Webley holsters

[birdlip1]

I recently purchased a Sam Browne with holster and it has got me thinking:

1. Is there a correct side of the body to position the holster (another topic I was reading suggested the right side) or was it a matter of preference?

2. If I was a right handed person would it not be easier to place it on the left-hand side so that you draw across the body, rather than the more cumbersome right side/right hand draw.

3. Are there left-handed holsters and right-handed holsters?

The reason I ask is that now I am starting to look, there does not seem to be any clear pattern emerging from photos - they seem to be worn on either side.

Following on from that - which side would the ammo pouch go?

Hope these are not dumb questions (my first post to this Forum!)

Cheers, Mike

[Parabat01]

I understand that there is a difference between a mounted soldier and an infantryman. Just as the cavalry wear the lanyard on the opposite shoulder to the infantry, the sword is worn on the left in the case of a cavalryman and the the revolver right, while the infantryman wore his holster on the left and his lanyard on the right shoulder. I was taught this at the South African Army Infantry School. Their doctrine and traditions were based on those of the British army.

Any comments?

[Old Tom]

Hello,

Welcome to the forum. I think a WW1 officer wearing a pistol with a Sam Browne would wear it on the left so that the weight would be supported by the cross strap.

Old Tom

[steenie]

Double straps mean that the problem of side is negated. However, cavalry ditched the second strap on the SB. This is in the regs well before the war. They do say though, if a cavalry officer is wearing his revolver, he should consider the second strap. This would indicate that the revolver was worn on the right side (according to the regs). I have seen some pistol holsters made in such a way that they are on an individual shoulder strap with long links so the revolver can be worn low. It seems this was prefered by some arms. It must be born in mind however, that cavalry, when mounted, carried their sword on their saddlery (a sword frog is part of the shoe case attached to the saddle on the near side), not on their person. This would give room to put their holster on the cross draw side. By the same token, in the officers wallets their is a place to put your service revolver which is probably why the second strap was regarded as superfluous to requirements when mounted. To be honest, I would think that whilst there was an official way to wear a revolver as per the regs, I am sure it would be a matter of preference. I believe this is born out by photographs of the time.

[birdlip1]

Double straps mean that the problem of side is negated. However, cavalry ditched the second strap on the SB. This is in the regs well before the war. They do say though, if a cavalry officer is wearing his revolver, he should consider the second strap. This would indicate that the revolver was worn on the right side (according to the regs). I have seen some pistol holsters made in such a way that they are on an individual shoulder strap with long links so the revolver can be worn low. It seems this was prefered by some arms. It must be born in mind however, that cavalry, when mounted, carried their sword on their saddlery (a sword frog is part of the shoe case attached to the saddle on the near side), not on their person. This would give room to put their holster on the cross draw side. By the same token, in the officers wallets their is a place to put your service revolver which is probably why the second strap was regarded as superfluous to requirements when mounted. To be honest, I would think that whilst there was an official way to wear a revolver as per the regs, I am sure it would be a matter of preference. I believe this is born out by photographs of the time.

Thanks again - really helpful.

Mike

[steenie]

Thanks again - really helpful.

Mike

Mike,

There is another consideration.. In the Great War officer's revolver/pistols were private purchase. There was no need to buy a Webley MkVI only that the gun took service ammo. The direction on holsters was, that it should look sort of like the one shown in the regs, but that was just a generic example and it was up to the officer to get one that fitted his weapon.

[jhill]

One often finds references in operation orders and whatnot to officers carrying revolvers, but one rarely finds photographs of them. It seems the actually wearing of those weapons did not happen all that often. One exception is this newsreel . It is from an item on the National Film Board site entitled Canadian Generals . This is a misleading title, it it is a collection of various groups of people.

The item occurs two or three minutes in. A group of officers are all wearing revolvers (on the right side!). As expected they are all "uniform".

[steenie]

One often finds references in operation orders and whatnot to officers carrying revolvers, but one rarely finds photographs of them. It seems the actually wearing of those weapons did not happen all that often. One exception is this newsreel . It is from an item on the National Film Board site entitled Canadian Generals . This is a misleading title, it it is a collection of various groups of people.

The item occurs two or three minutes in. A group of officers are all wearing revolvers (on the right side!). As expected they are all "uniform".

Jim,

If I may make a few other observations,

Earlier on in this great piece of film, there is an officer with his holster set on his sam browne belt in the cross draw position. Amongst the group of officers you mention there is one with them with a NCO's holster without a flap only a leather fastening strap. All of the others have no second shoulder strap to support the heavy revolver. The belts are bending down under the strain due to this. When I have worn a sam browne with a MkVI without a second strap, I can well testify to the weight pulling down. Later in the film there is another officer by what looks like a bridge, with a webbing holster not part of a sam browne set up.

[dutchbarge]

I have several .455 holsters that have an extention of the typical closed belt loop in which is placed a brass stud meant to be secured into the center hole of the 3 holes provided for the main buckle. THis keeps the holster from sliding (especially when taking off/putting on the Sam Browne rig). This feature can only be used when the holster is worn to the right. I have another .455 holster which instead of the typical closed belt loop, has a belt loop which can be opened (and closed by a strap arrangement). As it is a real booger to get a closed belt loop .455 holster over the D rings/sword hanger and onto (and off of) the left side, this holster seems to have been designed to facilitate wearing on the left side. Note that I have seen several Sam Browne belts with the sword frog D rings and sword hangar removed, presumeably to facilitate wearing to the left. As the sword was no longer worn in the field this would be a sensible alteration for one wearing to the left (provided he had a spare unaltered belt for inspection!) Most of my .455 holsters have a brass D ring just above the belt loop, presumeably for attaching a cross strap. This can be used when wearing to the left, but is most often seen when wearing double straps with the holster to the right. I have heard some claim that Sam Browne belts without D rings for cross straps on the front right must be WWII or later, but their need is obviated (at least by wearor to the right) by the D ring incorporated into the holster and I believe that their absence or presence is not an indicator of date. REmember that all Sam Browne gear was private purchase (perhaps excepting for some 'temporary gentlemen' late in the war) and allowed some variation. Also that some officers wore belt from the Boer war and earlier. And of course the higher up one went, the more latitude. Has anyone seen a foto of Haig with a cross strap?

From fotos it would seem that any permutation of wearing to the left or right side and cross straps (or lack) was worn. Whether this was purely a personal decision, or based on the tastes of the Battalion I don't know. Surely there must have been considerable personal leeway as quite a few officers carried Autos (Mausers, Colts and even the odd pre-war luger) all of which would have required atypical holsters and ammo pouches.

Personally, the most comfortable rig I have worn is a double cross strap Sam Browne with the holster worn to the left. (I am right handed).

Cheers, Bill

[steenie]

Bill,

I may have misunderstood you, but to my knowledge, the little 90 degree hook on the slide on the back of the holster is not to fit into the stud fastening holes on the tongue of the sam browne.

If I may quote the 1900 dress regs with regard to holsters this is clarified:

'The loop on the pistol case is furnished with a small brass hook, which should pass through a hole to be made for the purpose in the belt to suit the wearer in order to secure the case and keep it in position.'

I am struggling with my scanner but once I have it running I will post the relevant diagram from this work to show the holster on the right of the wearer.

[Pete1052]

To my knowledge the "quick draw" stuff one sees in American Western films has never been taught by the U.S. Army. From what little I've read on the subject for civilian self-defense it is not recommended when using any holstered weapon--get the weapon out quickly, to be sure, but none of that Clint Eastwood Hollywood stuff. The homely but functional holster for the Colt Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol appears to have been the beginning of the end for handsome military holsters. That holster remained in service for about 70 years and the U.S. within the oval cartouche on its flap harks back to the Civil War enlisted man's belt buckle.

[steenie]

I am struggling with my scanner but once I have it running I will post the relevant diagram from this work to show the holster on the right of the wearer.

As promised:

[dutchbarge]

As promised:

Thanks for the diagram. I've never seen any holster hooked stud dedicated holes punched in the belt to the right of the front right hand D ring by the belt maker. So I don't see how the stud could be put into a hole in the position shown in the diagram as there are no holes there. I believe that with the holster worn to the right and much closer to the buckle the stud was to be placed into a center buckle hole in lieu of the D ring on the front right side in conjunction with the use of a cross strap connected to the holster. This would secure the holster AND cross strap when no D ring was extent. Of course the stud could be employed without the cross strap connected to the holster. Note that the stud is most effective on belts without a front right hand D ring. The D ring disrupts the holster's 'settling' onto the belt when worn to the right.

We haven't discussed it, but many officer's switched over to a the web belt during the war so as not to stand out from ORs. With these rigs the permutations of web vs leather accoutrements, cross straps, right or left holster and modification to the belt itself are manifold.

Cheers, BIll

[steenie]

Thanks for the diagram. I've never seen any holster hooked stud dedicated holes punched in the belt to the right of the front right hand D ring by the belt maker. So I don't see how the stud could be put into a hole in the position shown in the diagram as there are no holes there. I believe that with the holster worn to the right and much closer to the buckle the stud was to be placed into a center buckle hole in lieu of the D ring on the front right side in conjunction with the use of a cross strap connected to the holster. This would secure the holster AND cross strap when no D ring was extent. Of course the stud could be employed without the cross strap connected to the holster. Note that the stud is most effective on belts without a front right hand D ring. The D ring disrupts the holster's 'settling' onto the belt when worn to the right.

We haven't discussed it, but many officer's switched over to a the web belt during the war so as not to stand out from ORs. With these rigs the permutations of web vs leather accoutrements, cross straps, right or left holster and modification to the belt itself are manifold.

Cheers, BIll

Bill,

As the regs say, the hole is to be put into the belt by the wearer to suit, not by the belt maker. Therefore it is not a pre-made dedicated hole. I am not surprised that sam brownes with this ad hoc hole are as hens teeth as most sam brownes were/are a show thing. Indeed with the advent of webbing, there is even less reason to 'butcher' the belt with a hole. I think half of the reason so many Mk VI leather holsters are knocking around is due to the fact that although still being made, they had been superceded by webbing.

I note your point about not standing out from OR's, there was a lot of insitu covering of sacking of the sam brown in the field to do just as you say.

It is interesting to note, that we find a lot of Mk VI holsters shortened to take the MKIV .38. This came in during WW2. Until this time only the duty offficer had to wear a pistol but an eddict came out that all officers had to wear them. This led to a run of shortening MK VI holsters to take the later and smaller service revolver. I have a shortened leather holster which has had this very thing done to it. Later I will take a pic of it and post it here.

Here is the quote again from the regs which I hope is clarified for you:

'The loop on the pistol case is furnished with a small brass hook, which should pass through a hole to be made for the purpose in the belt to suit the wearer in order to secure the case and keep it in position.'

[dutchbarge]

Bill,

'The loop on the pistol case is furnished with a small brass hook, which should pass through a hole to be made for the purpose in the belt to suit the wearer in order to secure the case and keep it in position.'

Thanks for that information. I suppose that having the owner punch the hole himself makes sense, though to maintain the same relative position of the holster he'd probably need to punch two holes, one for when wearing the rig over his tunic and another when wearing over both the tunic and trench coat or warm (with a jumper occasionally thrown in). You see this all the time on German officer's belts when looking at the leather adjusting tang and seeing two sets of holes about 3" apart where the gegenschleisse (clasp) was habitually positioned, one for wearing over the rock and the other over the greatcoat. Of course in the field the regs were often forgotten and for purposes of practicality or style, belts worn in any number of was.

You've no doubt seen the famous pic of the Grenadier Guards officers (none of whom has evidently read the regs) circa 1914, in Ypres in think, all wearing their rigs anywhich way? One with cross strap worn vertically on the left, holster in the position of a sporran and his Sam Browne buckle off to the left of center? Unless it was a GG regimental anomaly for no two officers to wear their Sam Browne rigs the same way, as these guys are doing (two wearing their single cross straps vertically on the left, one diagonally top left down to lower right, one with no cross strap and one with two cross straps connected to the same front right D ring) I'd say these guys were fashion rebels. And in the Guards!!!! Disgraceful!!!!

Cheers, Bill

[dutchbarge]

In case you haven't seen it, here is the foto. While no doubt brave and honorable to the man they certainly look the part of Blackadders.

Cheers, BIll

[steenie]

In case you haven't seen it, here is the foto. While no doubt brave and honorable to the man they certainly look the part of Blackadders.

Cheers, BIll

Bill,

What a fantastic photograph. Reminds me of that cartoon of how the officer thought he should look before he went to the front, how thetailor thought he should look before he went and how he ended up looking after being in the trenches for a while.

These brave boys look like they are off on their - would you have said 'tour' then? Great stuff!!

[dutchbarge]

Bill,

What a fantastic photograph. Reminds me of that cartoon of how the officer thought he should look before he went to the front, how thetailor thought he should look before he went and how he ended up looking after being in the trenches for a while.

These brave boys look like they are off on their - would you have said 'tour' then? Great stuff!!

That was a brilliant cartoon, and actually very accurate! Cheers, BIll

[calibre792x57.y]

Sorry, came to this one a bit late. The guards officers photo appears to have been taken on mobilisation, August 1914. Late in 1914 officers were ordered to obtain Pattern '08 belts for wear in lieu of the Sam Browne whilst at the Front. Normally they wore the standard SB holster threaded onto the belt, generally without bothering about supporting straps. There was a superb photo of two officers on the Somme with this setup in 'Stand To', the WFA periodical not too long ago. I did however once have a set of '08 converted to carry an officers pistol set on which the necessary buckles at the front had been added to support the belt and be able to fit a sidepack and water bottle. This must have been contemporary as the modified belt was dated M.E.C.O 1914 and only an idiot would have cut up such a belt today. Incidentally not all officers purchased their revolvers. Such was the demand for revolvers with the increase in the size of the Army that the government puchased all production of 0.455 weapons which meant that by 1916 retailers could no longer obtain them. The Army therefore began to issue pistols to officers as well as to those other ranks whose duties required them to carry one.

[dutchbarge]

Such was the demand for revolvers with the increase in the size of the Army that the government puchased all production of 0.455 weapons which meant that by 1916 retailers could no longer obtain them. The Army therefore began to issue pistols to officers as well as to those other ranks whose duties required them to carry one.

No doubt this is attested to by the 20 plus broad arrow and other gov't proof and acceptance marks on my 1917 dated MKVI!

Cheers, Bill