Did mountain men use anything like a binocular?

[Frontstuffer070]

Well I don't know, as you all are more versed on reading the history of this hobby than I. But what I do know is as a hunter all of my life. I tend to acquire the latest tech / optics, etc to give me the best chance of success. Would these guys who certainly HAD to be successful in their hunts be any different than I? If they had the coin to buy a rifle, surely they could have sprung for a looking glass.

 

[SOLANCO]

In the era of the mountain men spy glasses were two hundred year old technology. Well developed and proven. Binoculars were invented at the beginning of the era of the mountain men with the prism type not patented til the 1850's. I suspect the spyglass was cheaper, more readily available and more familiar to the men.

 

[OLUT]

I could see them having them, ship Captains had them for years. But I really don't think so because if anybody had them I am sure Lewis and Clark would have and there is no mention of them in their journals or packing list. I have never seen anything about MM having spyglasses.

I actually handled this telescope at the museum in the 1980's, as well as other Lewis & Clark items, including a pistol. My old photos are unfortunately buried in a load of other material and not easily accessed.

 

[Sam squanch]

Did you not know? All mountain men had eyes like an eagle.

If they had bad eyesight they probably did not live very long.

 

[Robin101]

Yeah, they eschewed the telescope for sure, and all those cap lock Hawkins were originally flintlock actuated.
Robin

 

[Trev]

I think that the supply lists often quoted are simply what the company supplied, which would be the very minimum that would be necessary, and does not take into account at all what was actually carried on these expeditions, if every man was furnished a blanket by the company, that does not mean that he could not also have three or four of his own, whether the spyglass was in everybody's kit is doubtful, but it just as doubtful that it was not used at all.
If L&C could carry a theodolite (which is actually telescope with wheels and and knobs) and microscope, then they could obviously have carried a ship's spyglass, which would be less fragile.
That they did is strongly suggested by the one in the Denver Museum.

I wasn't there but I don't use a spyglass and so they wouldn't have either, right? honestly, I owned good binoculars for a few decades and used them maybe three times, gave them to a grandson a few years ago just so I wouldn't have to take care of them. and I'm sure that some mountain men would not have used them any more than I did, but I'd guess that every expedition leader at least had a telescope, just as every ship's captain probably had one.

 

[Juice Jaws]

No, it does not really clear up the question/proposal in the OP...

The question doesn't seem to be, did "they" have them, did binoculars/spyglasses exist, in the 18th and early 19th century.
The original OP speculated on their use by so called, "mountain men."
When people in this arena refer to "mountain men," I have to assume they are talking roughly Rocky Mountain Fur Trade and westward expansion time period, and western locations. (Otherwise they would probably use the equally overused and incorrectly used, "longhunter)

Did spyglass and binoculars exist at that time? Obviously. Did some people have and use them? Obviously.
But did so called "mountain men" have and use them during the Rocky Mountain fur trade and westward expansion? Highly doubtful, not impossible, but doubtful.

Trapping outfits were big, maybe not the MM but I could see the head of the outfit maybe having a pair, just another question we will never know.

 

[Juice Jaws]

I actually handled this telescope at the museum in the 1980's, as well as other Lewis & Clark items, including a pistol. My old photos are unfortunately buried in a load of other material and not easily accessed.View attachment 373812

 

[Juice Jaws]

I actually handled this telescope at the museum in the 1980's, as well as other Lewis & Clark items, including a pistol. My old photos are unfortunately buried in a load of other material and not easily accessed.View attachment 373812

Well at least we know Lewis and Clark had them.

 

[Brokennock]

Trapping outfits were big, maybe not the MM but I could see the head of the outfit maybe having a pair, just another question we will never know.

That might make a little more sense.

 

[Brokennock]

Well I don't know, as you all are more versed on reading the history of this hobby than I. But what I do know is as a hunter all of my life. I tend to acquire the latest tech / optics, etc to give me the best chance of success. Would these guys who certainly HAD to be successful in their hunts be any different than I? If they had the coin to buy a rifle, surely they could have sprung for a looking glass.

Applying modern "logic" and "reasoning" to a completely different time period and their way of thinking and values most often leads us very, very, far astray.

 

[tenngun]

Pure conjecture/supposition, unless you have a period reference you haven't shared.

Given the technology of the time, and packaging/baggage options of the time, would one really bother with something so fragile? A rugged spyglass would have been heavy, and a lightweight spyglass would have been fragile,,,,, and the Rocky Mountains were no place for fragile anything.

I can’t recall the reference, I don’t have a copy of it now but I think in Give Your Heart to the Hawk by Bevins he mentions Sublett having a spy glass. Don’t know what he based it on
Twenty years after the time Bridger was leading a company of soldiers and he pointed to smoke in a valley indicating an Indian village there. The officers spied it with binoculars and couldn’t see it.
Bridger was upset that he was being told there was no smoke where he could see smoke, but within a few hours sure enough there was a village there
I had a friend who did WTBS reinactment. He got original WTBS binoculars but they were only two times power.
While a spy glass could have been carried it would have been an oddball

 

[Frontstuffer070]

A Man who lived a life dependent on the game he took, would not take advantage of any tools he could get to ensure his success?

 

[Brokennock]

I can’t recall the reference, I don’t have a copy of it now but I think in Give Your Heart to the Hawk by Bevins he mentions Sublett having a spy glass. Don’t know what he based it on
Twenty years after the time Bridger was leading a company of soldiers and he pointed to smoke in a valley indicating an Indian village there. The officers spied it with binoculars and couldn’t see it.
Bridger was upset that he was being told there was no smoke where he could see smoke, but within a few hours sure enough there was a village there
I had a friend who did WTBS reinactment. He got original WTBS binoculars but they were only two times power.
While a spy glass could have been carried it would have been an oddball

Thanks.
Bring on the period references.
This is much later than my usual area of interest, but I find the original question intriguing, and I'm quite willing to have my mind changed...
But not with conjecture, historical fiction, or later writings that are unsupported, and certainly not with, "I would have so they would have," nonsense.

While a spy glass could have been carried it would have been an oddball

 

[tenngun]

Thanks.
Bring on the period references.
This is much later than my usual area of interest, but I find the original question intriguing, and I'm quite willing to have my mind changed...
But not with conjecture, historical fiction, or later writings that are unsupported, and certainly not with, "I would have so they would have," nonsense.

Blevins was writing from historic sources, but he was creating a ‘narritive’ and added details for dramatic effect. I think we could compare it to Ekrit or Sheean.
And I’m recalling from oltimers brain thirty years after reading the work.
Blevins was a good read, historically accurate but it’s not an historic reference
It’s just the only time I can recall a mountian man reference to a spyglass in use then
Looking it up small binoculars go back to the eighteenth century as opera glasses, and low power field glasses. It wasn’t until prism system came along in the 1880 that real field binoculars became practical

 

[Crow Creek]

I actually handled this telescope at the museum in the 1980's, as well as other Lewis & Clark items, including a pistol. My old photos are unfortunately buried in a load of other material and not easily accessed.View attachment 373812

Curious on the size of this. Was this a larger telescope or more of a pocket scope?

 

[naterflint]

No, it does not really clear up the question/proposal in the OP...

The question doesn't seem to be, did "they" have them, did binoculars/spyglasses exist, in the 18th and early 19th century.
The original OP speculated on their use by so called, "mountain men."
When people in this arena refer to "mountain men," I have to assume they are talking roughly Rocky Mountain Fur Trade and westward expansion time period, and western locations. (Otherwise they would probably use the equally overused and incorrectly used, "longhunter)

Did spyglass and binoculars exist at that time? Obviously. Did some people have and use them? Obviously.
But did so called "mountain men" have and use them during the Rocky Mountain fur trade and westward expansion? Highly doubtful, not impossible, but doubtful.

Well, then, how about the “longhunters”