one or both

[Hammerhead]

would they have carried a possibles bag and a haversack or just one

[William]

I would say that it depends on what that particular person set out to do, how long the were going to be away from their home as well as their method of transportation.  Someone leaving camp on foot to hunt and bring back meat might get by with just a possible bag while someone else setting out on a two week journey to another region might carry both to have enough food to sustain themself.  Someone on horseback might limit themself to something small while dismounted.

Personal preferencers and needs would dictate the carrying of one or both. 

[Mortblanc]

would they have carried a possibles bag and a haversack or just one

Today we use the terms possibles bag and shooting bag as interchangable terms.  Neither do we abide by the true use of the haversack.

The haversack was for the food ration, but there was no law saying other things could not be carried in it.  Due to use as a food carrier the haversack was usually stained with grease, blood, food juices and such.  It would have also had various crumbs and bits of food stuck to the inside that would have made it an unplesant place to keep other gear.

It is doubtful that the frontiersman would have carried his shooting gear in his food sack.

You have our permission to justify and purchase both a shooting bag and a haversack if you are looking for an excuse.

[bmcret]

I understood that the haversack was also more of a military use bag althogh anyone that served would probably use both just out of training.

[texasranger]

don't want to keep my jerky in my shooting bag. so I say both if you need them. a haversack is a useful item to have.