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.
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.
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.
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.
Enter your email address to join: