[bandook]

What would the correct WW1 vintage holster look like for my 1914 dated MkV? I have had (and may still have) the correct (or at least a correct..might be Pattern 37) holster for the MkVI with the 6" barrel. Are they the same. but just shorter for the MK V?
Also, does anybody make a good reproduction of the correct holster?
Thanks for any help in this matter.

 

[Lone Star]

Somewhere around here there's a photo of an officer (flap holster) and two NCO's of a Household Cavalry regiment about 1914, showing their revolvers. The Other Rank (enlisted) holsters have open tops. I don't know if the ones for four inch barrels have a cleaning rod, but those for the MK VI do. No canvas holsters were issued in WW I. They were brown leather. The MK VI holsters look the same, but are, of course ,longer.

 

[Fletch]

Here is the Life Guard picture.

 

[Lone Star]

The link doesn't work.

 

[GrantRCanada]

If you want a War Department pattern pistol case (WD terminology for 'holster') - i.e. such as would be issued to any Other Ranks issued a revolver, then the pattern would be as worn by the two Life Guards Corporals-of-Horse above.

Line drawings -

The officer's folded arms are largely concealing his holster, but flap-covered holsters were worn by commissioned officers with their Same Browne equipment. As private-purchase personally owned kit they would vary somewhat, but all would be similar to this -

Unlike the War Department patterns for issue to Other Ranks, these flap-covered holsters almost always had a sewn-in end cap.

 

[GrantRCanada]

Schipperfabrik ( http://www.schipperfabrik.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=117_202_205) offer what appears to be a very good quality reproduction OR-pattern pistol case ($45) and OR-pattern ammunition pouch ($35) -

 

[Lone Star]

Grant-

Thanks! Super post! (As usual)

 

[bandook]

Thanks a lot for that info. It looks like all I need.

 

[GrantRCanada]

To my knowledge, the Pattern 1908 Web Equipment did not include a Pistol Case component at all, so the pre-1900 Other Ranks leather pattern continued in use.

As officers were required to provide all of their own kit at personal expense, they did not necessarily use the War Department service revolver patterns (i.e. MK I through MK VI Webley) but may well have started the war with a longer-barreled private-purchase revolver, such as a WG Army model, or indeed may have purchased a Mark VI Webley once that pattern was adopted in 1915. Accordingly, it is more common to see officers with a holster of sufficient length to accommodate such a revolver -

Of course, officers were still wearing leather Sam Browne equipment at the start of the Great War but later on, as things settled down into static trench warfare, it was not uncommon for them to wear P'08-type web equipment. In either case, however, the revolver would have been carried in a leather holster -

As a somewhat ironic corollary to the increased use of web equipment by officers, shortages of P'08 Web Equipment for issue to Other Ranks resulted in early adoption of a substitute - i the Pattern 1914 leather equipment. Regardless of which pattern was being worn, Other Ranks who happened to have a pistol issued to them would wear the OR-pattern leather holster -

As a final point of clarification, although the caption of the line drawing in my first post might be interpreted to indicate that longer-barrelled revolvers would always be carried by an OR in the short, open-bottom pistol case, as will be evident from the above two images there was a lengthier version of the OR Pistol Case for the Mk VI Webley, and also the longer-barreled Smith & Wesson and Colt revolvers acquired for supplemental issue. Photograph of the longer version of Other Ranks pistol Case, with P'14 equipment -

(Although such long-barreled revolver would fit in the shorter holster version, the muzzle would protrude out the bottom, of course.)

 

[The Wizard]

Grant,

In Post #5, you identified the two individuals on the right as corporals. I think they are sergeants.

 

[GrantRCanada]

Actually, they are "Corporals-of-Horse", and are so described in the caption for this photograph in "Revolvers of the British Services, 1854-1954" (Chamberlain and Taylor). There is no rank of "Sergeant" in the Household Cavalry (i.e. the Life Guards and the Blues & Royals) .... purportedly because originally these regiments, down to the lowliest ranker, were composed entirely of "gentlemen" ..... and "sergeant" means "servant" .....
Calling any of them a "servant" just wouldn't do, eh what! :tisk:

Admittedly, it was sloppy of me to refer to them as mere Corporals, rather than by their specific rank, especially since it is the equivalent of Sergeant in other units .... I have edited the original post, but of course this exchange will remain, as a permanent reminder of my error, and as admonishment to me to be more careful!

 

[PJGP]

To my knowledge, the Pattern 1908 Web Equipment did not include a Pistol Case component at all, so the pre-1900 Other Ranks leather pattern continued in use.

Quite true of the initial introduction of the P'08 equipment Grant. However, List of Changes 16513 (1913) introduced "Web equipment, pattern 1908- Case, pistol, Webley,with brass hooks and Pouch, ammunition, pistol, Webley, with brass hooks". These were the Boer War era items (holster for 4") fitted with brass hooks to fit the 3" P'08 belt, in lieu of the leather belt loops. Then LoC 17176 (Mar 1915 ) introduced "Cases, pistol, Webley - With brass hooks, Mark II and With leather loops, Mark II" These two holsters were 2" longer "to enable the Pistol, Webley, with 6-inch barrel to be carried therein". The first holster was the LoC 16513 brass hooks item and second was the Boer War one and was intended for use with the Sam Browne belt. Earlier holsters were to be "altered locally".

The holster with the V attachment illustrated with your Life Guards photo is the LoC 17177 "Infantry Equipment, Pattern 1914 - Cases, pistol, Webley, with "V" attachment and buckle". Chamberlain and Taylerson were great researchers, but they failed to identify this holster "of unknown authority and application".

Regards
Peter

 

[GrantRCanada]

Correct, Peter! I suppose what I really meant to say (but failed to clearly state ) was something like this:

"To my knowledge, the Pattern 1908 Web Equipment did not include a web Pistol Case component at all, so the pre-1900 Other Ranks leather pattern continued in use."

[Surprisingly, I have since discovered that, technically speaking, there indeed was a web pistol case for the P'08 belt ..... but it would hardly be considered a World War One piece of kit, as it was not published in the List of Changes until 1935, having been designed to hold the .38 Enfield No. 2 revolver. It looks very much like the P'37 web pistol case, which undoubtedly was copied from it, and is discussed on the Karkee Web site: http://www.karkeeweb.com/patterns/1908/1908_holster.html ]

As someone whose collecting/re-enacting mindset is firmly in the Victorian era, I admit that I view the 1913 and 1915 LoC entries you have mentioned as little more than adaptations of the existing leather holster pattern (and ammunition pouch) for use with P'08 belts, rather than as true "components" of the P'08 Web Equipment . The holster and pouch approved under the 1913 entry were unchanged in the body, but had brass hooks substituted for leather loops .... and of course the 1915 entry basically just added a further alteration: lengthening the "shoe" (as they term it) by two inches to accomodate the longer barrel of the Mark VII revolver.

The procedure for lengthening existing holsters, when they were "altered locally" pursuant to LoC 17176, by sewing on an issued piece of shaped leather seems rather involved, but I guess the "waste not, want not" philosophy was in operation. I came across a photograph of such a lengthened leather pistol case - a rather odd-looking item, I must say. Unfortunately I cannot locate the image now.

Having now touched on the holsters with brass hooks specifically designed for wear with the P'08 Web belt, I suppose bandook should see a picture of one:

Also, when I posted the link to the Schipperfabrik items, I thought that What Price Glory may have discontinued their three versions of these holsters, which are all of sufficient length for a Mk VI revolver, but in a natural leather colour .... which does permit you to dye one to match your other kit.

I was afraid they were no longer available because I had gone to the WPG website and searched for them, but couldn't locate the listing. However, I have since discovered the page they are listed on (at $36 each, including a correctly styled brass cleaning rod) -

http://onlinemilitaria.com/shopexd.asp?id=4610

[Edit: I should add that if the What Price Glory P'08 holster actually has its brass hooks in the rather "skewed" orientation shown in the above picture, it strikes me that it would be difficult - if not impossible - to actually hook one onto a P'08 belt!]

 

[Lone Star]

I was intrigued to see that one of the drawn figures above has a Colt New Service and the photo of the short soldier in shorts is carrying a M-1911 .45 auto, I think. Take a good look at it under a magnifying glass.

I did know that about Corporals of Horse; just didn't know why they weren't called sergeants.

If memory serves, you can see the OR pattern holsters on headquarters MP's in, "Lawrence of Arabia."

 

[GrantRCanada]

As you probably know, Britain acquired very large quantities of handguns (and rifles, for that matter) from the United States during the first few years of WWI, because its own production capability simply wasn't up to the massive demand. The War Department contracted for 100,000 Colt New Service revolvers and 40,000 S&W Second Model Hand Ejector revolvers, both chambered for the the British .455 service revolver cartridge. Britain also acquired over 28,000 Colt Government Model pistols (technically, that is the correct designation for the 1911, if not produced for US military issue) - most of them chambered for the .455 Webley Auto cartridge (already adopted by Britain for the Webley "Self Loading" pistol.) Apparently, some .45ACP pistols were also accepted, but it is my understanding that the great majority of them were .455 .....

On first looking back at the photo of the chap in shorts I thought you might be correct about his handgun being a Colt "M1911", but on closer examination I think it is definitely a revolver. Note the curvature and contour of the grips, the location of a good-sized lanyard ring in the centre of the butt, and the definite "revolver contour" of the holster:

 

[bandook]

By the way Grant, thanks again for adding additional details on the 4 inch holster. I intend to try Schipperfabrik by phone, as their website did not work for me.
To continue your second topic, I have a Model 1917 US Army (S&W) revolver that is marked "Not English Make" and is proofed by some British organization. I have always considered that to be a WW2 marking. The British Army would not have used the Model 1917 during World War One, would they?

 

[GrantRCanada]

Well, it depends on what you consider to be a "Model 1917" revolver .... I don't know in your case, but many people apply that term much too broadly. Strictly speaking, the term applies only to S&W Second Model Hand Ejector revolvers (and also Colt New Service revolvers) chambered to accept .45ACP in moon clips, manufactured for US military service during WWI. Can you clarify what the original manufacturer's markings are?

Also, from your description it doesn't sound like there are any British War Department acceptance/ownership markings - such as the Broad Arrow - is that correct?

If your revolver is, in fact, a true M'1917 S&W without specific evidence of British military service, then it was likely proofed and marked (as I understand you to be describing) at some time after the First World War - i.e. not likely as late as WWII - for commercial sale in the United Kingdom.

On the other hand, as you probably know a great many British .455 revolvers got altered to accept .45ACP cartridges in moon clips - almost always to make them easier to sell commercially in the United States - and this is something which was done to many of the WWI-purchase S&W and Colt revolvers as well as to Webleys. If the revolver was originally chambered for .455, then it is undoubtedly one of these. (In that case, the British markings would still likely have been originally applied after WWI for commercial sale in the UK, then the alteration done for subsequent sale in the US.)

 

[bandook]

It's a standard US Army Model 1917 (so marked) in .45 ACP.... . the kind used by US forces in WW1. As it is an S&W, there is no absolute requirement for the half moon clips to make it function. No broad arrow, though it does have individual proof marks next to the chambers on the back of the cylinder, plus "Not English Make " in an ornate rectangle on the frame. It has another "Crown over V" proof on the frame, and three proof marks on the barrel. I call them proof marks, but perhaps they are not.
I always fancied it might have been sent over during the early days of WW2 when Britain was short of weapons. I am rather surprised that a revolver like this would have been sold commercially in the UK. I suppose there was less of a limitation between the wars than is faced in the UK now, regarding handguns, but the cartridge is not British, and the piece is not really better than anything being made by British gun makers at the time. That's why I asked the question.

 

[GrantRCanada]

The absence of military ownership or issuance markings make it very unlikely that this pistol was in British military service. However, the proof marks and the "Not English Make" marking are very strong indicators of sale for private use - formal proofing, and marking the piece as not manufactured in Britain, were legal requirements of such commercial sale (but were not a requirement for military ownership.) Actually, target shooting and such firearm-related activities were quite common in the United Kingdom until well after WWII, and 'gun control' there has not been as strict or all encompassing as many people think.

The Gun License Act of 1870 was really just a revenue raising measure since it did not restrict purchase or ownership of firearms .... rather, it required anyone wanting to carry a firearm off their own property to purchase a license to do so ..... but anyone could obtain one simply by paying the prescribed fee at any Post Office. The first 'restrictive' firearms legislation was the Pistols Act of 1903, but it simply prohibited sale or rental of a pistol to anyone not in possession of a gun license (still available on demand and payment of the necessary fee at a Post Office) or a game license, or falling within several exemptions from the Gun License Act, or able to establish they intended to use the pistol on their own property, or about to go abroad for six months or more. This was a largely ineffective piece of legislation, as you can imagine.

The 1920 Firearms Act introduced the requirement for anyone wanting to own or purchase a firearm or ammunition to obtain a firearm certificate, renewable every three years, and actually required the applicant to provide some justification for wanting a certificate .... but, of course, participation in target shooting and the like were fully acceptable reasons for obtaining a certificate. It did not apply at all to shotguns or other smoothbore firearms.

The 1937 Firearms Act modified the existing legislation in a number of relatively minor ways - e.g. raised the minimum age for obtaining a firearm certificate from 14 to 17, extended control to shotguns and other smoothbores having a barrel length of less than 20 inches, greatly restricted ownership of fully automatic firearms (following the lead of the US National Firearms Act of 1934, by the way) and transferred issuance of certificates for fully automatic firearms to the military, and imposed more regulation on gun dealers. Separately, that same year, the Home Secretary issued a ruling that "self defence" would no longer be considered a valid reason for obtaining a firearm certificate.

Things remained largely unchanged for three decades, until the Firearms Act of 1968, which brought all of the existing measures under one piece of legislation. It finally introduced the requirement for a Shotgun Certificate to own or possess long-barreled shotguns .... although, unlike a Firearm Certiciate, there was no requirement to show justification for having such a shotgun. A further amendment in 1973 required firearms to be locked up, and ammunition to be stored in a separate locked cabinet.

The current draconian firearms prohibitions and restrictions in the United Kingdom only came about with the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 (following the so-called "Hungerford Massacre" in 1987) and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of 1997 (following the "Dunblane Massacre" in 1996.) Restrictions are still considerably less strict in Northern Ireland.

 

[Swaffield]

No broad arrow, though it does have individual proof marks next to the chambers on the back of the cylinder, plus "Not English Make " in an ornate rectangle on the frame. It has another "Crown over V" proof on the frame, and three proof marks on the barrel. I call them proof marks, but perhaps they are not.

Kind of look like these on this Colt? British military proof is the cross pennants on the far right of the photo. The rest are commercial proofs. (If I remember all this correctly!)