Traditional / Old Timey Outdoor Gear

M

mdsmith

Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
1,495
I'm hoping that this is relevant enough to stay in this sub forum. As pretty much everyone knows, there is a huge "survival" and "bushcraft" craze taking place. A lot of the people interested in this type of thing, myself included, get pretty wrapped up in the gear. There's 2 and 3 hundred dollar custom made knives, ultra light nylon tarps and packs, high tech electronics, ect. This kinda got me thinking. A lot of the men of yesteryear spent quite a bit of time outdoors, and we're able to take care of themselves just fine. Given the fact that many of them didn't have the disposal income that many people today have, I would assume that their " outdoors gear" was probably pretty modest. So, what type of things do you think they would have carried for an afternoon in the woods?
 
Interesting question and I'm not clear which sub-forum this belongs in. Suspect it will/should be moved to the survival tools group. We'll see.

When I think about older outdoor gear, I think there are 3 primary traditions to consider. 4 maybe.

The first would be native american tools and techniques. I've no books to suggest on this but would like to see one.

The second tradition would be the traditional hunting/fishing camping tradition. The writings of George Sears (aka Nessmuk) chronicle this approach. Traditional wool garments, camping hatchet and fixed blade knives.

The third tradition would be that of the American west, most notably the cowboys and early settlers. I can't point to you to good reading on that subject but would like to see it.

One book that sort of the first and third approaches is "Wildwood Wisdom" by Ellsworth Jaeger, but I think it's somewhat romantacized in it's treatment of native American techniques.

The last tradition worth considering is the mountaineering tradition, which, arguably is really derived from the military equipment tradition without the guns and bullets. I think serious mountaineering didn't come to the US until the 1900s. Early versions of "Freedom of the Hills" might give clues to older equipment choices. That book coined the term, "the 10 essentials".
 
I'm thinking pinnah's got it right. This will fit better in the Outdoor Gear, Survival Equipment & More subforum. Moving it there now.
 
No problem. I just put it here because I was more interested in what the "folksy" approach was ( ie, that of our grandfathers and great grandfathers).
 
Like Pinnah, when I think of old timey gear, first thing that comes to mind is native Americans. They pretty much made, carried, & used everything they needed. The other group that comes in a close second would be the traditional Mountian Man (think Jim Bridger and the like). Those were some tough hombres that made there way on therir own to a large degree in rough conditions. From some of my readings they used some of the indian techniques and bartered with them to some degree. Those are the first 2 places I would look.
 
The Mountain men / fur trappers had pack animals to carry all their possibles.

Looking back to when I was a kid I got along with a sleeping bag , canteen, matches , candle and a pocket knife.

What did I eat other than sandwiches and chips. I use to scavenge the town and countryside for Apples, watermelons, tomatoes, grapes , pears , cherries, a chicken "twice" , mulberries, turnips, field corn... Im off topic now , but I did just fine with almost no gear. For toilet paper , I used leaves.

One more item that I usually carried, Off.
 
Last edited:
Somewhere a while back I was in a thread where this was discussed but focused more on what we've experienced over time. Some of us older dudes were describing what kind and amount of gear we used to take when we went backpacking in our younger days. No tent or sleeping pad, decent sleeping bag, large sheet of plastic, one knife (Buck 105 for me), decent pack, decent boots, jeans and flannels, one jacket, no change of clothes, minimal cookware and food, plenty of good fishing gear. We went to fish and ate what we caught. This was in the Olympic National Park in Washington State in the 70's.

Gradually we added better equipment when we got jobs in high school: down bag, nicer pack and finally a tent, SVEA stove, better quality boots, and high quality fishing gear. Went to REI in Seattle at least once a year.:thumbup:

Now I've got a lot of really good stuff..........and I like it. Plus I always bring at least 4 knives.:D
 
I think you need to tread very carefully when making assumptions about disposable income, leisure time, and what constitutes modest. There's a common fallacy trap that many fall into that supposes that just because something was used in the past it is good or necessarily desirable. One can often spot idiots making claims based on “it was good enough for blah in the back when so it is good enough for now”. Little do they grasp that folk in the back when might have sold a kidney for tools that didn't die of rust, or had better wear resistance, or to have rigging of a tensile strength that makes natural rope look weedy, or packs that didn't cripple you, or overcome wool blankets infested with lice which weighed a ton for a measly warmth return, or dim and fuming oil lamps that contributed to eye disorders exactly the same as they do in third world hovels today..................... The appeal of nostalgia trumps the wit to grasp that you don't even have to go back very far in time at all to see the effect of nasty boots leading to trench foot. You still get folks that ask in all seriousness about where they can get a pair of mocassins like some romanticized character had. It's inconceivable to me that a voyager wouldn't have saved, begged, borrowed or stole to invest in gear that would have cut his load by half, should the kit have been available............................................ Another aspect to consider is who was actually doing the recreational activity. The labourer with little free time and most of his money tied up in just staying alive paints an easy picture. He wraps up his bit of bread, and cheese if he's lucky, in the same type of material he uses to blow his nose, pokes it into a pocket of his raggy old make do a mend clothing and off he toddles. Maybe he's got the same Jacknife in his pocket he has for his daily work, or perhaps a Green River style or something he uses at the knackers yard. The point being he has to make use of what he has already. That's quite apart from some of the intrepid explorers of the day. Perhaps sponsored by daddy or the old boys network he gets funding to take whatever newfangled inventions he likes and the umpalumpas to carry it for him. Same thing applies to the Romans come to that. There are artifacts that demonstrate just how keen they were to develop folding knives, whereas I doubt many people they had dominion over considered such a development to be of pressing importance...................................In short, some folk did have modest gear relative to the time whereas others very definitely didn't. Then there's that whole nature of what can be construed as modest when we factor in the whimsical nature of desirability. Can an item really be considered modest if it is only whimsical desire that propelled the purchase? I have an old tea set with a spirit burner that's right at home with the Tweeds and “best guns” on a driven shoot. I can picnic in a wood with that lot and stab at pickled onions with a stag handled two tine fork and sip from china cup, and not one bit of that stuff isn't modest from a technology point of view. The fact that my proper outdoor gear out performs that stuff many times over doesn't negate the fact that from a financial point of view it is actually more modest than the retro stuff. I've actually paid through the nose to use kit that is inferior in every way, there can't be anything modest about that....................It's all too easy to pick an idealized scenario from the days of yore, and hark back to a more simple time of the happy peasant content with his lot, all syphilis free and cheery with his flagon of cider with a dead rat in the bottom. He's merrily whittling on a bit of wood with an old Stockman with the tip snapped off. He's content with his potato sack rucksack and its gimpy leather harness because he doesn't know any better. He doesn't know, he doesn't aspire, he is mediocre. But there were plenty of other people around that were not so easily satisfied and they strove for improvements. In the words of Conan Doyle 1915 - “Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius”.
 
Last edited:
I believe most of the outdoorsman of yesteryear didn't accumulate "gear" as a hobby. For many of these folks it was part of their livelihood. As mentioned, a pack animal would have been common to carry their essentials - though probably a less exhaustive list than we may require.

Depending on the intended length of their journey, i suspect they'd have a firearm, an all-purpose knife, a blanket roll, maybe a compass/map, maybe a cast-iron skillet of some size, a metal cup, a canteen/water skin, a pot to boil water and tinder/matches/fire-making provisions. They would probably also have some basic food staples (salt/pepper, flour, a small quantity of sourdough - maybe some sugar?).

I'm not a historian so haven't studied this extensively, but i believe outdoorsman kept things "simpler" because there weren't so many "gadgets" as we have today - particularly electronic gadgets which were non-existent then.
 
One place to look for historical reference might be the Civil War. Many of the Southerners brought their own kit on muster day and fought out of their own rucks and haversacks, wearing their own shirts and boots. In many cases, they weren't even issued rifles and used their own. After the war, many headed west to avoid the coming changes and the carpetbaggers; the early Western explorers and mountain men were primarily war veterans.

Specifics on gear materials: oiled canvas for sure, wool, leather, tin, and wood are some obvious items. While they may not have FOTH back in the day, the 10 essentials were still pretty obvious; one would still have needed food, water, fire, and shelter on a hike. A slicker/duster made of oiled canvas might be heavy but it makes good rain gear and doubles as a shelter. A knife and flint for fire, a pot to boil water, and a canteen, all carried in a simple rucksack or on slings over the shoulder. TimeLife has a book from the Echoes of Glory series called Arms and Equipment of the Confederacy that has a lot of pictures of authentic equipment from the era.
 
Big old Blue tipped strike anywhere matches . Those were great. Cant find them anymore. We use to nab them whenever the opportunity arose. I would love to have a box of them.
 
In "Woodcraft and Camping" George "Nessmuck" Sears says he paid the equivalent of 3 days wages for a double bit hatchet. That is quite a bit more than I would spend on a hatchet...
 
dipbait said:
Big old Blue tipped strike anywhere matches . Those were great. Cant find them anymore. We use to nab them whenever the opportunity arose. I would love to have a box of them.
Click to expand...

Check with your local meth cooker; they're why you can't find those anymore.
 
I bought some at Krogers but they are little and break easily.The old ones were bigger and could strike on just a pair of jeans.
 
Baldtaco - no assumptions were made regarding disposable income. I didn't say everyone has it, I said many people, as I know many people that do. And as far as their gear called modest I meant in reference to what many carry today, which it is. Now, people of today being willing to overpay for it for nostalgia sake is another whole thing, and doesn't really have any relevance.
 
Last edited:
Well , I had to visit the Farm and Home store awhile ago and there in housewares were 250 count boxes of Diamond brand Strike Anywhere matches for a buck 89. They have green tips now .
 
mdsmith, holaWhen you said “ Given the fact that many of them didn't have the disposal income that many people today have, I would assume that their outdoors gear was probably pretty modest...” it wasn't a great leap to make to believe that what you were driving at was gear used by folk of an impoverished disposition. Given that we have no shortage of clods here that use the reasoning “because it was used then it must be desirable or good now” it made sense when your thread got moved here to offer a caveat about that particular brand of cretinism. I only sought to broaden the thread out a bit to make it more relevant to here. On that, I feel quite justified in saying that for every simpleton in the way back when that was happy with his lot, and his pet conker on a bit of string to walk around the woods with, many people folk at the time knew their gear was rubbish and couldn't wait for a brighter tomorrow. My point about what constitutes modest was simply an attempt to operationalize the terms so we have a bit of rigour. If you don't try to make some provision for that you run the risk of ending up in woolly minded situation in which a dizzy claim could be made that a Case Sodbuster is modest compared to Spyderco X. That would be a weird absolute claim that is categorically BS.
 
I like nice gear like most folks. There are some like Dave Canterbury, who I really admire, who like to sleep in a wool blanket on top of branches. I like my North Face bag on top of a Big Agnes inflatable pad. And i like a real tent as opposed to a tarp. And matches or a lighter as compared to F/S or sticks. But, for anyone who ventures out, the most important piece of gear is that fleshy mass between your ears. That's the real determiner.
 
mdsmith said:
I'm hoping that this is relevant enough to stay in this sub forum. As pretty much everyone knows, there is a huge "survival" and "bushcraft" craze taking place. A lot of the people interested in this type of thing, myself included, get pretty wrapped up in the gear. There's 2 and 3 hundred dollar custom made knives, ultra light nylon tarps and packs, high tech electronics, ect. This kinda got me thinking. A lot of the men of yesteryear spent quite a bit of time outdoors, and we're able to take care of themselves just fine. Given the fact that many of them didn't have the disposal income that many people today have, I would assume that their " outdoors gear" was probably pretty modest. So, what type of things do you think they would have carried for an afternoon in the woods?
Click to expand...

I think that most people's outdoors gear were the same as what they wore every day when working the farm or at the factory. Until the 1950's, most people only owned one pair of shoes, a couple pairs of pants, a couple shirts, one jacket and a hat. From readings of writings from 1880's-1930's, some did use uncomfortable rucksacks, while others carried rolled-up blankets, whatever could fit their jacket pockets and mealy bags.

If you look at B&W pictures of people enjoying the outdoors 100 years ago, they were wearing suits and dresses. Here's a "camping" picture from 1908 I just googled. Note these people look to be better-off than most.

camping.jpg
 
Here is what George Sears has to say on the subject of clothing...

"As to clothing for the woods, a good deal of nonsense has been written about "strong, coarse woolen clothes." You do not want coarse woolen clothes. Fine woolen cassimere of medium thickness for coat, vest and pantaloons, with no cotton lining. Color, slate gray or dead-leaf (either is good). Two soft, thick woolen shirts; two pairs of fine, but substantial, woolen drawers; two pairs of strong woolen socks or stockings; these are what you need, and all you need in the way of clothing for the woods, excepting hat and boots, or gaiters. Boots are best--providing you do not let yourself be inveigled into wearing a pair of long-legged heavy boots with thick soles, as has been often advised by writers who knew no better. Heavy, long-legged boots are a weary, tiresome incumbrance on a hard tramp through rough woods. Even moccasins are better."

Things to take...
Coat, pants and vest of fine cassimere
Soft, thick, woolen shirts
fine, substantial woolen drawers
strong woolen socks

I have highlighted the adjectives in the above list. None say cheap or modest. To my minds ear I hear sturdy comfortable gear that is not an incumberance. That says not cheap, even today.

Now things not to take...
Coarse, heavy, tiresome weary, incumberance. These are the adjectives that speak of poor gear- even today.

Add to the gear a custom hatchet that cost 3 days wages and you have a kit that is by no means modest or "old timey" (at least for the day).

People inevitably misinterpret the meaning of traditional, or what the "traditions" of our forefathers were. We are a species of inovators...
Match lock gave way to wheel lock, which gave way to flint lock, that to the percussion lock, and that to the self contained cartridge. Single shots gave way to repeaters. Smooth bores gave way to rifling. Despotism gave way for constitutional monarchy, gave way to representative government. Heavy smelly wool gave way to light synthetic fleece. Heavy gives way to light. Coarse gives way to fine. Oppressive gives way for somewhat less oppressive...

And, just a note on the "Even mocassins are better." That is not an endorsement, but saying that a foot covering that provides no support and minimal protection is better than one that is a heavy, weary, tiresome incumberance.

If your great grandfather was hear today he would slap the flint lock out of your hand and burn it on a pyre built from a moth eaten wool blanket and an oilcloth rucksack if he could get his hands on the gear we have today at the [relative] prices we have today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top