Author Topic: Comments on bag or reaction to article?  (Read 25629 times)

Offline Chuck Burrows

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1218
    • Wild Rose Trading Company
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2009, 11:49:47 PM »
Quote
and the attached horn is far more practical in actual use
Maybe so - but there is good period documentation (both written and pictorial) that for instance many of the 1830's mountain men wore their horn and pouch in various ways including:
Horn on one side and bag on the other
Horn and pouch both sides, but separate straps
Horn worn under the arm, while he bag was worn center front

This is NOT based assumption or speculation but documented fact.............and many of those mountain men were descendants of the Scots-Irish/Virginia/KY "warrior ethic" - IMO with all due respect to Wallace and others, speculation is still speculation until such time as there is the primary documentation to back it up.....

Bottomline - outside of the military folks were individuals and based on the existing evidence used/wore their gear in various ways dependent on how it worked for them........

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Offline bigbat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2009, 06:42:51 AM »
I absolute agree with you,  They were as much individulas tyhen as we are now.  Miltary rules would dictate behavior, but civilians cold do what worked for them

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2009, 05:46:57 PM »
Lee,
When you get back from your Texas holiday trip could you post some of your period documentation referring to the procedure you have described of having one or two men take the horns from a group (company or squad) to the magazine to be filled? I have been unable to document that procedure in any of the period sources I have access to.
Gary

I would also be very much interested in any such historical documentation, though I don't expect there to be any.  Many times, things that were a good idea or were common procedures, would not have been documented.  Paper and ink were expensive/hard to come by and the literacy rate was lower back then.

I often joke that one of the things I remember most about 26 years in the military was standing in lines while waiting to be issued something or to fill out paperwork, get shots, etc.  Every moment troops stand in line waiting means they can't be doing other work kike cleaning their musket, setting up camp. getting firewood, cooking, drilling, etc., etc., etc. 

So how did they issue powder and ball to troops, or even cartridges for that matter?   The Quartermaster Officers were responsible for overseeing the troops got the quantities of powder and lead or balls that were needed, but I'm not sure how far "down into the weeds" they got in handing it out.  The Quartermaster NCO's would have done that and though I believe they were more likely to be literate than the average troops, I don't believe they would have written down the procedures.  (Even when I retired from the military in 1997 and we were supposed to have turnover folders for all supervisors and Desk Top procedures for each job in the military - it was uncommon to find them even written up or up to date.) 

OK to issue the powder, we have to have some way of handing out somewhat uniform quantities.  Powder did not come in barrels that were sized to be issued battalions, companies, platoons or squads.  So they first had to break down the amount of powder by larger units like regiments or battalions.  Then it had to be broken down to ever smaller units to issue individual quantities of powder.  That meant some sort of measure or cup dipped into the powder barrels.  That was the easy part.  You could have laid out individual issue quantities of balls or lead on a blanket to speed up handing them out, but they didn't have handy little containers to issue the powder individually.   If they didn't have a funnel to fill the horns, they would have used a piece of paper in a cone shape to fill them.  We know funnels were available in the period we just don't know how many the Army would have had at any time.  Worst case scenario is having to have each soldier hold out a hand and dump powder in that hand.  That would have wasted a whole lot of precious powder. 

OK, so we wouldn't want a body of soldiers just standing in line waiting to get their horns filled as there were a lot of other things they had to do from dawn to dusk.  Also, when each soldier comes up, you have to either take the time to show him what you are doing to fill the horns or do it for them - which would have been faster as the guy filling the horn would have become more adept at doing it, take less time and spill less powder.  Taking it one step further in common sense, you just collect the horns and have a few soldiers filling them who are adept at doing it and have the few funnels available.  That way, the rest of the soldiers can be doing other things. 

As to issuing cartridges, I can not believe they handed out quantities of paper, powder and ball to each unit to make cartridges.  The smart way to do that would be to either have Quartermaster troops cut the papers or "detail" troops to assist the Quartermasters in doing that.  That way, you can get the most out of limited amounts of paper.  Then you train the most adept troops at making the cartridges.  Then you either store the cartridges in wood boxes or lay them out on blankets for issue to larger bodies of troops.  Then they issue them out to ever smaller units.  A Sergeant or a Corporal with maybe a couple few privates gets the cartridges for their Platoon and then they lay them out in counted quantities on a blanket to issue them to the troops. 

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2009, 06:10:52 PM »
I can appreciate Dan saying a separate pouch and horn would be a PITA to get to quickly and ensure you have both.  That of course is with the assumption you took them off when you lay down to sleep or do other things like cooking, casting balls, etc.  

I have no documentation for this, but if I were a longhunter, I would have slept with my pouch and horn on my person and my rifle close at hand.  Probably sitting or laying on my back so I could stick the belt axe in my belt over my belly.  That way if you have to jump up quickly even from sleep, you have everything right with you.  This even if there were a few other longhunters with me to take turns on watch during the night.  I can say that with a lot of experience sleeping with my rifle or pistol in different operational or combat areas around the world.  

In a larger camp or in a military situation where there is an assigned guard, I might have taken off the bag and horn or cartridge box, but it would have lain right beside me had I done it.   So I'm not so sure a separate horn and pouch would have been a huge deal.

Modified to say:  I can say from experience that a leather cartridge box doesn't make a bad pillow when you don't have the real thing.  Grin.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 06:14:31 PM by Artificer »

Offline Ky-Flinter

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7365
  • Born in Kentucke, just 250 years late
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2009, 06:42:34 PM »
I very much enjoyed Wallace's recent article and look forward to the future article on wipers as I am slowly gathering the proper contents for my shot pouch.

I am also very much enjoying this thread.  Gary, thanks for kicking it off. 

As for the dispensing of powder in the military/militia, I have heard, and it makes sense to me, that it was done as Lee and Artificer have described.  So, a separate horn strap or a buckle arrangement makes sense.  To continue that line of thought..... Is one of the reasons for applying one's name to his horn in those days, so that it was more easily returned to it's owner after being filled?

-Ron
Ron Winfield

Life is too short to hunt with an ugly gun. -Nate McKenzie

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2009, 07:07:50 PM »
To continue that line of thought..... Is one of the reasons for applying one's name to his horn in those days, so that it was more easily returned to it's owner after being filled?

-Ron

After doing some research, I was somewhat surprised at how high the literacy rate was in 18th century America - even on the frontier where sources state it was between 50 and 60 percent and in the settled areas from 70 to 100 percent. 

A name or some kind of mark would have been useful indeed to have gotten the horns back into the hands of their owners.

Offline Mark Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5191
    • Mark Elliott  Artist & Craftsman
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #31 on: December 22, 2009, 10:54:44 PM »
I only just got my Muzzle Blast a few days ago and read Wallace's article with interest since i have made several bags based on his.  However, I noticed what seems, to my mind, a discrepancy between the photos and the text that no one else has mentioned.   The photos 4D and 4E seem to be reversed according to Wallace's description of them.  He said that the strap was stitched to the rear of the pouch if worn on the right side and that the buttons were stitched to the front of the pouch if worn on the right side.   Although this is how I have interpreted the strap attachment in the past, I am now seeing the remnants of two botton holes on the rear of the pouch (4D) if worn on the right and what looks like stitches torn out on the front of the pouch(4E).   What is everybody elses take on this?   

Below are some photos of a bag that I made for myself based on the bag in the article.  What I made seems to reflect what Wallace described, but as I am looking at the pictures now,  it doesn't look right to me.






Offline Mark Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5191
    • Mark Elliott  Artist & Craftsman
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2009, 11:28:00 PM »
One other thing,  did anyone notice the stamped decoration on the front of the bag?  I saw it in the photo, but never noticed it in person.



Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3108
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #33 on: December 23, 2009, 02:25:09 AM »
Mark,


I first saw those designs on the leather when looking at Jim Mullins' book "Of Sorts For Provincials" which shows the pouch in color.  The B&W photos show it better though.


Jefferson58

  • Guest
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #34 on: December 23, 2009, 02:32:30 AM »
Mark:

I saw the designs or "stamps" in the leather after looking hard for a few times. I agree on the strap position with the photos reversed, but the previous page photo, I believe, shows where the front inner button would have pulled through on the front edge for a right hand carry. I interpreted the strap attachment the same as you did, and made my pouch like yours in the back.

Guess I should have looked harder, but I like the two button arrangement better, and really think it is a better design. I will probably stick with it even though it is not absolutely correct from a "historical" perspective.

Maybe we can compare notes in March in Williamsburg.

Jeff

Offline Mark Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5191
    • Mark Elliott  Artist & Craftsman
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #35 on: December 23, 2009, 08:00:55 AM »
Jeff,  I look forward to talking with you.

Mark

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #36 on: January 02, 2010, 06:22:10 AM »
I only just got my Muzzle Blast a few days ago and read Wallace's article with interest since i have made several bags based on his.  However, I noticed what seems, to my mind, a discrepancy between the photos and the text that no one else has mentioned.   The photos 4D and 4E seem to be reversed according to Wallace's description of them.  He said that the strap was stitched to the rear of the pouch if worn on the right side and that the buttons were stitched to the front of the pouch if worn on the right side.   Although this is how I have interpreted the strap attachment in the past, I am now seeing the remnants of two botton holes on the rear of the pouch (4D) if worn on the right and what looks like stitches torn out on the front of the pouch(4E).   What is everybody elses take on this?   
Mark,
Figures 4d and 4E are just enlargements of the corresponding sections of Figure 4B which shows the entire back (shooter’s side) of the bag. 4D is the top right corner and 4E is the top left corner.  Maybe the sequence of the illustrations lead to some confusion but in the text Wallace addressed the stitched on attachment on the top right first and be double button attachment next. That is why the figures are numbered and placed on the page as they are. 
I think the real puzzling feature of this bag is why the “double button” (two buttons connected by a short shaft of much smaller diameter that has been compared to a cufflink) passed completely through the bag. There are button holes in both the back (shooter’s side) of the bag and in the front. The former is torn out and the latter is almost concealed  under the flap (see Figure A top right corner). Wallace has believed it was for extra strength but I have wondered, since reading the article and studying the bag more carefully, why the maker would not have simply sewn a second reinforcing layer inside the bag as he did for the double button on the front for the flap.
A possibility I have considered is that the button hole in the bag of the bag began to tear out and someone repaired the bag by cutting a second hole in the front so the button had a new anchor point. The stretched front hole clearly carried the weight of the bag for some time.
Gary
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #37 on: January 02, 2010, 11:15:57 PM »
This link provides some very good documentation for at least some use of  private soldiers carrying a powder horn on the right side and a cartridge pouch on his left side.  Go down the link until you get to this sketch.

Detail of a sketch of the back of a light infantry private in the 69th Regiment, 1778
by Philippe Jacques de Loutherbourg (1740-1812)
Copyright: Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection, Brown University Library

http://www.62ndregiment.org/soldier_arms.htm

Trkdriver99

  • Guest
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2010, 06:56:29 AM »




After reading all the posts and looking at all the pictures I made this out of some oil tanned elk leather that I had. It is a some of the last of a half hide I had.  It had some wrinkles in it. I have some oak cow coming in a day or two so I guess it is a practice bag. I made the strap out of some cow that I had. Dyed it with Fiebings black and mink oiled it good.  Beings that I am just starting to do things the way I should and that I have a long way to go to get there I just wanted to let you know that you guys have had a good influance on my work. Thanks

Ronnie

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2010, 07:22:37 AM »
Something about this bag has bugged me for the past couple of days.  I think my problem is I don't know the scale of the photos and don't know the height of Mark Elliot's bag shown in pics above.

Part of what I've been wondering about is how much of an extension do you get when you button the strap on with the button holes closer to the end of the strap vs the button holes further up the strap?  

Also, it looks to me like the pouch was made adjustable primarily for the difference in the amount of clothing worn between summer and winter, if the above distance in question is not that great.  

I've wondered if the person who made or designed the pouch usually walked instead of sometimes riding, but that would assume he would want to have the bag ride up much higher while riding.   Some folks wouldn't have worried about that, but it would have bugged other people.  So I don't think we can draw a definitive conclusion from the adjustment in the strap.  

« Last Edit: January 06, 2010, 07:39:25 PM by Artificer »

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9761
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2010, 05:06:51 PM »
Above I read that the longrifle was developed so that the rifle was easier to load while horse back.
I would love to see how this works in actual practice compared to a short rifle, which IMO would be easier to load horseback.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2010, 07:38:20 PM »
Above I read that the longrifle was developed so that the rifle was easier to load while horse back.
I would love to see how this works in actual practice compared to a short rifle, which IMO would be easier to load horseback.

Dan

Good point, Dan. 

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9761
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2010, 08:00:45 PM »
Gary, you dog, I think you knew what a can of worms you were opening.

Dan, Tim, everyone, what you're missing is this. Wallace has been researching what he calls the "backcountry rifle culture" for a number of years now. This culture is what many call the Scots-Irish, few of which were Irish, and many of which weren't Scots! From about 1717 to 1775 there was a hugh influx of these people who disembarked at ports along the Delaware and migrated down the Great Wagon Road (more or less I-81 down the Valley of Virginia). Over several hundred years these people, who lived in a much contested area including the north of England, the south of Scotland, and Northern Ireland, developed a "warrior ethic". They became natural fighters, much like some of the Indians here.

They brought this warrior ethic with them to America. Here they adopted the "short" rifle of the Germans, who had preceded them by a few years down the Wagon Road through Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Shenenoah Valley. Having trouble loading the short rifle with its patched ball when mounted, these warriors asked the German gunsmiths to lengthen the barrel to that of the common fowler, about 3 1/2 feet or so. This way they could set the butt on the grown as they rammed the patched ball down the bore. The backcountry horses were much smaller than common pleasure horses today.

Sure, Wallace is speculating about the longrifle and the pouch/horn issue, but he's doing so from the mindset that a people with a warrior ethic settled the Valley of Virginia. Men who quickly adapted to the dangers involved.

For more info on this backcountry people, read Albion's Seed by Fischer.
For more info on why the rifle was an important part of this culture, badger Wallace into finishing his book!!

Andy ;D

BTW- I think Wallace wears his pouch on the right and horn on the left.
Its easier to put the butt of the gun on your foot and use a shorter rifle.
Assuming the nag will stand while loading is done its still not practical to put the butt on the ground unless the horse is pony sized.

Dan
He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2010, 06:34:58 AM »
Something about this bag has bugged me for the past couple of days.  I think my problem is I don't know the scale of the photos and don't know the height of Mark Elliot's bag shown in pics above....

The original bag is almost square but the stretching of the leather and a bit of a rip by the button hole makes it hard to get an exact measurement. 7 1/4 X 7 1/4 is real close.
Gary
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2010, 06:59:08 AM »
Something about this bag has bugged me for the past couple of days.  I think my problem is I don't know the scale of the photos and don't know the height of Mark Elliot's bag shown in pics above....

The original bag is almost square but the stretching of the leather and a bit of a rip by the button hole makes it hard to get an exact measurement. 7 1/4 X 7 1/4 is real close.
Gary

Thank you Gary.  Then the distance between the button holes sounds like a good adjustment for heavier winter clothing.

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2010, 02:07:22 AM »
Thank you Gary.  Then the distance between the button holes sounds like a good adjustment for heavier winter clothing.

Just to be sure we are on the same page---the original bag shows no evidence of two buttons on the back of the bag to go through the strap. Since the strap does not survive there is no way to tell how many holes it had or their spacing.

The term "double button" has apparently been interpreted to mean two, one above the other, in several reproduction bags including the two recently shown here in this thread. Wallace's interpretation of the evidence would be one button visible on the back of the bag to attach the strap -- re-enforced by being attached to another button visible only on the front and partially hidden under the flap.
Gary
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Offline Artificer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2010, 08:07:18 AM »
Oh, that is different than what I thought.  Thanks for pointing that out Gary.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, is the speculation that there were there two buttons used and possibly joined together at the loops something like a cuff link?  (Boy, that dates me.  Grin.)  I could see that would be a quick way to correct a hole torn out of the bag by heavy use with the first looped button sewing having ripped through the leather.  A button on the other side would have spread the stress over a larger area of the leather.  IOW, it would work sort of like the later double headed studs used on sword belts in the 19th century? 

Offline flintriflesmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1509
    • Flintriflesmith
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #47 on: January 09, 2010, 11:20:50 PM »
The "double button" system was used for clothing items in the 18th century--I believe so the buttons could be removed before the shirt or whatever was washed. It was also used on some European rifle slings.

The |=| (button, connector, button) resembles a tiny, short bar bell. I have one on a modern rifle sling but the difference is that the modern one is made in two halves that thread together. The early ones were fixed.

Gary
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
http://flintriflesmith.com

Offline AndyThomas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2010, 02:46:23 AM »
Above I read that the longrifle was developed so that the rifle was easier to load while horse back.
I would love to see how this works in actual practice compared to a short rifle, which IMO would be easier to load horseback.

Dan

Although I've never heard Wallace say the longrifle was "developed" so that it would be easier to load from horseback, when I put together what he has said, I come to that conclusion. Wallace suggests two reasons for the longer barrel, 1) tradition, the smoothbores had long barrels, and 2) it would be easier to load from horseback.

As for the size of horses. Horses in the backcountry in the 18th century were quite small to todays standards. A 14 hand horse, a big horse then, would measure about 56" at the top of the withers, the bump at the base of the neck. A rifle with a 3 1/2 foot barrel would measure about 58" long, putting the hands, when loading, about 2" above the withers.

As for the double buttons, I can see where "sleeve buttons" like those found here,

http://www.wmboothdraper.com/

would be better from a durability standpoint. Since the "thread" is metal, it would not wear through. Losing a flap button isn't much of a problem, but when the strap lets go at a bad time, it could be life or death. Interesting.

Andy
formerly the "barefoot gunsmith of Martin's Station" (now retired!)

www.historicmartinsstation.com

Offline Dphariss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9761
  • Kill a Commie for your Mommy
Re: Comments on bag or reaction to article?
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2010, 08:28:11 AM »
Above I read that the longrifle was developed so that the rifle was easier to load while horse back.
I would love to see how this works in actual practice compared to a short rifle, which IMO would be easier to load horseback.

Dan

Although I've never heard Wallace say the longrifle was "developed" so that it would be easier to load from horseback, when I put together what he has said, I come to that conclusion. Wallace suggests two reasons for the longer barrel, 1) tradition, the smoothbores had long barrels, and 2) it would be easier to load from horseback.

As for the size of horses. Horses in the backcountry in the 18th century were quite small to todays standards. A 14 hand horse, a big horse then, would measure about 56" at the top of the withers, the bump at the base of the neck. A rifle with a 3 1/2 foot barrel would measure about 58" long, putting the hands, when loading, about 2" above the withers.

As for the double buttons, I can see where "sleeve buttons" like those found here,

http://www.wmboothdraper.com/

would be better from a durability standpoint. Since the "thread" is metal, it would not wear through. Losing a flap button isn't much of a problem, but when the strap lets go at a bad time, it could be life or death. Interesting.

Andy

Someone needs to try loading from horse back in this manner.
How you going to hold it if you need a hand for the horse, a hand for the horn etc etc when the muzzle is well below waist level while on the 56" horse? Just curious.
I see it as a wreck in the making.

Dan

He who dares not offend cannot be honest. Thomas Paine