Rednichols

"Packing Iron" is generally excellent but one of its editors agreed it is not a history book; but instead is a photo essay. In particular the book omits the Kluge scabbard that we all know better as the Brill, which was made by Charles Kluge for A.W. Brill after Brill bought out the Kluge Bros saddlery in 1912. Unmarked holsters that are literally identical to Brills were called Kluge scabbards in their time and were created at that saddlery at the request of Ranger Capt. Hughes in 1904 when he was assigned to Austin with his troops and he was ordered to conceal their weaponry when his men were in town. The Kluge/Brill scabbards were created directly from the King Ranch holster, which was the Kingsville Lumber holster. The KR saddlery was late 19th century and the KR holster was the first to use a welt in the main seam; the KL holster was merely a variant and it was also sold as the Santa Gertrudes holster; all were owned by the Ranch itself. From the Brill came the Threepersons, and Charlie Askins was correct to summarize the latter as 'raised high on the belt with all excess leather trimmed away, and the trigger guard resting on the welt stack to fully expose the trigger'. Correctly made the cuff of a KR holster encircles the holster pocket at the main fold and it then folded back to be riveted to the fender that lies behind the holster pocket. A KR will also have a single welt inside the main seam; but look again: the trigger guard of the revolver is partially inside the holster, resting on the welt inside the seam, and rides quite low, and is of very thick leather, and the fender is very, very wide. All in the them of the holsters at the turn of the 20th century. A Brill has all that trimmed away to a minimum, and a Threepersons then has the fender and cuff completely removed to leave only a tab stitched to the holster pocket to form the belt loop. The cuff and fender assembly of a Brill forms the lowermost edges of the belt loop tunnel, for a narrow trousers belt; and the entire holster is made of very thin leather because it is a concealment holster. The KR was a trail holster and had a wide tunnel for the 'scout' belts of the era that were cartridge belts of 3" width, made from folded chap leather that was 6" wide before folding. These are never glued but are stitched only along the edge opposite the stitched edge, so that belt could holster money and papers inside it. Images are the KR/KL/SG version, the Kluge version, the late Brill version (post 1930) (rest of my files become too large for the post on this site). I once owned Tom's original holster and it carried Tom's Colts quite low on the belt unlike Sam Myres version which was, of a things, engineered by the Brills who were Sam's friends and adhered to the Brill engineering that folded the belt loop at the very top of the welt stack.

Wow. Not one single thing in this thread is correct about the way holster springs m/b made and inserted into the holsters. Even from someone like Lobo who was once upon a time a pro maker. These days I have to explain this to even the Lawman Leather people who 'make' the Original Dirty Harry Holster -- poorly -- by bending the spring metal inside their holsters but therebay unable to temper the metal after bending to hold its new shape (and thereby form a true spring). The springs of shoulder holsters are made by professional spring bending companies on wire bending machines, then inserted. For a Bianchi or a Lewis shoulder holster they were simply inserted from the muzzle end of the holster, then the muzzle leather stitched shut. Easy. For the Clark and Bucheimer-Clark (and the first Lawman Leather versions made for them by the latter company) the spring was inserted with great effort via this spot on the backside of the holster. But prebent professionally, and heat treated, first. Nowadays Lawman just bends the wire inside the holster and CALLS it a spring; but a spring by definition returns to its original shaping after it is deflected, but wire bent inside a holster is just a wire; not a spring. Perfectly suited to amateurs such as here, who feel no responsibility to consumers because theirs is a hobby; but completely unethical and even tortious for any operation that calls itself a professional holster company.

This dependence on blue guns, without having real pistols for authenticating, worries me in general. For myself, lacking real guns in Australia, at great expense all the holsters I make are authenticated with real pistols at High Noon. Each and every one. And that begins at the design stage before 'production' begins. To think that a holster maker has complied with professional due diligence, using only plastic non-working replicas, scares the hell out of me. I think this forum is too oriented to the hobbyist for me, so this will be my last post. Good luck!

I was being literal when I used that example :-). The large production makers use the thinnest, cheapest lining possible with the thickest first quality leather body possible. The small variation in cost between thicknesses is a small part of that, and cost is why so many use a very soft chrome split for the lining. I use veg tanned kangaroo in a a falconry tannage, for my linings. More expensive than cowhide by a lot, but thin and tough and as smooth as cowhide. For your purposes, of it's 12 ounce you're reaching for, use an 8 and a 5. It will fold and mould better than two 6s.

It is absolutely not worthwhile to make the inner and outer layers different sizes. All production holsters (and the custom ones better be too) are identical layers. When properly glued and stitched, the layered leather will fold smoothly as if it was made from a single layer. A caveat: it is not correct to think that two 6 ounce layers are the same as one 12 ounce layer, except mathematically. What's different? Temper (resistance to bending). The latter single layer will be quite a substantial, stiff piece; the former much softer and more flexible. That's one of the good reasons to use two layers: to change the dynamic of the folding and moulding and even the flexibility of the holster pocket. Holster making has been a science for decades now. We've learned a lot since Heiser went out of business circa 1960; following the old ways only gives old results.

This is excellent advice. However, none of the other advice in this or the other posts will give you best results. Best results: tub of hot water that is hot enough that you can put your hand in. Keep the holster under no more than 5 seconds. Put the wet holster in a sandwich bag for a half hour. Then when you insert your pistol or mould, do your moulding using the "boning" technique (it need not be a bone or antler; I simply use the round end of a plastic paintbrush handle). Then with the pistol or mould removed, dry it in the oven at the temp listed above WITH THE DOOR OPEN until it no longer feels lightly damp the the touch (an hour won't hurt it). You'll know if you go too hot, or if you leave the oven door closed, or in the oven too long: there will be obvious damage to the leather. Keeping it in the plastic bag is called "casing" and is not unique to holsters. What it does for vegetable leather, is make it more clay-like for moulding; and the grain side of the leather will darken where the tool rubs to give contrast that sharpens the look of the boning. This cannot be accomplished with leather that has been merely wetted. It's really just that simple. Millions of first-quality holsters have been made this way over the last half century. No, it is not the way the oldies did it, including Heiser, Lawrence, Myers, etc. They used a "blocking" technique and ambient heat. The wet moulding by boning that we know today was given its initial momentum by Chic Gaylord, and successfully adapting it to production lines was done first by John Bianchi and continues at Gallagher's place. The latter two use presses to do the main work, and the boning is detailing only. You'll always get the very best results using this method.

I like it! A unique style and excellent construction. There are many things you could do to "improve" it, but the most worthwhile improvements would mirror what's been said above: clear the leather away at the welt until there is room for the full knuckle on the second finger; and uncover that mag button both sides. Then, why not give yourself more strength at the belt tunnel, by at least double stitching it. If you'll also give a bit of attention to the tunnel's styling, to reflect the original effort that's gone into the holster body itself, it will add more value to the style and strength of the tunnel than you'd think.

This is partially true, but not the whole story by any means. It's accepted that the "FBI tilt" was created to lead the gunman into a crouch when firing, and thereby to make a smaller target of himself. The vertical draw that was developed out of action shooting (I am one of the founders of the Bianchi Cup from which this was adapted) might not be ideally suited to the street; I wouldn't know, not being a gunman myself. But the FBI used an angle of as much as 40 degrees grip-forward -- and more importantly, exclusively used revolvers with NONE of the weight in the grip that is found in double-stack magged nines used today. Carry angles like this are not suitable to autos carried at, say, 3:30 along the waistline. Today we still use this position and have pulled back to the 20-25 degree range. Why? So we can comfortably conceal the darned thing, and still have a reasonable chance of grasping the weapon comfortably for the draw. I do suggest caution when considering carrying in front of the trousers seam (about 2:00) in the so-called appendix position that has been so popular on pistol ranges: when seated there are major parts of your anatomy in the way of a bullet (and yes, I do know someone who became "half a man" that way).

I've been doing this (designing and making holsters) for way too long, and can say with authority that this is the best advice you've been given on this thread (cut from the above poster): The ideal placement for maximum stability is low, . . . just enough opening between the belt top and the grip front to get your fingers to get a really good hold onto the grip of the weapon. And when you cut your belt slots, . . . do not be generous. To that I would add: get the carry angle right for the "clocking" position along the waistline. It would be rare that MORE angle than 25 degrees grip-forward would be satisfactory when carried behind the trousers seam, and much less if carried in front of the seam. This is my first post in a very long time on this forum, and I'll try to be gentler than I have been on other forums because I see a genuine interest in "getting it right" on this forum. That said, when it comes to safety -- these are not benign instruments that we carry in holsters -- I do tend to be a bit rough. But I'll try to do better :-) I would suggest you should be suspicious of the "get a good belt" posts. Needing a good belt is a sign of a poor design (when talking concealment holsters at the waistline).