Long Term Wilderness Survival

[born2roam]

To keep it OT: The inca did know about the wheel, they used it in toys, never on life size carts and stuff, probably due to lack of pack/cart animals and the up and down 'road' conditions.

The inca however only ruled for about 200 years.... who where before them? Whom did they conquer and... never mind... back to the topic...

I too would be interested in Le Loup's bag in a bit more detail, I did watch and read several things on his blog but what still 'puzzles' me is the content of the 'medic first aid' kit at that time.

A tarp, blanket, fire/tinderbox, knife, hawk, sharpening, some rope, a billy and then the fire arms stuff ... some great vid on setting up camp that shows so much!

Grtz Johan

 

[blacktimberwolf]

No worries santaman2000, I didn't misunderstand you, everything I write is firmly tongue in cheek, I'm just showing my ignorance by making light of everything. You certainly know your onions 1 for one, thank you for sharing your knowledge & for leading this thread into a fascinating period in history. I had stubbonly locked myself into the 18th & 19th centuries, without considering all that had happened before when the co-existance, may have been more civililised. ( excluding the conquistadors of course,) If you have any more info, don't hold back...........thanks again.

 

[rik_uk3]

You've got me there,...... they must have been so relieved when the colonials arrived, having spent thousands of years living & thriving with such duff gear........... I have to bow to your superior knowledge about the numbers of indians that actually traded & what with......... I don't know why you brought up local kit, because I didn't, I was refering more to skills & knowledge , but everyone's free to read into my posts what they choose.

Skill and knowledge would have entailed using tools, their own for hundreds of years and then the technically superior ones they traded a lot for. They managed well enough I'm sure but obviously saw the new tools and blankets etc as an improvement on what they had. And no need for the snotty tone in your reply pal either.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

Skill and knowledge would have entailed using tools, their own for hundreds of years and then the technically superior ones they traded a lot for. They managed well enough I'm sure but obviously saw the new tools and blankets etc as an improvement on what they had. And no need for the snotty tone in your reply pal either.

Yes I know about the trading, but what period are we actually talking about ?.. I'm unsure if this trading took place at the begining of the colonisation or at a later stage. My original comment was that I would prefer to have had the local native skills in wilderness survival rather than those of the freshly debarked european colonials (even if they did have better kit). I may be naive, but I believe the chances of survival are greater if you emulate the native people's(of what ever continent or enviroment )way of doing things rather than that of the conquering white man.
I don't know why you took offence at this suggestion, nor your reasons for defending the colonials, but if you believe this way of thinking merits the attack you launched, I am perplexed.

 

[santaman2000]

No worries santaman2000, I didn't misunderstand you, everything I write is firmly tongue in cheek, I'm just showing my ignorance by making light of everything. You certainly know your onions 1 for one, thank you for sharing your knowledge & for leading this thread into a fascinating period in history. I had stubbonly locked myself into the 18th & 19th centuries, without considering all that had happened before when the co-existance, may have been more civililised. ( excluding the conquistadors of course,) If you have any more info, don't hold back...........thanks again.

I WISH I had more to offer. The period fascinates me. I'd love to learn more of the native cultures before colonization. As you pointed out with the references to the Apache there were dozens (if not hundreds) of seperate cultures in the North and South American continents alone. The Indian (as in the sub continent) culture prior to colonization (and the neighboring Himilayan cultures) are equally fascinating and probably the Australian culture from pre-colonisation is the least known (at least to those of us not in Australia)

As born2roam pointed out the Incas only ruled for about 200 years so some of my info is running together. The Mayans, Aztecs, and Toltecs before them go back into antiquity (not each but at least one of them; I'm not sure of the specific order). What is today Mexico City (I cain't pronounce or spell the original Indian name) was the 6th largest city in the world during the height of the Roman Empire.

As to "locking in on the 18th and 19th centuries"; that was the real meaning of my comments about not paying too much attention to the "Westerns." I know everyone understands the fictionalization but I think most people (myself included) sometime let them focus us on a very small timeframe and forget that Columbus' voyage was 520 years ago and colonization began within 30-50 years after that. It's not just you; it happens to all of us to some extent.

 

[santaman2000]

To keep it OT: The inca did know about the wheel, they used it in toys, never on life size carts and stuff, probably due to lack of pack/cart animals and the up and down 'road' conditions.

The inca however only ruled for about 200 years...

True enough. I only meant to include the Incas as one of several native nations that rose to a level of greatness (the Mayans, Toltecs, Aztecs, etc.) Some of them streched back into Antiquity while others were obviously more recent.

 

[sasquatch]

Just curious if anybody has watched this box set of dvd's? I found it great, even though I knew a bit about the history of the wild west Ken Burns leaves no stone unturned in this epic history of the frontier. Great viewing in my mind, anybody else agree?

 

[santaman2000]

You might enjoy reading through 'Buffalo Bird Woman's Garden - Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians: An Indian Interpretation'.

Full text available here.

This looks interesting and I hope to read it when time permits (it's obviously quite lengthy) but it does seem to pertain mostly to the peoples in or West of Minnesota. That area wasn't explored by whites until long after colonization of the East coast (a bit over 1000 miles away) a couple of cenutries earlier. Also the area of the Great Plains was geographically much different than the Easter forrests therefore the peoples and cultures would have been different.

 

[santaman2000]

Just curious if anybody has watched this box set of dvd's? I found it great, even though I knew a bit about the history of the wild west Ken Burns leaves no stone unturned in this epic history of the frontier. Great viewing in my mind, anybody else agree?

Looks good. I'll have to try to locate a set over here.

 

[sasquatch]

Looks good. I'll have to try to locate a set over here.

It's American. Shouldn't be a problem for you to find and well worth finding!

 

[Husky]

I have looked through the blogg and a few of the videos and I must say I find it very interesting (it has also answered my question about the kit). I will enjoy reading it in detail.

Infact the clothing, equipment and skills associated with this early 18th century colonial period are in my opinion the best there is for long term survival.

I have tried to find a valid argument against this statement but I can't seem to find one although one might exchange "long term survival" for "complete self sufficiency".
As I personally don't have any interest in reenactment or being true to a certain period I would be free to exange some of the kit for a different period but even this is down to detail such as choice of material. The period seems to be a concentrate of "bushcraft". As a hunter and shooter I have tried to find a better choice of weapon but even that is difficult.The flint lock musket, though crude, seems to be a very good compromise between efficiency and long term reliability.
Definitely food for thought.

 

[santaman2000]

I have looked through the blogg and a few of the videos and I must say I find it very interesting (it has also answered my question about the kit). I will enjoy reading it in detail.

I have tried to find a valid argument against this statement but I can't seem to find one although one might exchange "long term survival" for "complete self sufficiency".
As I personally don't have any interest in reenactment or being true to a certain period I would be free to exange some of the kit for a different period but even this is down to detail such as choice of material. The period seems to be a concentrate of "bushcraft". As a hunter and shooter I have tried to find a better choice of weapon but even that is difficult.The flint lock musket, though crude, seems to be a very good compromise between efficiency and long term reliability.
Definitely food for thought.

I do some muzzle-loader hunting. The flint lock is a good choice as far as being able to easily replace your flints but their reliability is extremely vunerable to the weather. If it's wet out they are prone to not firing. Also black powder is highly corrosive so these guns (and later percussion type) were never considered "long term" They would last a few years ( a couple of decades if you were scrupulous about cleaning them) but not really like today's guns which last for generations. That's why there are so few of them left other than reproductions.

 

[Corso]

The Dept. of the Interior's registry of Indian nations; every museum of Indian culture (there are 3 within a day's drive and another half dozen out West I've taken instruction in); The lectures given at every Pow-Wow (they're annual celebrations of Indian culture with an educational theme); every history textbook written and accepted in class since the 1980s; every documentary that's aired in the last 20 years and the verbal traditions told to me by at least 3 of my Indian friends. The agriculture part goes back to every textbook accepted since well before the 1900s.

Sorry I meant some internet links for more info that you trust - we dont have acess to these sources in the UK and I'm very interested in the subject matter

You might enjoy reading through 'Buffalo Bird Woman's Garden - Agriculture of the Hidatsa Indians: An Indian Interpretation'.

Full text available here.

Thats the sort of thing thanks

 

[Husky]

I do some muzzle-loader hunting. The flint lock is a good choice as far as being able to easily replace your flints but their reliability is extremely vunerable to the weather. If it's wet out they are prone to not firing. Also black powder is highly corrosive so these guns (and later percussion type) were never considered "long term" They would last a few years ( a couple of decades if you were scrupulous about cleaning them) but not really like today's guns which last for generations. That's why there are so few of them left other than reproductions.

I don't know much about muskets or blackpowder but my reasoning was more along the lines of ammunition. One man can carry years worth of blackpowder if it is mainly used for hunting big game. Blackpowder can, if it gets wet, be dried again and lead balls can be recovered from game and recast in a mold. You could even make a new mold if you lose it. A musket can also be used as a shotgun for geese or such.
A centerfire rifle has much longer range and ammunition can be reloaded with simple tools but you need more tools, gaschecks and primers. Primers and smokeless powder are ruined if they get wet so one unfortunate fall in a river and your gun becomes a club. A rimfire is a third option. You can't reload the brass but you can carry a large amount of ammunition for the weight. However it lacks ability to take large game and is mostly suitable for game that may be taken with traps.
Those were my thoughts and I am possibly wrong on several points.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

I don't know much about muskets or blackpowder but my reasoning was more along the lines of ammunition. One man can carry years worth of blackpowder if it is mainly used for hunting big game. Blackpowder can, if it gets wet, be dried again and lead balls can be recovered from game and recast in a mold. You could even make a new mold if you lose it. A musket can also be used as a shotgun for geese or such.
A centerfire rifle has much longer range and ammunition can be reloaded with simple tools but you need more tools, gaschecks and primers. Primers and smokeless powder are ruined if they get wet so one unfortunate fall in a river and your gun becomes a club. A rimfire is a third option. You can't reload the brass but you can carry a large amount of ammunition for the weight. However it lacks ability to take large game and is mostly suitable for game that may be taken with traps.
Those were my thoughts and I am possibly wrong on several points.

Wow husky, a man can carry enough powder to last years ?.....you may be a bit optimistic with the ammo too. .....you won't kill an animal every time, & the wounded animal will run off with your ammo, plus all the shots you miss. Even if you're a marksman, these guns are not the most accurate. If you used it as a shotgun & you could make buckshot, you would lose most of the lead, again depleting your stock.
As well as carrying your powder, ammunition rifle & bullet moulds you also have to carry everything else & the gear at the time was much heaveir than it is now.......if you had a pack horse or a mule, thats a different matter,( but you risked it getting stolen by indians or killed by wolves or bears.at the time of course, not now )........I could be wrong as I know very little about black powder guns & how much powder they actually use.

 

[santaman2000]

Sorry I meant some internet links for more info that you trust - we dont have acess to these sources in the UK and I'm very interested in the subject matter...

Not sure but I think The Dept of the Interior has a website; Probably most of the major Indian Nations do also. I haven't searched for them yet but your request just put a bug in my mind to do so. You might even find some links through the websites of the various State Universities to their history departments (although their research may or may not be limited to the peoples in the individual state) Also you might just do a web search for various American History Museums and see what turns up.

 

[Husky]

Wow husky, a man can carry enough powder to last years ?....you may be a bit optimistic with the ammo too.

May be but this is what I got from Le Loup's blogg:

My fusil takes 60 grains of gunpowder. 60 grains = 1 Dram.

1LB of gunpowder = 256 Drams. So that is 256 shots from just one pound of gunpowder. My powder horn holds roughly one pound, & my gunpowder bag roughly two pounds. So if I only took my horn & gunpowder bag, I would still have 768 shots to hunt with.. ..So barring any skirmishing, I could take one shot per day for 2 years, or one shot per week for 14 years from just 3 pounds of gunpowder!

You have to be a skilled hunter to hunt with a musket but you shouldn't miss that much and I assume that the reusing of lead comes from some historical fact that this was usually done.
If not then weight wise, 1 musket shot = 1 HP-round or 5-6 .22 rounds.

 

[santaman2000]

I don't know much about muskets or blackpowder but my reasoning was more along the lines of ammunition. One man can carry years worth of blackpowder if it is mainly used for hunting big game. Blackpowder can, if it gets wet, be dried again and lead balls can be recovered from game and recast in a mold. You could even make a new mold if you lose it. A musket can also be used as a shotgun for geese or such.
A centerfire rifle has much longer range and ammunition can be reloaded with simple tools but you need more tools, gaschecks and primers. Primers and smokeless powder are ruined if they get wet so one unfortunate fall in a river and your gun becomes a club. A rimfire is a third option. You can't reload the brass but you can carry a large amount of ammunition for the weight. However it lacks ability to take large game and is mostly suitable for game that may be taken with traps.
Those were my thoughts and I am possibly wrong on several points.

You're partially right. Lets take it point by point.

1. "Black powder can be dried out" Yes in several hours or possibly even days if it's in the storage container; that load that's actually in your gun when you're out in the rain or fall in the river is another matter entirely. You have to get it out of the weapon, dry the weapon and reload it (still in the rain) while the bear is charging.

2. "You can use it as a shotgun" True a musket will fire multiple shot but it's not a true shotgun and the pattern is worse than if you had a muzzle-loading long rifle and aimed propperly. Also you while you can cast lead bullets or balls in the fiels the same isn't true of shot; that takes an extruding tower. Realisticlly if I were in this situation (limited to a black powder muzzle-loader) I would choose a long rifle over a musket any day. Muskets are only good for military uses because of their limited accuracy (accuracy is less important when companies fire in volleys)

3. "Modern ammo is ruined forever if it gets wet" I don't think the Marines or the Seals who swim for miles (in saltwater) with their ammo will agree with this one. I for one have cases of centerfire ammo in various calibers stockpiled. It lasts for decades if propperly stored.

4. "Rimfire weapons are more suitable for game that can better be taken by trapping" This one actually needs two replies:
a. The wholle mindset of this type survival should be revolving more around trapping than hunting anyway because it's a much more reliable means of constant supply.
b. True if your hunting for sport but countless thousands of families fed themselves through the Great Depression with only a 22 single shot rifle; and they ate much more venisom than one would imagine.

 

[santaman2000]

May be but this is what I got from Le Loup's blogg:

You have to be a skilled hunter to hunt with a musket but you shouldn't miss that much and I assume that the reusing of lead comes from some historical fact that this was usually done.
If not then weight wise, 1 musket shot = 1 HP-round or 5-6 .22 rounds.

There is some historical fact but not quite so absolute. Even the mountain men and trappers of the far West came back to the "rendevous" at least once a year in the spring to sell their furs and resupply . They weren't so entirely self sufficient as to reuse their lead throughout infinity.

 

[Husky]

Thanks for the info Santaman.
What type of gun is "best" absolutely depends on what type of "survival" or "living" we are talking about. I was mainly focusing on which would be the best ammunition supply, ready loaded or reloading as you go. I guess a musket may not be as Ideal as it seemed.

3. "Modern ammo is ruined forever if it gets wet" I don't think the Marines or the Seals who swim for miles (in saltwater) with their ammo will agree with this one. I for one have cases of centerfire ammo in various calibers stockpiled. It lasts for decades if propperly stored.

Just to clarify, I didn't say modern ammo but modern reloading components. Get your years supply of primers wet and they are lost. On the other hand trappers used to sit in their cabins and reload for their winchester rifles to save them lugging around loads of brass...