Absolutely. It's also interesting to note (in light of the comparison to Siberia) that in WWII the Russians issue undergarment (base layer) was quilted long johns stuffed with cotton batting.
Modern bushcraft !?!
- Thread starter johnboe522
- Start date
Absolutely. It's also interesting to note (in light of the comparison to Siberia) that in WWII the Russians issue undergarment (base layer) was quilted long johns stuffed with cotton batting.
In the defence of Gortex, i've never seen a Bear 
in wool, except for that time in ireland.......
in wool, except for that time in ireland.......
Logic seems to have gone out of the window on this thread so really its down to personal preference. My preference is mainly synthetics that keep you warm when wet, is lightweight and dries easily and is machine was friendly over wool that when soaked is cold, very hard to dry out and needs more time to keep clean when home than I'm prepared to give.
You beat as much water as you can out of wool, and it will regain most of it's loft, and is again capable of insulating you. Wet cotton is still collapsed and useless.
The climate whrre these russians operated is inland, and thus dry. The same cliamte and temperatures at which down is a very good option.
But her eon the coast, like in England, it would just get soaked, collapse and be useless.
The reason I for example do not use down sleeping bags, is that I am in a wet coastal climate. I can have dry weather an minus 20 one day, the next the rain is pissing down, and the snow I am in is melting. Which can mean soaked kit. So my sleeping bag is made of artificial fibres that are hollow and thus retain loft, unlike down that collapses and is useless.
The second best thing would be wool, because you can beat and wring the water out and still have some loft, and thus insulation.
Last edited:
On that I agree. It also shows that some people hava a surprisng lack of understanding on the basic principles of insulation. And your synthetics won't help you when soaked either. And the reason they work while wet, are the same reasons that wool works. And wool works while not smelling like a heap of rotten socks.
It was a valiant effort but I think the peace process is in danger of failure... In the name of friendship between nations, can I hesitantly suggest that there are positives and negatives to most if not all fabrics we could all name here, be it cost, environmental impact, smell, weight be it dry or wet, etc. Lets call a cease fire and head this off before it gets unpleasant and results in an international incident.
Awww spoilsport, I was gonna throw those 'orrible bamboo fibre base layers into the mix and watch everyone implode.
Awww spoilsport, I was gonna throw those 'orrible bamboo fibre base layers into the mix and watch everyone implode.
:You_Rock_
Elen Sentier
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Awww spoilsport, I was gonna throw those 'orrible bamboo fibre base layers into the mix and watch everyone implode.
:AR15firin:BlueTeamE:yelrotflmPeace-n-luv-man from an ancient hippie !!! I agree there are benefits/situations for just about all the kit/fabrics we use. I know mine's a good old mix-up even if I am a wool-freak
Awww spoilsport, I was gonna throw those 'orrible bamboo fibre base layers into the mix and watch everyone implode.
Saboteur... That'd be the forum equivalent of killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand
Hmmmm. Would be fair and reasonable to say that all insulating layers, be they wool or synthetic, lose some of their insulation properties when wet? It must also be worth considering the physical state of the person wearing the clothing as well. If you are tired and hungry, even the most efficient insulator may not feel up to the task of keeping you warm; conversely, if you feel rested and well-fed, the thinnest of garments can do the job.
I think that, while it might be interesting to some to scrutinise laboratory derived statistics, for anyone who uses clothing as a means of protection from the cold, the realities of life in the woods or on the mountain can differ from the lab. quite noticeably. The reassurance of the graph and stat. covered shiny label is something of a hollow promise, particularly when manufacturers seem so vague about which fabrics are being used as a comparison. It is a persuasive marketing tool and may represent some imperfect research into the qualities of that fabric; but notice that it is the fabric being tested, not necessarily the garment. Stitch it, seal its seams, put on zips and storm flaps, combine it with other allied fabrics and the nature of the beast changes.
Equally, over time and through abrasion, sweat, wash cycles and the gamut of use and abuse, the fabric of the clothing will lose some of its 'off-the-peg' qualities, leading to a depleted performance, if you like.
Personally, I'm not interested in the numbers associated with insulating properties of vapour transmission rates. If I put on a garment and it makes me feel warm, that's good enough. If it happens to be light, comfortable and seems to complement what I am wearing, then it will be included in my pack.
Naturals? Synthetics? You pays your money and makes your choice. They both seem to work and pretty well, given what we expect of them.
I think that, while it might be interesting to some to scrutinise laboratory derived statistics, for anyone who uses clothing as a means of protection from the cold, the realities of life in the woods or on the mountain can differ from the lab. quite noticeably. The reassurance of the graph and stat. covered shiny label is something of a hollow promise, particularly when manufacturers seem so vague about which fabrics are being used as a comparison. It is a persuasive marketing tool and may represent some imperfect research into the qualities of that fabric; but notice that it is the fabric being tested, not necessarily the garment. Stitch it, seal its seams, put on zips and storm flaps, combine it with other allied fabrics and the nature of the beast changes.
Equally, over time and through abrasion, sweat, wash cycles and the gamut of use and abuse, the fabric of the clothing will lose some of its 'off-the-peg' qualities, leading to a depleted performance, if you like.
Personally, I'm not interested in the numbers associated with insulating properties of vapour transmission rates. If I put on a garment and it makes me feel warm, that's good enough. If it happens to be light, comfortable and seems to complement what I am wearing, then it will be included in my pack.
Naturals? Synthetics? You pays your money and makes your choice. They both seem to work and pretty well, given what we expect of them.
Actually WL Gore are quite active with makers that the garment, seams the lot all have to meet standards to be allowed to use the fabric, so in theory bad design/manufacture shouldn't get through. Still prefer Paramo personally.
Sorry - I thought we were discussing body clothing here
I have reduced Goretex jackets to leaky tat within a year while my Ventile keeps working at the same efficiency as when new for several years and my 5.11 trousers have outlasted "high tech" nylons in real wear by about a factor of 3 while my Merino wool T-shirts have outlasted some modern fabric Ts staying comfortable when the synthetics have gone hard and uncomfortable - and Merino stays smelling sweet long after the synthetic Ts are akin to toxic waste!
I do have a WW2 webbing belt around here somewhere and altho showing a bit of age it sure hasn't rotted away yet
'Tis a fair point, but the OP was about 'equipment and kit'...
And (though I feel no allegiance either way, modern or trad, as long as it works, I don't give a smeg) I don't see anyone here extolling the virtues of a wax-cotton tarp, though that will probably start now...
Horses for courses, and as a parting shot, most people just want stuff that works, but folk don't always agree on the definition of 'works'.
And (though I feel no allegiance either way, modern or trad, as long as it works, I don't give a smeg) I don't see anyone here extolling the virtues of a wax-cotton tarp, though that will probably start now...
Horses for courses, and as a parting shot, most people just want stuff that works, but folk don't always agree on the definition of 'works'.
You, know, for someone whose English "ran out" ten posts ago, you sure find ways to continue insulting people. Kudos to your resourcefulness.
Now, instead of tossing some insults back your way, let me ask you this: since you agree that water presence in wool causes it to lose insulation, what percentage of the insulation would you say has to be lost from the garment before you will say that it does not keep you warm when wet? What percentage moisture content is required to result in that percentage loss of insulation in the different types of materials we have been discussion here?
Also, how about some of those studies and data that we were talking about? You are saying things with such a high level of assurance, there must be tons of extensive studies on the matter out there performed by reputable institutions rather than "random bloggers" like myself.
You don't like my "little tests", and you discount my experiences with the material, which have been that it has not kept me warm when it was wet. That's fine, but I'm sure there is some much better set of data out there on which you are relaying that extends beyond a guy on that forum who said that he heard from that other guy who read that one time that... I look forward to reviewing the studies and data. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But let's show that with actual facts rather than insults.
Ultimately, this is the internet, and everyone will continue to wear whatever they want to wear, and nothing that is said here will change that. People will use whatever justifications they can to bolster their chosen garment. I know what I use, and I use it because I like it. Others use different materials because they like them, and that's just fine. However, if we are going to make conclusive factual assertions, let's at least try to back them up with some evidence. Insulting other people's intelligence is a poor substitute for data.
