Traditional / Old Timey Outdoor Gear

I think we have to look at each "old time" expert the way we look at modern ones. George Sears is the spiritual ancestor of Ray Mears. Why survive, when with simple tools and practiced skills, you can have luxury? I'm sure there were guys who lived on minimal gear, making things as they went, kinda like Les and Cody do now, and there were "explorers" who relied on their team to keep them alive (a bit like Bear perhaps?) Then learn from that person, in their specialty.

David Thompson lived by his own skills, but would have been kitted with the best the Hudson's Bay company could get, as they had a huge interest in keeping him alive. I've heard that he also carried a jar of mercury with him to get a horizon for taking sextant readings!
The "Mad Trapper" when he was finally found was carrying a huge pack, including three long guns, and a box of laxative tablets, he apparently had a rather badly curved spine. He had the skills to live out in the wilds, but he was not a healthy man.
I would also like to point out that there are very few "famous" mountain men, I'd hazard that a great many didn't live long enough to become famous.
Robert Service wrote quite a lot about the Klondike, and one recurring theme is how tenuous survival was for the trappers and gold panners. Life could be very short, and a simple accident or poor turn of weather could very well be lethal. I can carry more dedicated survival gear in my back pocket than most of those guys could have had in their packs.

As to moccasins, they are great in the right environment, and would be far superior to wood soled boots in the arctic. However I'll take a good pair of rubber bottom, canvas upper, felt lined boots any day. I think any bit of gear needs to be looked at for its own merits. is that wool blanket going to be warmer than a down bag? Not by far, but can you curl up beside your fire in the wool? I know quite a few guys who would not trade their oiled canvas dusters for any synthetic rain gear, but then again, those guys spend a good part of their day on horseback. Canvas tents are horrible, until you feel the need to have a wood stove inside your tent! The best part of modern life is we can take any part of any one item, and build it to the best of the available technology if we want to. I think being attached to an Idea is wrong, you need to look at the over-all merits of any bit of kit, and take the thing that works best FOR YOU, for your circumstances. Otherwise you are just joining another religion.
 
gadgetgeek said:
I would also like to point out that there are very few "famous" mountain men, I'd hazard that a great many didn't live long enough to become famous.
Robert Service wrote quite a lot about the Klondike, and one recurring theme is how tenuous survival was for the trappers and gold panners. Life could be very short, and a simple accident or poor turn of weather could very well be lethal. I can carry more dedicated survival gear in my back pocket than most of those guys could have had in their packs.
Click to expand...

In actuality, most "mountain men" only did it for a few years before they moved back to the cities and towns. I'm sure plenty died due to weather, Indians or stupidity, but for most, it was just a "temporary gig" and not a permanent lifestyle.
 
Leather, wool and canvas. It has worked for 100's of years.

Leather mocs or boots
Wool breeches
Linen shirt
Leather possibles bag
Large knife in leather sheath
Neckerchief
Wool felt hat
Tomahawk
Powder horn
Long gun
 
A lot of simple, fairly inexpensive equipment can still be made and used. Townsend Whelen's books (On Your Own in the Wilderness is one) discuss basic equipment that can be made and used. From Whelen, I made a packframe out of wood (Alaska pack frame or Trapper Nelson) that worked fine for me as an Explorer Scout.
Faiaoga
 
Last edited:
CWL, didn't know that. I've learned more about northern gold miners and fur trappers just due to culture I guess, it wouldn't surprise me if half of what I know about "mountain men" was really legends of Davey Crockett that had been re-told to me. Thanks for the info.
 
It seems like some people are taking my original post way out of context. I originally posted this in the "Traditional" forum, because that's usually where I hang out, and traditional things are what tend to attract me. We get some post over there regarding what our fathers or grandfathers "EDC'd". I find it interesting to see what men of that generation had with them on a daily basis. So, I decided to post a question regarding what men or at generation would have carried with them for a day in the woods, be it fishing, hiking, ect. My only reason for referencing "survival" is that for some, not all, people, this is the new thing, and in order to take a stroll in the woods, they pack as if they were going to be dropped of in the middle of nowhere and left on their own. This is fine if it's what they enjoy. I personally enjoy more traditional/ old timey knives and gear, and wanted to get a feel for what the old timers as to what they felt was necessary to carry with them. You can call it "subscribing to a religion", or whatever else you chose, but it's a hobby for me, and I'm going to buy and use what I he the most enjoyment from.
 
Since I used the phrase, I'll clarify, and apologize. I did not intend to offend. What I more properly meant was that, there is an idea that all things that came before were better, and that can be a problem if a person is blind to the flaws in their equipment, or overly romanticizes its merits. If you want to camp, hike, whatever with wool, leather and canvas, knowing that your gear could be drier, warmer and lighter, that is fine by me. Doing things the traditional way, to see what things were like is also very valuable, there is no better way to learn history than to live it IMHO.
To actually answer your question, I know that my grandfather used to hunt with little more than a belt knife, jack knife, rifle, and wore jeans, wool shirt, hat, leather gloves and boots. His survival kit was probably a hanky, smokes and matches. He also lived on borrowed time, and pretty much never considered his own personal safety. (not a joke, the old man was a complete lunatic!) For him and the others like him, the wilderness was either a workplace (for the trappers, most of whom built cabins and tended lines nearby) or a place to be tamed, like my grandfather. For him, all the bush was good for was hunting and sheltering cows, not recreation.
How we view the wilderness has an effect on how we would look at "traditional gear" as well. there is a far cry of difference between those who lived the land, and those who visited it.
What is also interesting however, is how much equipment was built, modified, jerry rigged, or what have you. It seems a lot of people made due with whatever they could get their hands on, and in some cases had to be quite creative with limited resources. I have not seen very many museum pieces from back home that look unmodified, I doubt that much of the equipment available at the time was terribly effective. Some of the things I've found on farms look like they were made by looking at the pictures in a catalog.
 
I was born in England in 54 in the post WWII poverty
Society and its mores were very static, and the biggest change was in the 20s post WWI

In the mid 60s till the very early 70s I went to Boy Scouts and Army Cadets (ROTC) in high school
Canvas tents and wool blankets, and WWII equipment
What was new were the boots, no longer hob nails but a wonderful new material call Vibram
I hiked the mountains in my woollen trousers and woolen sweaters, but I did purchase a Blacks canvas duck Anorak

Down duvets and nylon tents were coming into the market, but were still specialised mountaineering equipment and very expensive
I managed to save for a feather and down bag, that was so contoured you could hardly move in it

My point?
My gear was wool, canvas, and leather, because there was nothing else available
Very similar to gear 100 years before
Heavy to start with, but impossibly heavy once wet
Ever tried frozen canvas tents???


Nylon, polarfill, fleece, and gortex certainly make life much lighter, easier, and a lot drier
 
Gadget - no problem, I wasn't really offended. I guess that my point is that for me, going for a small hike (ie. a few hours), or going fishing for the day is purely for fun, so I'm willing to sacrifice functionality for form. If I was in the woods all day because it's was how I made a living, or put food on the table, I'd definitely go with whatever the most practical gear was. I was also criticizing myself. I tend to spend more time worrying about gear than I should, and it seems to me that there was more emphasis on doing rather than gear back then.
 
I have a buddy I backpack with occasionally that used to do (and still does only not as often) French and Indian War reenactments. Most of his gear is handmade, hand dyed, period to a T. When out doing overnight hikes with a musket the bulk of his gear is back at a bivouac. His gear and load is designed for two to three days at most, though the real soldiers of the day would have marched for extended periods with the same kit. It is not built for comfort, but if the weather isn't too variable it works just fine. His boots are perfectly fine by modern standards - not waterproof but dry out quickly. Cookware is similar - a bit heavier than modern but not by much. Bed roll is nothing I'd use by choice and his tarp is likewise heavy for what it does. Much of the time the tarp wouldn't be carried and if it was you'd just wrap yourself rather than suspend it as a shelter, I believe its oilcloth. I'll have to pick his brain a bit more about the specifics. I do know the gear and clothing that can be brought along must be hand made or made using period methods, so a little research into the reenactment crowd could lead to a lot of insight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top