Coot said:
...Am I missing something here? Was there a rethinking of how to wear/carry pistols that happened to coincide with the introduction of revolvers? Is there something about a revolver that makes it any more logical to wear a holster than it would be with a flintlock? Officers were still wearing sashes at the time of the ACW so the sash was still available as a place to stuff a holsterless pistol.
Not really. Part of it was the more compact size of the revolver and the design with the hammer to the rear rather than to the side. Single shot belt pistols were carried in a sash or wide belt but it doesn't help much in a fight when the artillary comes out and your pants fall off.
Belt hooks were used for single shot muzzleloaders if the gun was to be carried on the person. Smaller guns were made to fit into an overcoat pocket or a ladies muff. Larger military pistols were carried on saddle holsters. That included the Walker Colt and the Dragoon sized pepperboxes.
The military went to personal holsters with the advent of the smaller, light weight revolvers. It was more practical to carry them on your person in case you were separated from your horse. For line officers, it gave them a little more firepower without the bulk of packing around a couple of pistols.
Most of the holster stuff for civilian use today is a product of Hollywood. Most people carried thier pistols in their pockets. This applied to revolvers and their predisesors, the pepperboxes.
Hickock wore his Navy revolvers in a sash. John Westly Hardin had a vest made with two leather pockets for his pistols. Most of the old photos of Civil War soldiers show either a pistol displayed in the hand with no holster present or shoved into a belt. Very few show them with, what we would call, a regular holster.
These are just a few examples. There are always exceptions to everything where humans are concerned.