Difference In Bags?

[N.Y. Yankee]

So if we are differentiating the bags, shooting bag, possibles bags, and Haversack, what are you using for each?

 

[andy52]

Shooting bags and possibles bags have a sort of crossover definition, haversacks were originally intended to carry food rations and for the most part, are a little larger than the other two.

 

[appalichian hunter]

My take on this is the possible and shooting bag are one in the same, just what you need to load the gun, balls, patches, powder measure, prime horn, patching material, small tin container of patch lube, bullet board (I know not documented) folding knife that sort of items, the haversack is for anything else you want to carry like a tool kit, fire kit perhaps a bag of extra balls, spare mocs, socks, first aid kit cell phone and food items, I also carry a copper nesting cook set small compact and the right size for me, believe it was purchased from Westminster Forge. That sort of items. The number of items depends on how long you plan to be out. So, it all depends on the individual and there wants and needs, I by nature am a minimalist. Shooting bag, main powder horn, belt knife, hatchet and as stated the rest is in the individual bags.

 

[Coot]

So if we are differentiating the bags, shooting bag, possibles bags, and Haversack, what are you using for each?

A shooting bag is an accessory for a gun and carries what is needed to shoot the gun. (balls or shot, patches or wads, caps or spare flint)
A possibles bag is a personal accessory and carries whatever one thinks that they might "possibly" need - compass, snacks, spare socks, keys, sewing kit, gun cleaning gear, fire starter, the "possible" list is endless and varies greatly from one individual to the next.

A haversack traditionally is a military ration bag to carry one's personal issue of food.

The above notwithstanding, there are those that call their shooting bag a possibles bag which term possibly comes from some "mountain man" movies. There are also some who choose to use a very large bag to combine both their shooting needs and possible needs in one bag (which can make finding their shooting needs difficult to quickly get in hand). And while originating as a military ration bag, there are those (myself included) who use a haversack for their possibles (dang car keys have to go somewhere). On another personal note, I have a dedicated shooting bag for each of my long guns so there is never any confusion with showing up with the wrong size ball, flint or turnscrew. (besides, it is a good excuse to have multiple bags).

 

[N.Y. Yankee]

Interesting, as I have only used one bag and called it a Possibles bag.

 

[dave951]

The Long Hunters carried possible bags that were substantially larger than many I've seen. While not quite a haversack, it was getting there. For my purposes, I want a bag not as big as my haversack but close.

 

[Brazos John]

Y'all have any photos?
Worth a thousand words, dontcha know...

 

[Notchy Bob]

So if we are differentiating the bags, shooting bag, possibles bags, and Haversack, what are you using for each?

Hoo, boy... Now you went and done it. Opened a can of worms.

I like to read the primary source material, mainly pertaining to the trans-Mississippi west in the first three quarters of the 19th century. So far, I've read through between 25-30 books that have been digitized, with an electronic search function enabled. I keep finding more of these, and I need to tally up the current totals, but I searched the following terms:

Pouch
Bag
Sack
Bullet
Shot
Possible
Possibles

I also used some hyphenated combinations, for example bullet-pouch. A lot of terms were hyphenated by writers in the 19th century, e.g. "powder-horn." Some search engines were sensitive to hyphenation, but most were not.

Anyway, the pouch that we sling over the shoulder to carry our shooting gear, back in those days, was usually called the bullet pouch, closely followed in frequency by shot pouch. I found ball pouch once, and hunting pouch used by two different authors. You also see just the word "pouch" used very frequently, when the context was clear, for example, "I laid aside my rifle and pouch..."

Some folks may think that a bullet pouch, ball pouch, or shot pouch might refer to one of the little bottle-shaped containers that holds only bullets or balls or shot, but in the period literature you find that the hunters and trappers frequently carried a flint and steel in the bullet pouch, also a bundle of sinew for mending moccasins and frequently small souvenirs. Lewis Garrard found a human jawbone and said "I put it in my bullet pouch for safe keeping." Francis Parkman's traveling companion, Shaw, filled his with snake rattles. So, there is no doubt that the bullet pouch (or ball pouch or shot pouch) of the old-time trappers was large enough to put one's hand inside.

I found that haversack is derived from German haver ("oat") and sack ("sack'), so a haversack would have originally been an "oat sack," or ration bag, but it became sort of a utility bag, especially with the military. You don't see this mentioned much, but I found it a few times.

It is generally accepted, among those of us who are interested in this stuff, that the word "possibles" referred to one's personal belongings. Where did this word come from? A lot of folks believe it was in general use on the frontier, but in researching this, it appears to me that the word "possibles," in reference to a someone's personal belongings, was only used in the southern Rockies, central plains, and along the Santa Fe Trail. This was a clue. I found in my old 1948 Spanish dictionary that the Spanish word, posibles (po-SEE-blaze) meant "goods, property, means." So, I think "possibles," in this context, was probably derived from a Spanish loanword.

What about the "possibles bag"? Several authors who traveled in the geographical area described above (southern Rockies, central plains, and along the Santa Fe Trail) documented the term possible sack, and some took the trouble to define it in a footnote. It is important, though, to state that they always used the terms possible (singular, not "possibles") and sack (not "bag"). In his book, Altowan, Sir William Drummond Stewart put a footnote defining possible-sack (note the hyphen) as the "Name given by the mountain men to a haversack." However, everybody else who took the trouble to define it (Ruxton, Garrard, Rose...) described it as a very large container. Isaac Rose's account, Four Years in the Rockies, described the possible sack as "...a large leather sack that would hold about three bushels" (p. 229-230). George Frederick Ruxton wrote that "Ammunition, a few pounds of tobacco, dressed deer-skins for moccasins, &c., are carried in a wallet of dressed buffalo-skin, called a possible-sack" (Adventures in Mexico and the Rocky Mountains, Vol. 2, p. 243). Note that the word "wallet" back then didn't necessarily mean the same thing it does today... It could refer to a larger receptacle. As for the mountain men, they generally carried this on a pack mule, or in a wagon if they happened to be with an expedition. I believe the possible sack of the southwestern trappers evolved into the cowboy's "war bag." I found two instances, one referring to events in the 1870's and one a bit later, where "war sack" was used, but in most of the "classic" cowboy literature, "war bag" seems most common.

Out of all of those books, the term "possibles bag" never showed up. Not even once.

So, I'm still researching this, but I have come to a few conclusions:

1. The rifleman's pouch, slung over one shoulder and hanging on the opposite hip, holding ammunition and accompanying the powder horn, was called a bullet pouch or shot pouch, or more rarely, a hunting pouch or ball pouch by the mountain men, plainsmen, and hunters of the early 19th century.

2. The term possibles, referring to one's personal possessions, was probably not much used outside of the southern Rockies, the central plains, and along the Santa Fe Trail. It was probably derived from a Spanish loanword.

3. The possible sack is a large container made of hide. This term is probably a colloquialism, likely restricted to the geographical area noted in #2 (above). It was used by fur trappers or mountain men and the writers who knew them. It was always written as possible (singular) and sack (not bag), although it was sometimes hyphenated, as possible-sack.

4. The term "possibles bag" is a 20th century reenactorism. It was not used on the frontier, and was certainly not used to refer to a hunting pouch.

A lot more could be said or written, but that, in a nutshell, is what I have found and concluded at this time. The research continues.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[tenngun]

Interesting, as I have only used one bag and called it a Possibles bag.

Possibles bag seems to be a twentieth century’s term. Although a translation directly from some plains Indian tribes refer to saddle bags as ‘bags for every possible thing’
If your a dyed in the capote hard core history buff then ‘possibles bag’ for shooting bag signals your not one of the cool kids.
It’s good to have a bag per gun, as it’s easy to pick up the wrong stuff or your gun, and carry stuff you don’t need
There is just some stuff you need a bag for or big pockets to carry
Cr 1750 waist coats had big pockets. Cr 1820 clothing didn’t leave a lot of space for stuff

 

[Brazos John]

Notchy Bob,
Thanks for the research!
I've been using the wrong words, but if I use the HC words,
will others realize what I mean, or think I'm wrong?

 

[Notchy Bob]

Notchy Bob,
Thanks for the research!
I've been using the wrong words, but if I use the HC words,
will others realize what I mean, or think I'm wrong?

@Brazos John ,

Thank you for your comments.

You make a very good point. I consider words to be artifacts. The words used by the 19th century frontiersmen were just as much a part of their lives as their traps, rifles, and knives. The words they used survive in the literature of their time, just as some of their rifles, traps, and knives survive in museums. It seems to me that if we want to understand how those fellows lived, we dress in clothes that were worn and shoot the guns that were used in their time and place. It seems only logical to use the words they used when any of us are with like-minded people.

I think this is probably most important for practitioners of "living history," meaning those who try to educate the public regarding the lives and times portrayed. The tents, the guns, the shirts, and the words used should be as much like the originals as can be.

Brother @tenngun pointed out that if you are with a knowledgeable group of mountain men, "possibles bag" will mark you as a greenhorn, or an outsider.

However, "possibles bag" has entered the vocabulary and has been accepted by a lot of blackpowder shooters. As a general rule, people don't like to be corrected, even if they are wrong. As Brazos John suggested, if you use the terms "shot pouch" and "bullet pouch" around shooters who don't know any better, they might very well misunderstand. Maybe use a neutral term, like "hunting pouch" when in that sort of crowd, or just "pouch." These terms showed up several times in the literature review, so they are authentic or "HC," even if they were not quite as common as "bullet pouch" or "shot pouch" were back in the day. I think most people will understand what "hunting pouch" means. I recall that author Madison Grant entitled one of his books The Kentucky Rifle Hunting Pouch, so maybe that set a sort of standard. However, when any of us have a chance to educate naive members of the public, I think we ought to introduce the documented, authentic terminology whenever possible. Again, words are artifacts of the time and place just as the material goods are.

As for myself, I'm happy with "shot pouch." I haven't researched the 18th century as much as the 19th, but from the reading I've done, "shot pouch" seems to have been used a lot, and it survived into the 19th century west. If somebody doesn't understand, I'm happy to explain.

However, like it or not, I suspect "possibles bag" is here to stay.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[Grenadier1758]

@Brazos John, some of us will understand you.

 

[Omahkapi'si]

This little bag mostly holds my keys...not too HC but I gotta keep 'em somewhere....think it's made of elk.

My shooting bag; loose lead balls, tin of caps in a little deerskin pouch to keep them from banging around, short starter and tin of patches. Also elk. I use this bag most often.

Larger buffalo leather shooting/possibles bag. It has 1 divider inside and I sewed in some old cartridge belt loops to hang things on. Holds a lot of stuff if needed. It's a copy of an original period bag in the Glenbow archives in a Calgary Museum I'm told. But they added velcro (sacrilege!) to the flap and inside wall but I took it out. That's the small stitching you see on the flap....I added the antlers to the bags to weight the flaps down when the breeze is 60 mph here.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

The Long Hunters carried possible bags that were substantially larger than many I've seen. While not quite a haversack, it was getting there. For my purposes, I want a bag not as big as my haversack but close.

Source?
Longhunters to my knowledge had pack horses.

 

[user 49399]

Wow! I still have so much to learn. But I like it.

 

[dave951]

Source?
Longhunters to my knowledge had pack horses.

I'll have to find where I read it. I'm thinking an old issue of Muzzleblasts. There was also mention of pack horses and all the equipment that they needed for survival.

 

[tenngun]

I'll have to find where I read it. I'm thinking an old issue of Muzzleblasts. There was also mention of pack horses and all the equipment that they needed for survival.

I don’t know what year this would be from.
When I got in to this sport Long hunters were always portrayed as on foot in the wilds. And of course a knowledgeable man can survive with little.
Today more has come to light about longhunters and the simple economics. They were there after a bulky end product. They just couldn’t carry that much back out of the woods. They had to have a means of packing.
And horses were they means
This is not to suggest they went with camp stoves, folding cots tables and chairs, and a marquee to put it all in, but they weren’t lugging all they needed to winter in Cain-tuck-ee on their backs.
Axes, shovels, extra lead and powder, housewife, some candles, a pot for the company, some extra blankets, chocolate, rum or whiskey, tobacco, extra moccs, casting kit, fishing kit. Bulk at least several pack horses worth for a small company, and they wanted enough hoofs to carry it out.

 

[Omahkapi'si]

Maybe mules as well. They are very tough and easy keepers.

 

[N.Y. Yankee]

Some good stuff!

 

[dave951]

I don’t know what year this would be from.
When I got in to this sport Long hunters were always portrayed as on foot in the wilds. And of course a knowledgeable man can survive with little.
Today more has come to light about longhunters and the simple economics. They were there after a bulky end product. They just couldn’t carry that much back out of the woods. They had to have a means of packing.
And horses were they means
This is not to suggest they went with camp stoves, folding cots tables and chairs, and a marquee to put it all in, but they weren’t lugging all they needed to winter in Cain-tuck-ee on their backs.
Axes, shovels, extra lead and powder, housewife, some candles, a pot for the company, some extra blankets, chocolate, rum or whiskey, tobacco, extra moccs, casting kit, fishing kit. Bulk at least several pack horses worth for a small company, and they wanted enough hoofs to carry it out.

This is just me thinking out loud, but if I was a longhunter, I'd want enough stuff on my person to survive in the event of the pack train running off or stolen by hostiles. That doesn't mean weeks of stuff but basics and that would mean a larger bag than many of the current crop of "possibles" bags that are barely large enough for my hand.