Pattern 1908 Pistol Equipment Set

[Pete_C]

After literally decades of searching I was thrilled to recently complete my Pattern 1908 Pistol Equipment Set.

The Brace Attachments (HGR 1918) and the Belt, waist, special, Mk II (ME CO 1916) were acquired within a week of each other from separate sources – the rest of the set I’d had ready and waiting for many years. The configuration displayed here is based on that of the 24^th Motor Machine Gun Corps Battalion as shown in a series of wonderful IWM photographs taken in France in June 1918.
Scrutiny of the photos reveals that nearly all men carry two pistol ammunition pouches, pistol case, intrenching tool, haversack, water bottle, mounted services mess-tin and either a Webley Mk V or VI or Colt revolver. Some latitude is evident as to which side the pouches and pistol case were worn and where the haversack was carried. It’s also worth noting that while all sport brace attachments, most appear to wear the ‘standard’ rather than ‘special’ waist belt.

The Pistol Equipment Set was introduced in 1913 for pipers and range takers and later authorised for any soldiers who did not carry a rifle including men from the Machine Gun Corps, Tank Corps and RFC.

All components of the display are original and wartime dated.

Cheers

Pete

The original wartime photos below are cropped from IWM  Q9001  Q10325  Q10328  Q10327 - the other photos from the series can be seen at  Q9002  Q9003  Q9004  Q10323  Q10324  Q10326 - https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/photographs

Edited 2 January , 2023 by Pete_C

[MrEd]

That, is quite simply stunning, very nice!

I am slowly collecting bits to portray an RGA gunner with his gun photo I saw a while back (obviously not the actual gun!), slow process finding it all though, especially nice condition stuff that doesn’t look scruffy and abused but looks more like how it would have been issued. maybe slightly easier for me as less bits to assemble compared to your webbing set!

 

Question about the mess tin. I have been looking into these quite a bit to work out what a dismounted RGA gunner would have had (D shaped for dismounted and cavalry pattern for mounted I think)

your chap shown with a cavalry first pattern mess tin - is that because they were ‘motor’ troops so essentially ‘mounted’? Hence the mounted pattern tins?

What’s the difference between the special belt and the normal belt?

Edited 2 January , 2023 by MrEd

[peregrinvs]

Illustrations of the standard and special belts here:

http://www.karkeeweb.com/patterns/1908/1908_belts.html
 

I second that the above is a stunning set. Mine is more entry level as it has a mixture of dates and has been completed with reproduction brace attachments.

[Pete_C]

1 hour ago, MrEd said:

That, is quite simply stunning, very nice!

I am slowly collecting bits to portray an RGA gunner with his gun photo I saw a while back (obviously not the actual gun!), slow process finding it all though, especially nice condition stuff that doesn’t look scruffy and abused but looks more like how it would have been issued. maybe slightly easier for me as less bits to assemble compared to your webbing set!

 

Question about the mess tin. I have been looking into these quite a bit to work out what a dismounted RGA gunner would have had (D shaped for dismounted and cavalry pattern for mounted I think)

your chap shown with a cavalry first pattern mess tin - is that because they were ‘motor’ troops so essentially ‘mounted’? Hence the mounted pattern tins?

What’s the difference between the special belt and the normal belt?

Thanks Ed. Yes, they carry this pattern of mess-tin simply because they are classed as ‘mounted’ - regular MGC were issued with the standard D shaped tin. The Special Waist Belt is identical to the standard belt except it doesn’t have the two inch extension straps at the rear and it also has two one inch angled buckles on the inside rear to accept the one inch diagonal straps from the brace attachments when not in use - although oddly those buckles appear to face the wrong way in that the open bar does not face the trailing edge of the one inch strap when secured.

Pete

 

edit - the ‘I I’ stamp shown here and often seen on Special belts denotes it as  MK II belt - the change from Mk I was introduced in May 1915 (LoC 17272) and authorised an increase in the lengths of the small, medium and large belts - source (as always) The Karkee Web

 

Edited 2 January , 2023 by Pete_C

[MrEd]

5 minutes ago, peregrinvs said:

Illustrations of the standard and special belts here:

http://www.karkeeweb.com/patterns/1908/1908_belts.html
 

I second that the above is a stunning set. Mine is more entry level as it has a mixture of dates and has been completed with reproduction brace attachments.

Thanks, seems like a standard belt could be easily converted to a special - was this done at the time do you know?

post photos of your setup (if you haven’t already?) 

 

[MrEd]

1 minute ago, Pete_C said:

Thanks Ed. Yes, they carry this pattern of mess-tin simply because they are classed as ‘mounted’ - regular MGC were issued with the standard D shaped tin. The Special Waist Belt is identical to the standard belt except it doesn’t have the two inch extension straps at the rear and it also has two one inch angled buckles on the inside rear to accept the one inch diagonal straps from the brace attachments when not in use.

Pete

 

Thanks that’s what I thought - same situation as the artillery - mounted (drivers etc) got cavalry pattern and dismounted (gunners etc) got D shape - atleast that what I assume from photos and some books etc.

great to see the set close up, that really is nice - all so nicely colour matched aswell - absolutely superb 

[Pete_C]

4 minutes ago, MrEd said:

Thanks, seems like a standard belt could be easily converted to a special - was this done at the time do you know?

post photos of your setup (if you haven’t already?) 

 

No, not a conversion but manufactured to this pattern - the 2” rear extension straps cannot simply be cut off from a standard belt as that would leave a ragged edge.

[MrEd]

51 minutes ago, Pete_C said:

No, not a conversion but manufactured to this pattern - the 2” rear extension straps cannot simply be cut off from a standard belt as that would leave a ragged edge.

Okay, I wondered if there was specially made special belts and field-converted ones - like you see converted packs and so on. 

I was just reading the karkee web bits for the pistol sets - the field Expedient bit is interesting, i assume that’s what the men with the normal belts have done. Looking at how it all goes together it looks like it would be a much more stable (and comfortable) setup with the special belt rather than the normal belt?

[Pete_C]

15 minutes ago, MrEd said:

Okay, I wondered if there was specially made special belts and field-converted ones - like you see converted packs and so on. 

I was just reading the karkee web bits for the pistol sets - the field Expedient bit is interesting, i assume that’s what the men with the normal belts have done. Looking at how it all goes together it looks like it would be a much more stable (and comfortable) setup with the special belt rather than the normal belt?

Photographic evidence does clearly point to the ‘expediency’ set-up to be by far the most common method that was used to replace the rifle cartridge carriers while still allowing for the rest of the web set, including pistol equipment, to be worn. Part of the reasoning behind the brace attachments and special belt was to enable the haversack (or pack) to be worn on the back and have diagonal straps available to anchor it in place to the buckles at the bottom of the haversack or the pack support straps - without the diagonal straps the haversack/pack would only be suspended to the braces at the top and would be unstable.

Again, looking at period photographs, most of the images taken of men wearing brace attachments tend to be from the latter stages of the war or in the 1920’s and 1930’s. The MMGC were unusual in that they also carried the intrenching tool which the special belt was not designed to take in that it lacked the extra extension strap at the rear. This means that one of the braces had to carry the water bottle and tool carrier at the rear, which is a bit of a squeeze, as in my set up. This might explain why the IWM photographs show most men wearing the standard belt - or maybe there just weren’t enough special belts available.

Pete

 

[peregrinvs]

13 hours ago, MrEd said:

post photos of your setup (if you haven’t already?) 

Sure. I’ve done a previous thread on putting it together:

 

[MrEd]

10 hours ago, peregrinvs said:

Sure. I’ve done a previous thread on putting it together:

 

That’s a nice setup, well done on perservering to find the bits 

[trenchtrotter]

Wonderful. I am doing an officer set up and fortunately for my wallet they simply looped the shoulder braces round the waist bely thus negating the braces. Well done you.

 

[4thGordons]

Nothing useful to add apart from to observe that this is a truly spectacular set. Very many congratulations on the effort it must have taken to assemble it. Just brilliant.

Chris

[Fromelles]

On 02/01/2023 at 19:39, Pete_C said:

The Special Waist Belt is identical to the standard belt except it doesn’t have the two inch extension straps at the rear and it also has two one inch angled buckles on the inside rear to accept the one inch diagonal straps from the brace attachments when not in use - although oddly those buckles appear to face the wrong way in that the open bar does not face the trailing edge of the one inch strap when secured.

Pete

Pete,

Fantastic set, great condition.

To secure the diagonal straps, I've always believed, they should first be passed down the outside of the belt then fed back up on the inside (from the bottom) and back through the buckle in the normal fashion. Why, I don't know, maybe it provides a little more slack that may not otherwise be the case.

Dan

[Pete_C]

14 hours ago, Fromelles said:

Pete,

Fantastic set, great condition.

To secure the diagonal straps, I've always believed, they should first be passed down the outside of the belt then fed back up on the inside (from the bottom) and back through the buckle in the normal fashion. Why, I don't know, maybe it provides a little more slack that may not otherwise be the case.

Dan

 

Thanks all for your positive feedback.

Dan, yes, I’m inclined to agree with you - it’s inconceivable that Mills would have incorrectly specified the inversion of the rear inner buckles.
The inner buckles are positioned at the lowest possible point on the belt which further suggests they would receive a strap that passes around the outside and back under.  However I’ve tried this and it’s almost impossible to do so under any typical set up - the diagonal strap is simply too short. I’m reliably informed there are no fitting instructions for the brace attachments so unless the original patent application can be tracked down, I’m only speculating.
A clue may however lie in a 1911 patent filed by Mills. The design was an attempt to produce a universal set of web equipment that would serve both officers and OR’s. The patent drawing below shows a diagonal 1-inch strap ( L) fixed to the ring of the brace adapter at one end and and to an inner angled buckle (L2) on the belt at the other end - similar to the special belt. Interestingly the strap is shown passing on the inside of the belt to engage with the buckle but - frustratingly - the buckle illustrated is of the closed/un-gated type rather than the gateslide/Twigg buckle fitted to the special belt - so the confusion remains !

Pete

edit - patent drawing sourced from the research records of the late Roger Dennis.

Edited 4 January , 2023 by Pete_C

[Fromelles]

On 05/01/2023 at 05:35, Pete_C said:

... I’ve tried this and it’s almost impossible to do so under any typical set up - the diagonal strap is simply too short. I’m reliably informed there are no fitting instructions for the brace attachments so unless the original patent application can be tracked down, I’m only speculating.

 

Hmmm... I only have the brace attachments so have never been able to put my theory into practice. The only other way to feed the diagonal strap through the buckle the 'correct' way would be to lay the strap over the buckle then feed it back on itself through the buckle (from the bottom), but this makes no sense. 

Your illustration would tend to indicate the correct method of attachment, though that means they got the buckle 'wrong'.

The search continues...

Dan

[Andrew Upton]

 

My own theory about the short diagonal straps is that the original idea was they were supposed to go from the brace attachments through the buckles, with the excess folded up onto the other side of the belt to fit the lower buckles of the pack/haversack when worn in the lowest position. I have both a mixed original/reproduction set that I wear for living history purposes and an all original 1918 or earlier production set (illustrated below), both of which I have set up as described, and both of which I can happily (and comfortably) wear in this configuration.

However, I am slim build and about average height for the period, and this set up is just about adequate. I suspect what happened was actual combat use (and, in particular, issue to soldiers of larger than slim build!) highlighted these deficiencies, and lead to the system commonly seen in late war photos being adopted where the haversack is worn higher on the back and the diagonal straps are simply run off directly to the base of the haversack via the under-arms.

 

[Pete_C]

19 hours ago, Andrew Upton said:

 

My own theory about the short diagonal straps is that the original idea was they were supposed to go from the brace attachments through the buckles, with the excess folded up onto the other side of the belt to fit the lower buckles of the pack/haversack when worn in the lowest position. I have both a mixed original/reproduction set that I wear for living history purposes and an all original 1918 or earlier production set (illustrated below), both of which I have set up as described, and both of which I can happily (and comfortably) wear in this configuration.

However, I am slim build and about average height for the period, and this set up is just about adequate. I suspect what happened was actual combat use (and, in particular, issue to soldiers of larger than slim build!) highlighted these deficiencies, and lead to the system commonly seen in late war photos being adopted where the haversack is worn higher on the back and the diagonal straps are simply run off directly to the base of the haversack via the under-arms.

 

I think you’re correct in principle. The diagonal strap, as stated by Mills, was the central feature of the load bearing capability of the Pattern 1908 system. It’s unlikely they’d have included the strap as a feature of the brace attachments simply as a means to secure the bottom of the haversack (or pack). The connection of the diagonal strap to the rear of the belt is required to balance the load between the front and back of the set. However in your set up, the strap still fastens through the angled buckle of the belt from the wrong direction in that the trailing end faces the closed bar of the buckle. It would make more sense if the strap could first pass through the buckles at the bottom of the haversack and then back under the bottom of the belt to pass through the buckle from the correct side. 
The fitting instructions for Pattern 1908 show the pack worn low on the back, just below the bottom edge of the belt. When combined with the available slack of the pack support straps, I suspect this method would be feasible. However I’m still not sure the straps are long enough to achieve the same with the haversack - fitting instructions show it worn a little higher than the pack. Regardless of the intended set-up, all contemporary photos appear to show haversack worn high on the back with the diagonal straps simply used to anchor the bottom in place, which was likely simpler and more comfortable, and in the context of their use, no less effective I imagine.

When used without the haversack or pack the securing of the loose ends of the diagonal straps from the inside top of the belt is likely the correct method, imo.

Cheers,

Pete

Edit - Andrew, you’ve successfully managed to mount the haversack with the diagonal straps passing firstly through the inner belt buckles and then to the base of the haversack - logic says that it would be just as achievable if the strap went via the base of the haversack then back under the bottom of the belt to connect with the buckles in the correct orientation. I struggled to do so with my mannequin set up but regardless of that, it’s clearly feasible and likely confirms this as the correct method of fitting - and confirms Dan’s (Fromelles) thoughts above.

 

 

Edited 8 January , 2023 by Pete_C

[Fromelles]

Just stumbled upon this, from the Karkee Web website, Canadian Pattern 1913 Equipment, unfortunately there isn't an actual example of an original belt. Very similar to the patent posted above, this pic isn't clear enough to conclusively show which way the buckles are fitted, or even if the buckles have an 'open' end (one side looks to be, the other side doesn't), however Karkee Web does have a mock-up of it using an 08 waste belt special as an example of how it was constructed.

Dan

[Pete_C]

On 23/03/2023 at 12:45, Fromelles said:

Just stumbled upon this, from the Karkee Web website, Canadian Pattern 1913 Equipment, unfortunately there isn't an actual example of an original belt. Very similar to the patent posted above, this pic isn't clear enough to conclusively show which way the buckles are fitted, or even if the buckles have an 'open' end (one side looks to be, the other side doesn't), however Karkee Web does have a mock-up of it using an 08 waste belt special as an example of how it was constructed.

Dan

Yes, hard to tell which type of buckle, but I’d say they’re of the closed type rather than slide/Twigg style. The Mills company filed many patents for alternative web equipment designs leading up to 1914, partly because orders for the Pattern 1908 Infantry Equipment from the War Office had largely dried up at that time - the relatively small, peacetime regular army was fully equipped by then.

I’ve scoured the excellent Espacenet patents database (worldwide.espacenet.com) using every permutation of Mills / Wise / Lethern / web / brace etc but I haven’t found the Pistol Equipment patent as yet. There are many other fascinating Mills’ filings, most of which never went into production, and I noted that they do illustrate the slide type buckle when it’s specified.
In the absence of fitting instructions or the original patent, I don’t think we’ll ever know the definitive set-up for this set.

Pete

[1RWK]

Good evening all

I am new to the forum. I am currently a member of the Queen's Own Royal West Kent living history group and have been chosen to become the Vickers gunner. I would like to make sure I am accurate in my portrayal of a machine gunner. I would like to say thank you for the posting of the pictures of the pistol order webbing. 

As a machine gunner in a standard infantry battalion, would the machine gunner wear the pistol order webbing as seen in the pictures posted above by Pete_C? 

How many in the gun crew would wear the pistol order webbing? 

Would anyone know where I could purchase a repo special pattern belt?

 

Thank you all for any help and advice you can give

Wayne

 

Quote

 

[Chasemuseum]

3 hours ago, 1RWK said:

Would anyone know where I could purchase a repo special pattern belt?

A relatively easy task to get a couple of 1-iinch straps with buckles, cut them short and sew them inside a P08 belt

[4thGordons]

" I am a member of Queen's Own Royal West Kent living history group and have been chosen to become the Vickers gunner......As a machine gunner in a standard infantry battalion, "

Question -- what period are you portraying? I think the answer to this question might be significant.

It was my understanding that with the creation of the Machine Gun Corps, the operation of heavy machine guns (Maxim/Vickers) moved from infantry battalion personnel to the MGC? - So if you are portraying the QORWK after (IIRC) October 1915 (?) then would they even have had (heavy) machine gunners? I thought the battalion would  would have retained and increased their quotient of Lewis Gunners, but I thought heavy machine guns became the purview of the MGC (and trained gunners may have even been transferred from the battalions to the MGC)

Have I misunderstood?

Chris

[peregrinvs]

I can recommend the repro Belt Waist Special made by Lawrance Ordnance:

https://www.lawranceordnance.com/default/we08-belt-waist-special.html

I had one in my 1908 pistol order set until I found a real one:

 

Edited 27 September , 2023 by peregrinvs

[Pete_C]

11 hours ago, 1RWK said:

Good evening all

I am new to the forum. I am currently a member of the Queen's Own Royal West Kent living history group and have been chosen to become the Vickers gunner. I would like to make sure I am accurate in my portrayal of a machine gunner. I would like to say thank you for the posting of the pictures of the pistol order webbing. 

As a machine gunner in a standard infantry battalion, would the machine gunner wear the pistol order webbing as seen in the pictures posted above by Pete_C? 

How many in the gun crew would wear the pistol order webbing? 

Would anyone know where I could purchase a repo special pattern belt?

 

Thank you all for any help and advice you can give

Wayne

 

Hi Wayne

The web equipment configuration in the opening post reflects a typical MGC set up most often seen in photos from around 1917/18, rather than any regulation fitting instructions which I’ve yet to find - and most of the available photos appear to have been taken away from the front-line.

I wouldn’t get too hung up on the special waist belt component - if you look closely at the IWM photos, where it is possible to make a distinction, most of the belts are standard rather than special - see below. The special belt is only really needed when the haversack is not worn and the 1-inch diagonal straps of the brace attachments need to be secured to the belt.

Pete