Revolver History - Reversed Holsters: WHY???

[Bigslug]

A bit of our handgun holster history that has eluded me: You see it a bit in the Civil War era. I've recently come across a photo of General Pershing reviewing a group of troops/officers all wearing M1917 revolvers. These are all being worn on the right side with the butt of the revolver facing FORWARDS.

I suppose it would be a somewhat handy anchor point for the sling of your rifle. . .if you weren't an officer and were actually carrying one. . .

Maybe it's easier to draw with your right hand immediately after unbuttoning a flap holster?

Granted, it's a little less scary pointing your handgun into your own guts as you draw it when it's either single action only or has a stiff DA pull, but it still seems pretty not smart.

Anyone have knowledge into the actual why of these things?

[CPJ 2.0]

Never seen that, but, sometimes the the best answer is the most simple: people were just doing what they thought was a good idea.

Like this trend.

[Diver43]

Ross draw with non dominant hand. Saber was drawn with dominant hand. In the beginning guns were one and done.

[Diver43]

Cross draw with non dominant hand. Saber was drawn with dominant hand. In the beginning guns were one and done.

[Admin]

Ross draw with non dominant hand. Saber was drawn with dominant hand. In the beginning guns were one and done.

I seem to remember hearing it had something to do with drawing while on horseback as well. Not sure if that's true or not

[breamfisher]

In a seated position or on horseback, you can either cross-draw with the non-dominant hand, or if you lose your saber, use a dominant hand draw. Hard to do if the holster is in its "proper" orientation for the non-dominant hand (left side, butt to rear.)

At Pershing's time of service, we still had a horseback-mounted cavalry.

[Bigslug]

Cross draw with non dominant hand. Saber was drawn with dominant hand. In the beginning guns were one and done.

So it's a leftover from the single shots? One of the things I really liked about the series Black Sails was that there was a lot of weak-hand pistol use because, well, salt water environment. . .flintlocks. . .what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

I suppose if you're driving a horse, the number one priority might be control of your animal, because running head-first into the enemy's pike-line is REALLY embarrassing, but I've never run into any training texts for cavalry that attempted to turn troopers into left-handed pistoleers.

While puttering around M1917 revolver history, I ran across a tale of an infantryman who achieved a fair amount of glory running one out of the "backwards" M1909 holster, even though there was a "correct" holster for them at that time (M1942??)

I don't think there was ever a backwards holster for the 1911 (I might be wrong on that), and this seems to be strictly a revolver thing. Other than hidebound tradition, it seems like a very impractical approach once we were done with loose-powder loading systems.

[Admin]

I don't think there was ever a backwards holster for the 1911 (I might be wrong on that), and this seems to be strictly a revolver thing. Other than hidebound tradition, it seems like a very impractical approach once we were done with loose-powder loading systems.

That seems to be a synonym for "Military"

[CPJ 2.0]

I don't think there was ever a backwards holster for the 1911 (I might be wrong on that), and this seems to be strictly a revolver thing. Other than hidebound tradition, it seems like a very impractical approach once we were done with loose-powder loading systems.

That seems to be a synonym for "Military"

#boomerlore

[Wambli Ska]

Cavalry could not cross draw a revolver with the dominant hand because that is where the saber was. And the saber was on the left because it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw a saber from a scabbard on your dominant side. It's also very difficult (damn near impossible) to sheath a saber once it's out if you're on a moving horse, so if you'r charging and your saber was out, which is the way the cavalry charged, you could keep your saber AND reins in your right hand and draw your revolver with your left. Once the revolver was empty it was easy to holster your gun and grab the reins again with your left so you could go back to the saber, OR you could stop, sheath the saber and use your right hand to grab cartridges to reload the Colt.

These were close encounter battles and the revolver was only used to point aim and hit folks that were just out of saber reach but not long distances away. Shooting with your left hand was just fine.

[Wambli Ska]

AND drawing a 7.5" revolver from a strong side holster is awkward and usually slower at best. Most folks that carried a 7.5" gun placed their strong side holster to the left of the buckle if they sensed ANY trouble at all, especially on horseback. Even Wild Bill decided it was easier/faster to draw his Colts from a butt forward position and I don't think I can argue with his success.

[Jayhawker]

Concise explanation...spot on...
Since so many military holsters were converted to civilian use by having their flaps amputated, the habit of wearing them in a cross draw fashion provided security/retention when mounted...Interestingly, tie downs weren't really a thing until strong side holsters became a thing...

[Wambli Ska]

Concise explanation...spot on...
Since so many military holsters were converted to civilian use by having their flaps amputated, the habit of wearing them in a cross draw fashion provided security/retention when mounted...Interestingly, tie downs weren't really a thing until strong side holsters became a thing...

Absolutely true! Thanks for reminding me of that.

[Bigslug]

Cavalry could not cross draw a revolver with the dominant hand because that is where the saber was. And the saber was on the left because it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw a saber from a scabbard on your dominant side. It's also very difficult (damn near impossible) to sheath a saber once it's out if you're on a moving horse, so if you'r charging and your saber was out, which is the way the cavalry charged, you could keep your saber AND reins in your right hand and draw your revolver with your left. Once the revolver was empty it was easy to holster your gun and grab the reins again with your left so you could go back to the saber, OR you could stop, sheath the saber and use your right hand to grab cartridges to reload the Colt.

These were close encounter battles and the revolver was only used to point aim and hit folks that were just out of saber reach but not long distances away. Shooting with your left hand was just fine.

The whole "where we were, and where we are now" aspects of some of this make one chuckle.

I often joke that the smaller females can't be police officers - not because they are incapable of doing the job, but because there is not physically space available on a 26" waist for a handgun, mag pouch, taser, radio, two handcuff cases, pepper spray, baton ring, flashlight, partridge, and a pear tree. Putting a saber and a revolver on the same hip seems like child's play in comparison.

The modern idea of the "dump pouch" in which you can rapidly drop stuff you might need later but don't have time to correctly stow would have probably been really handy to those guys. We tend to take our easy-entry, auto-locking holsters for granted - they've only been around 25 years or so, but BIG advantage.

Between Phillip of Macedon's phalanx of long spears and the creation of quality archery, the idea of fighting from horseback AT ALL has always seemed monumentally suicidal to me. Whatever ranged weapon you might carry is drastically un-ranged by the bouncing of your mount, and any slightly disciplined infantry unit will end up roasting your horse for dinner on the pikes or bayonets they impaled it on. Stick to scouting!

[Orchidman]

Well, in answer to the OP's Question I offer you this......
New generations have always tried to change the status quo.......take pants as an example. They should be worn so that the waist band is around the waist......thats why they call it a waistband.......
It was probably some punk kid who wanted to be different.....so he moved his holster to the other side and carried his firearm butt forward as a way of challenging societies norms back then.......

[Wambli Ska]

Cavalry could not cross draw a revolver with the dominant hand because that is where the saber was. And the saber was on the left because it is IMPOSSIBLE to draw a saber from a scabbard on your dominant side. It's also very difficult (damn near impossible) to sheath a saber once it's out if you're on a moving horse, so if you'r charging and your saber was out, which is the way the cavalry charged, you could keep your saber AND reins in your right hand and draw your revolver with your left. Once the revolver was empty it was easy to holster your gun and grab the reins again with your left so you could go back to the saber, OR you could stop, sheath the saber and use your right hand to grab cartridges to reload the Colt.

These were close encounter battles and the revolver was only used to point aim and hit folks that were just out of saber reach but not long distances away. Shooting with your left hand was just fine.

The whole "where we were, and where we are now" aspects of some of this make one chuckle.

I often joke that the smaller females can't be police officers - not because they are incapable of doing the job, but because there is not physically space available on a 26" waist for a handgun, mag pouch, taser, radio, two handcuff cases, pepper spray, baton ring, flashlight, partridge, and a pear tree. Putting a saber and a revolver on the same hip seems like child's play in comparison.

The modern idea of the "dump pouch" in which you can rapidly drop stuff you might need later but don't have time to correctly stow would have probably been really handy to those guys. We tend to take our easy-entry, auto-locking holsters for granted - they've only been around 25 years or so, but BIG advantage.

Between Phillip of Macedon's phalanx of long spears and the creation of quality archery, the idea of fighting from horseback AT ALL has always seemed monumentally suicidal to me. Whatever ranged weapon you might carry is drastically un-ranged by the bouncing of your mount, and any slightly disciplined infantry unit will end up roasting your horse for dinner on the pikes or bayonets they impaled it on. Stick to scouting!

People that can actually ride do not “bounce” on saddles. It’s the telltale sign of a totally inexperienced rider. But when you are busy with a battle situation that changes by the fraction of a second being able to switch weapons and still be able to control your horse is kind of important.

Those cavalry guys were fighting ground soldiers with single shot muskets when the practice started. And a guy on saddle with a saber will decimate a dude with a bayonet and rifle all day long because of speed and agility of his mount. Then they moved to fighting the first generation of Savages out west mostly armed with stone tipped arrows and spears. Again not much of a challenge for a mounted/trained guy.

Then the Indians got rifles and changed the game. Custer’s biggest F-up was dismounting…

[Justsomedude]

So much easier to just be a conscientious objector and stay at home....

[Wambli Ska]

So much easier to just be a conscientious objector and stay at home....

Hey $2 a scalp added up quickly