Slim Jim holsters & slipping revolvers

[Homesteader]

I'm curious how those of you who use simple slim jim holsters keep your smokewagons from slipping out when you bend over or whatever. I've been thinking about poking a hole in the leather and running a thong over the hammer spur. Thought I'd see what the rest of you do first. Thanks for your input.

 

[Mike Brooks]

My holsters are good and tight and my guns have never fallen out.

 

[Homesteader]

Nice rig, Mike. Do you wet and form-fit the holsters or something? Mine definitely slip out if I bend over. (Both '60 Colt Army.)

 

[Mike Brooks]

I had these made by Cooner54, a member on this board. They are definitely formed for the guns.

 

[LaBonte]

Mine definitely slip out if I bend over.

Then with respect they were built too large - "period" holsters were seldom wet fit to the gun as is so common today - they were built snug to begin with and over time the holster molded to the shape....
Built right the back edge on Slim Jims comes up and over the trigger guard enough to "lock" them into place yet allow a smooth draw..

Cooner does excellent work........

At this point a hammer loop sounds like the best fix...When I do them I put two holes one above the other about 1/2" apart along the front edge towards the back side, make a loop with a thong and weave it through the two holes with the loop just long enought to fit over the hammer and leaving a tail long enough not to pull through.....

 

[shooyer_250]

absolutely a hammer thong is a necessity in my opinion, mainly for safety...very nice rig...Lee

 

[crockett]

Slim Jim holsters need a belt loop matched to the belt. This is because the holster itself is top heavy and will swing upside down if the fit is too loose. I can't recall where I saw it but I saw one of Hickok's slim Jim holsters- not the patten leather with inscribed marking; this one had fish scale tooling on the outside and was lined, although some of the lining had worn away. The loop on back was pretty square.

 

[crockett]

Let's see if I can post some photos. The top photo shows the suede lining. The middle shows how the gun is top heavy in the holster, and the bottom photo shows the square loop that fits very tight to the belt. Stamps used to tool the leather were homemade from spikes.

 

[LaBonte]

The middle shows how the gun is top heavy in the holster,

That's because your pistol is setting WAY too high in the holster - here's some of examples of proper period fit and a period belt loop copied from an original.....note how deep the pistol fits in these and how that back edge "hooks" over the trigger guard.

Belt loop

Built right there's no falling out and no top heavyness.......

Anybody interested in 1800's period gunleather do yourself a favor and get a copy of Packing Iron - it's chock full of originals.......

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

That's the wrong holster for that revolver--it's not even close to being right. Or else the gun needs to be pushed the rest of the way into the holster.

 

[mykeal]

Russ & LaBonte are right. That gun does not fit in that holster. Not even close. I wouldn't bother with trying to fix it with a hold down loop - it just isn't right. Get a better holster.

 

[crockett]

Sorry guys, I took a photo of the holster sans the pistol and then put in the revolver and didn't realize it wasn't all the way in.

This is how is should have looked:

If you look at the holster Stobie has and you look at the top of his belt, you'll notice the top of the belt crosses the gun at about the trigger level. If you look at the loop on the back of the holster shown, you'll see the top of the loop is at the trigger level. If you still don't like it, don't blame me, blame Hickok, it's a copy of his fish scale holster, including the nearly square loop. I'll try to find the original and post.
With the proper belt- no problem. In fact if I balance the holster on my finger at the top of the loop the balance is strongly towards the muzzle.
That said, I'll also try to find some period pictures of guys from the 1850's and 1860's with slim Jim type holsters, a lot of times they are flopping around or angled on the belt. When I said the Slim Jim type tended to be top heavy what I meant was compared to the Mexican double loop style. On my great grandfather's Mexican double loop (circa 1880) the belt crosses the holster at about the top of the hammer rather than the trigger, way higher. I've never heard of anyone having a problem with the double loop style.
And.. the Hickok holster was rounded, I think the Stobie is that way although hard to tell from the photo, in any event it didn't have a bottom plug.

 

[DanChamberlain]

Crocket

Knew from looking that this is what happened. Funny how quickly people jump in telling you what to do. Makes normal discussions difficult sometimes.

Regards

Dan

 

[crockett]

Thanks, to be honest I used a set cut out pattern for the Colt 1851, modified for the Hickok but the suede lining was a little thicker than what I have used on other 1851 holsters I've made so the fit was a little tighter than normal, no big deal as far as I'm concern- holds the gun better. In any event- one potential problem with adding a lining.
I made the fish scale stamp to match what I saw as best I could. Tandy has a fish scale stamp but it isn't right. Tandy also has two different sized mule foot stamps and they give similar results- I've used them on other holsters. The top photo- showing the lining- that has a better view on the size I was trying to recreate.

 

[Poor Private]

Yep I knew, you knew what you were talking about. If you can figure out what I just said.

 

[laney1566]

This is a crossdraw I made and it holds my gun perfectly tight.

This is an idea I had. I made the same holster but gave it a drop loop backing. Both guns set deep into the holster and no thumbreak is needed. http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s253/Laney1566/IMG_0416.jpg

 

[crockett]

I did some quick checking, see page 50 of Joseph G. Rosa, "The West of Wild Bill Hickok". The bottom of the holster is rounded and the portion of the holster behind the trigger guard has that sort of ear rather than curving gracefully to a point. One difference is the Hickok holster had a very pronounced bump at the point where the ramrod connects with the loading lever. This photo only shows the front of the holster, hopefully I'll find an image of the squarish loops on the back.
And...this is just one holster and could have been unique. I copied it as best I could. I'm not claiming it was a common pattern.
AND....the revolver in the photo has wood grips. There is a photograph of Hickok on page 157 of another Rosa book, "The Taming of the West: The Age of the Gunfighter" where Hickok has a revolver in a holster and the grip is of wood. So, I guess he didn't always carry a pair of Ivory grip Navies.
Finally, for those more knowledgeable than I, I've seen a few holsters that I think are "Slim Jim" but the back of the holster does not have the matching cut in the trigger area, instead the back of the holster is rounded. In other words if you look at the front of the Slim Jim holster, at the point where the outside edge meets the cut for the trigger guard, on the back the leather continues upward in a rounding curve towards the cut in the holster for the hammer spur. It seems to me one advantage of this style is a little more flexibility in placing the loop for the belt although I must admit the standard style with a matching cut in back looks better. In any event, this other style- would that still be considered a "Slim Jim"? And, is a "California" holster the same as a "Slim Jim" or is there a difference?