It would seem logical that leather would be easier to get than cloth, say for long hunters, trappers and Indians - yet? So many accounts of those groups wearing cloth articles rather than leather and then char-cloth and patching, but....
Logical, maybe. Factual, not really. The trade was HUGE. Especially that of cloth (cloth took up the largest %). People living in the most remote sections of eastern NA still had fairly good access to trade goods. The myth of the 18th century trans-Appalachian pioneer making everything themselves is just that, a myth.
Not to mention, where rifles were common (PA on south) deerskins were money. 1 untanned deerskin could buy more cloth for patching than the skin itself would provide.
Kinda like going to the fabric store and buying $5 worth of linen/cotton vs. cutting up a $5 bill for patching.
In an emergency is one thing, but as a regular thing, not so much.
Mario
PS- In the 18th century, "trappers" and "Indians" were the same people. Not many white folks doing it.