecting of horns or hunting pouches I know that modifying rifles to fit a collection was not unknown.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Fist fights over bullet boards :idunno:
Some reenactors distort the 18th century they try to recreate by carrying too much junk on "treks" (I love this, its a word that would have been unknown in Colonial America being a Boer term, in the strict sense of the word it requires oxen and a wagon).
They pack along all sorts of stuff it is unlikely someone would carry if they were actually out covering ground or if they thought they might have to run from unfriendly natives.
But carrying a steel fire set to cook with is little trouble if the site of the "scout" is only 1/4 mile or perhaps less from where the car is parked. If they had to cover 20 miles in a day lots of food and a fire set would look less appealing. But a bag of corn meal or parched corn maybe some jerked meat and water from the creek is too boring I suppose.
Building a fire could be suicide if actually out scouting for trouble. But they gotta use their corn cooker and fire set you know. Otherwise there is no reason to bring them to show off...

Back to the bullet boards. I was just thinking that someone needed to look into German practices to see if there was a bullet board.
This makes a great deal of sense to me as the question of patch cutters came up again and I again wondered how it was done back in the day. Now I know. The perfect low tech solution. Cut the patches, lube with tallow and they are ready to use.
I would love to see the documentation for this.

Dan

 

[Dphar]

Priming horns, day horns, loading blocks.
Priming horns were used with matchlocks at least or so I have read.
There is David Cooke's pouch which, reportedly, contained both a priming horn and a salt horn.
Was it REALLY a priming horn? Was it for pepper? Unless we have it microscopically examined we will have to accept the explanation given. Was Cooke like me and found priming with the main horn was a PITA? Which it is for me?
Why did our more recent forebears adopt the priming horn? Where did the idea come from if it were impractical?

Day horns? The priming horn in Cooke's pouch is pretty small. Day horn would be bigger I think. 6" or so maybe from the original I used to have. Hold maybe a cup of powder.
If the rifle were 45-50 caliber how many shots would be carried? If going to a rifle match 10 shots would likely be fired if a beef shoot. Probably more maybe less. Then what? If you have a 45 caliber rifle and it shoots best with 45-55 gr of powder how much powder for 10 shots? 450-600 grains. Do I want enough for 20 or 50 rounds? How about priming? What about a reserve? Would a horn the size of Cooke's priming horn hold enough? When did he start using it? when he was 40-50 years old or in his youth?
We know from the Revolution that a rifleman's horn held a pound of powder +-. This from J.J. Henry. He was with Morgan's riflemen in 1775.
For a day horn would it not be easier to not fill it full for short trips than to make or buy a smaller horn? Did people have both day horns and horns for longer trips?
I can see the small horn being used with a 25-35 caliber rifle in the 19th century. The larger bore rifles and the smoothbores lots of people are enamored of would require more regardless of the time frame.
And I agree that much of the surviving "original" equipment, unless very will documented, is likely from the late 19th and maybe even the early 20th century.

The dearth of descriptions of rifleman's equipment and descriptions of loading make all this educated guesses.
Rifle, horn, pouch, knife is about as far as it goes, hatchets and tomahawks. A belt. How did they load? What did they use for patching? What was in the pouch? How many detailed accounts are there? How many people had rifles? Did all riflemen do things in an identical manner? Doubtful. Its the same today.

Dan

 

I agree, but I also want to say that there being no proof one way or another, then you can't sait is ir isn't. So use it!

That's not realistic, nor is it what we should be telling people.

You cannot say that because "we cannot prove that Longhunters didn't wear sandals", so it's okay to wear them.

You don't base historical impressions on what you can't prove. :shake:

 

[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

 

[Pete Gaimari]

Some items from the fur trade/MM era.
http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/museum/goods/goods.html


The guns.
http://www.xmission.com/~drudy/mtman/museum/guns/guns.html

 

[tg]

I suppose rant was a bit strong but after the same exchage several times it gets pointless, and FWIW I suspect boards were likely used to some limited degree somewhere in the colonies in the 17th century bit without evidence I will not say they were.I believe the German method use a tighter ball than the colonial rifles and this may have been the differing point as I stated before I can load as fast with a thumb started ball as a loading block and do not have to fuss with loading one and the drying of the lube after time,and it is true that some act as though someone is trying to tell them they cannot use an item which is not the case.loading is also faster and as accurate with a pre-cut square patch so why cut at the muzzle? There are a lot of things to consider when viewing things not supported by period writings, and to go on for several pagestoting Grant as THE source for your arguement then coming back with this "Mr. Grant did state in his book that documentaion is very scarce." Gives one cause to wonder." That is what others were telling you all along.

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[ol vern]

:hatsoff:

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

:hatsoff: IMHO it has hurt the whole muzzloading sport

 

[David W.]

I suppose rant was a bit strong but after the same exchage several times it gets pointless, and FWIW I suspect boards were likely used to some limited degree somewhere in the colonies in the 17th century bit without evidence I will not say they were.I believe the German method use a tighter ball than the colonial rifles and this may have been the differing point as I stated before I can load as fast with a thumb started ball as a loading block and do not have to fuss with loading one and the drying of the lube after time,and it is true that some act as though someone is trying to tell them they cannot use an item which is not the case.loading is also faster and as accurate with a pre-cut square patch so why cut at the muzzle? There are a lot of things to consider when viewing things not supported by period writings, and to go on for several pagestoting Grant as THE source for your arguement then coming back with this "Mr. Grant did state in his book that documentaion is very scarce." Gives one cause to wonder." That is what others were telling you all along.

Well, maybe I don't get the point across well enough at times. There are not too many sources to rely on with many things back then. That includes much more than just loading blocks or even muzzleloaders in general. It goes on to many other things I would like to know more about like how to properly make damascus steel the way they did is one of them. They were not in the information age at that time. Illiteracy was common, and day to day practices was something everyone knew, so why write it down?

Mr. Grant at least tried to give good information and seems to have been honest about it. Whether or not he aldultered his photo's to portray what he thought was correct, I don't know. :idunno: