Black Hand
Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 897
More likely that it had melted out of the pork and solidified in the bag.
canvas shooting bag
- Thread starter jaybird14
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Pine rosin and beeswax makes cobbler's wax, good on Barbour's linen thread for stitching leather bags and such. It would probably do a good job for waterproofing, but I think it would be kinda heavy.
jaybird14
36 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 6
Thanks for all the info/history guys!!!!
The history makes it for me. I love to shoot, anything, bows, shotguns , sling shots, but the stories that come with traditional muzzle loading are the best ...as is this forum.
Thank you!
Jay
ps any patterns ???
.. more pics.
The history makes it for me. I love to shoot, anything, bows, shotguns , sling shots, but the stories that come with traditional muzzle loading are the best ...as is this forum.
Thank you!
Jay
ps any patterns ???
.. more pics.- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,489
- Reaction score
- 16,602
I don't have any experience with using a linen or canvas "haversack" style shot pouch, but I have LOADS of practical experience with different period styles of haversacks from FIW through the WBTS period. Personally, I would not want to carry lead balls and other shooting accoutrements in any of them, as the bags FAR too easily "scrunch up" in use. That makes getting things out of them slower and then the flaps MIGHT allow something to slip out.
Also, to get the bag so it would not deform in shape readily, means one would have to use a thicker material and do a LOT more labor to make them, than by using leather.
Here is a link shows what purports to be a reproduction of an 18th century version of a cloth shooting pouch. I have NO idea if it can be documented, though, and I question it to say the least. http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2011/10/haversack-by-maryellen-pratt-for-brian.html
Gus
Also, to get the bag so it would not deform in shape readily, means one would have to use a thicker material and do a LOT more labor to make them, than by using leather.
Here is a link shows what purports to be a reproduction of an 18th century version of a cloth shooting pouch. I have NO idea if it can be documented, though, and I question it to say the least. http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2011/10/haversack-by-maryellen-pratt-for-brian.html
Gus
Last edited by a moderator:
That bag is a confusing one. They label it a haversack, but present it with horn and knife as though it's a shot pouch.Artificer said:
To make sure I didn't confuse the issue, the haversack I pictured above is just that, a haversack to carry my food in, not a shot bag in any sense of the word. I showed it only to demonstrate treatment with beeswax, not as an example of a cloth shot pouch.
Spence
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,489
- Reaction score
- 16,602
Spence,
Thanks for your clarification. I didn't think you meant you used that haversack as a shot pouch, but I have to admit I wasn't entirely sure.
OH, BTW, now that I know what "plush" meant in the earlier quote, I am not so sure a wool fabric like plush would have made a good shot pouch, either, and especially not without something to stiffen it up as well?
Gus
Thanks for your clarification. I didn't think you meant you used that haversack as a shot pouch, but I have to admit I wasn't entirely sure.
OH, BTW, now that I know what "plush" meant in the earlier quote, I am not so sure a wool fabric like plush would have made a good shot pouch, either, and especially not without something to stiffen it up as well?
Gus
Haversacks were well know as military food bags. Civilians carring some sort of wallet with stuff in it, or possibles bag is not well represented in paintings. I have a haversack styled bag they I stuff with small stuff, but can't prove that was historic. I call it my wallet or possible bag.
Shooting bag seem to have been smaller then the suit case on a strap that I first bought. They carried a few ball, patching, maybe some grease, cleaning stuff, some spare flints a tool. I THINK loading mallets(short starters) were known but not in any way common, and loading blocks the same. Taking those two items out of the bag you have a small bag needed. A small bag wouldn't be hard to get into. Even the military often went in to battle with around a dozen shots. To be hc with a canvas bag I would BET,not prove that it would be small and easy to use.
Shooting bag seem to have been smaller then the suit case on a strap that I first bought. They carried a few ball, patching, maybe some grease, cleaning stuff, some spare flints a tool. I THINK loading mallets(short starters) were known but not in any way common, and loading blocks the same. Taking those two items out of the bag you have a small bag needed. A small bag wouldn't be hard to get into. Even the military often went in to battle with around a dozen shots. To be hc with a canvas bag I would BET,not prove that it would be small and easy to use.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,489
- Reaction score
- 16,602
The problem with linen/cloth Over-the-Shoulder Cartridge Pouches for the 18th century Military or Militia was things like worms, turnscrews and even flints (when not in leather wallets) would/did abrade, poke through, slice, or cut the linen/cloth quicker and wear them out much faster than leather. This is part of the reason the military preferred leather, along with some added protection of the leather against rain/snow for their paper cartridges and other things carried in the Cartridge Pouch. Even the standard issue Cartridge Box, that we know as a "Belly Box," only carried cartridges and maybe an oil bottle. Though the Cartridge Box body was made of wood, the flap was leather for the added protection against the elements.
Heck, haversacks that they did not carry such Iron or sharp/pointy items in were only expected to last at most a year and often had to be replaced twice a year. Also, they did not carry anything in them that would abrade/cut/eventually ruin them - except from rot.
Further, documentation for the FIW and AWI war use of linen/cloth Shot Pouches is few and far between and almost always at the beginning of a war or when units were quickly raised and outfitted. This normally suggests there was not enough leather to make proper cartridge boxes or pouches, or they were in too much of a hurry to have them made prior to when the new outfits had to leave.
As to the number of paper cartridges seen as necessary/required to supply a Soldier for the British Army and British American Armies (until the AWI when some became Rebels) there remains a lot of confusion about how many rounds they carried. FIW period British Cartridge Pouches may only have carried 18 to 21 rounds, BUT they were also expected to carry an additional 10 to 14 rounds in the Cartridge Box at their waist. By the time of the AWI, British Cartridge Pouches had been increased to around 28 cartridge capacity, so they normally/often no longer wore the additional Cartridge Box around their waist and often stored them against future need.
Now, the American Army in the AWI generally copied the British where they could, but since their supplies and resupplies were often no where near as good as the British Forces, then, yes they may have carried 13 paper cartridges or less. That did not mean they figured that was enough, it was merely having to "make do" too often with what they could get.
Gus
P.S. Oh, I'm sure that ANY American Soldier in the AWI who survived a battle and when/if they actually won a battle; was VERY Quickly ordered to grab a British Cartridge Pouch of the defeated enemy. They may or even probably removed any British Device from the Pouch, but they would have quickly so outfitted themselves and used the linen/cloth pouches for something else - like a haversack most likely.
Heck, haversacks that they did not carry such Iron or sharp/pointy items in were only expected to last at most a year and often had to be replaced twice a year. Also, they did not carry anything in them that would abrade/cut/eventually ruin them - except from rot.
Further, documentation for the FIW and AWI war use of linen/cloth Shot Pouches is few and far between and almost always at the beginning of a war or when units were quickly raised and outfitted. This normally suggests there was not enough leather to make proper cartridge boxes or pouches, or they were in too much of a hurry to have them made prior to when the new outfits had to leave.
As to the number of paper cartridges seen as necessary/required to supply a Soldier for the British Army and British American Armies (until the AWI when some became Rebels) there remains a lot of confusion about how many rounds they carried. FIW period British Cartridge Pouches may only have carried 18 to 21 rounds, BUT they were also expected to carry an additional 10 to 14 rounds in the Cartridge Box at their waist. By the time of the AWI, British Cartridge Pouches had been increased to around 28 cartridge capacity, so they normally/often no longer wore the additional Cartridge Box around their waist and often stored them against future need.
Now, the American Army in the AWI generally copied the British where they could, but since their supplies and resupplies were often no where near as good as the British Forces, then, yes they may have carried 13 paper cartridges or less. That did not mean they figured that was enough, it was merely having to "make do" too often with what they could get.
Gus
P.S. Oh, I'm sure that ANY American Soldier in the AWI who survived a battle and when/if they actually won a battle; was VERY Quickly ordered to grab a British Cartridge Pouch of the defeated enemy. They may or even probably removed any British Device from the Pouch, but they would have quickly so outfitted themselves and used the linen/cloth pouches for something else - like a haversack most likely.
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,489
- Reaction score
- 16,602
Oh, and though this is a bit off topic for this thread, ever wonder why the Military did not normally paint or try to waterproof the Haversack?
I can only document that the soldiers were expected to WASH the haversacks enough to keep down on the stench and to keep a well used haversack from spoiling/rotting new rations, as they were put in the haversack.
What I can not document is whether they thought paint or other waterproofing materials would also cause the new rations to spoil/rot sooner OR if they were just too darn CHEAP to spend the money on it. Surprisingly, the latter may be more HC/PC correct for the British Army during the period.
Gus
I can only document that the soldiers were expected to WASH the haversacks enough to keep down on the stench and to keep a well used haversack from spoiling/rotting new rations, as they were put in the haversack.
What I can not document is whether they thought paint or other waterproofing materials would also cause the new rations to spoil/rot sooner OR if they were just too darn CHEAP to spend the money on it. Surprisingly, the latter may be more HC/PC correct for the British Army during the period.
Gus
I am trying to locate a source that discusses a pasty substance used by British forces that whitened their uniforms and gear. I believe it's called "piping" or something like that. My source had a great description.
Artificial, perhaps you know of what I'm talking about? This substance didn't seem very practical but it stiffened material
Artificial, perhaps you know of what I'm talking about? This substance didn't seem very practical but it stiffened material
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,489
- Reaction score
- 16,602
It was White Pipe Clay I believe you are thinking of and usually mixed with a little grease to get it to stick.
Gus
Gus
Here some pictures of the one I made when I was searching for early bags that someone in the French milicien might wear IF they wore a bag. We must remember that as shooters, we wear and accumulate (ask my Mrs!) far more than they ever had ...
Personally I find the bag VERY functional, so it works for me! I have since changed the strap out to be a simple hemp one.
Pictures:
Link to some comments that were pretty favorable of it:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...fid/93/tid/216900/pid/1558083/post/last/#LAST
Personally I find the bag VERY functional, so it works for me! I have since changed the strap out to be a simple hemp one.
Pictures:
Link to some comments that were pretty favorable of it:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/...fid/93/tid/216900/pid/1558083/post/last/#LAST
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 17,489
- Reaction score
- 16,602
Interesting pouch and I admire the effort it took to make it.
Is the interior ticking lining stiffer than the canvas outer shell?
Gus
Is the interior ticking lining stiffer than the canvas outer shell?
Gus
Actually being a lighter weight material, I'd say it's softer.Artificer said:
I don't have my research in front of me but they were just a 'simple, basic bag' as I recall.
For this bag I designed the interior to work for me, but for the life of me I can't imagine that anyone 'way back then' wouldn't have done so for themselves ... provided they had the means.
Similar threads
- Locked
