PDA

View Full Version : 1911 draw by Chic Gaylord


Doug.38PR
January 5, 2006, 06:52 PM
Looking at Chic Gaylords demonstration (using is army sergent demo) of how to draw the 1911 (apparently nobody back then liked cocked and locked) quickly and have it ready to go I am wondering how exactly the sergent did this? I tried it against the side of my pants (with the gun unloaded and without the mag obviously:D ) and it doesn't work. If you do it against the rear sights as Gaylord says, seems to me you could hurt the sights, maybe even the gun...maybe even blow your own foot off.
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c108/Doug38PR/1911draw.jpg

There is another method he shows where the sergent is fanning back a gloved hand against the sights. Seems that isn't possible for the same reasons. Be easier to just grab the slide with your fingers and let go rather than fan the sight.

gordo b.
January 5, 2006, 08:31 PM
Yes you use the rear sights,Yes it would be hard on adj sights(and the finish of all sights) and YES it is UNSAFE:eek: technique likely to shoot a hole in your leg !
It was one of those things good to know back then. Jeff Cooper also practised this technique but by the middle 70's was NOT advocating it as too many negligent discharges were occuring! And you better believe if you practice this tech nique with a real gun, sooner or later YOU WILL have a negligent discharge!:(

BlueTrain
January 6, 2006, 06:39 AM
You have to remember that when the book was published, we were in the middle of the Western fast-draw craze and a lot of gun writing and trick shooting centered around fast draw. There was some distinction made at the time between quick draw and fast draw. It seems that one was with blanks and the other with either wax bullets or live ammuntion. Either way, it drew a lot of interest and attention at the time.

Some real life gunmen, all lawmen, went in for trick shooting and shooting demonstrations for citizens, and that is certainly a thing of the past. Its hard to imagine any law enforcement agency wanting to advertise that their policemen were actually good with firearms nowadays. Bill Jordan was probably the best known of the lot and I remember reading a lot about him. He was a real fast draw. There was also Bill Toney, if I remember the name correctly. Funny, practically all of them were from the Southwest and most were in the Border Patrol.

Gaylord also illustrated, I think, a reverse draw with a .45 auto carried hammer down on a live round with the pistol just behind the right hipbone. To be fair, he pointed out the dangers of these things and evidently preferred revolvers.

Doug.38PR
January 6, 2006, 10:39 AM
Its hard to imagine any law enforcement agency wanting to advertise that their policemen were actually good with firearms nowadays.

Why not? Sounds like 1) a good incentive to produce officers more proficient in firearms (might cut down on spray and pray panic tactics), 2) Draw public interest in law enforcement and law inforcement interest in public 3) would give criminals a visible reason to fear LEOs (If they get into a gunfight with these guys, we will lose)

Edit: Of course I remember a Polk County Sheriff's deputy telling me a few years ago that police don't generally like any kind of detailed evaluation of their officers proficiency in firearms. One dirty word: LAWYERS! His example was that if it was evaluated in any way that he was a marksman or something like that that could "hit the bullseye 25 out of 25 shots at 50 yards and then a guy with a gun ran into the building and started shooting up the place , he shoots him in between the eyes, and some scoundrel attorney sues claiming that this deputies record with a handgun is so good that he should have been able to shoot the guy in the arm instead of killing him. As he put it, it's not about bad guy gets killed, bad guy got what he deserved anymore it's bad guy gets killed he is somehow a victim and deserves justice. Such as the twisted world in which we live :p

OBIWAN
January 6, 2006, 10:53 AM
Manipulating the slide via the rear sight is a standard one-hand drill....for most all weapons...general safety rules still apply

Newer low-drag style sites often make it difficult/impossible

Jim Watson
January 6, 2006, 10:57 AM
The book describes the draw in considerable detail. It depended on a modified USGI holster. Rubbing the gun against your pants isn't going to work.
Racking an auto against the sights is now considered a severe emergency move.
Gaylord was no fan of the automatic pistol and doesn't discuss them extensively or favorably.

BlueTrain
January 6, 2006, 11:27 AM
I also remember a gun magazine article from the late 1950's about firearms training for the L.A. Police Department. It showed them on the range and that particular photo showed them using a one-handed point method from a crouch. They all appeared to be using S&W K-38's. It stated that officers received additional pay for a high score.

Much later, another gun magazine used to have a regular series about different police departments. The editor said they were discontinued because they were pretty much all the same (and didn't make for interesting articles).

Hard Ball
January 6, 2006, 11:33 AM
If you want to carry a 1911 for self defense have a round in the chamber and carry it cocked and locked. Do not trust your life to uneccesary tricks.

Doug.38PR
January 6, 2006, 12:15 PM
Oh I don't plan on trying this :eek: (gosh no!) This is more if interest than it is an actual CHL tactic.

Capt Charlie
January 6, 2006, 01:24 PM
I've never tried this with a 1911, but it's pretty much standard in our semi-annual qualifications (Glock 17's). It's called the "Wounded man shoot", but the difference is that the front of the slide is used rather than the rear sight. It's pushed against either the edge of the holster or the edge of the shoe. It's done both strong hand and weak with the other hand in the back pocket. A magazine is loaded with random live/dummy rounds so that you have to do it several times for each mag, and the targets are scored. I confess that I'm the world's lousiest shot in the weak side, one-handed shot :o , and the first couple of times I tried this, I was as nervous as a thief in church :D , but it's pretty much ho-hum today.

Its hard to imagine any law enforcement agency wanting to advertise that their policemen were actually good with firearms nowadays.
Sadly, that's the truth. A decade ago, we kept records of scores and officers sported expert medals with pride. Today, the only record that's kept is pass / fail, and medals are out. The reason? It's been brought up in court in deadly force cases that those qualifying master or expert should be able to effectively disable (wound) a BG without killing him :rolleyes: :( .

tipoc
January 6, 2006, 02:11 PM
The 1911 is going on 100 years old soon and until the last 2 to 3 decades it was not carried c/l.

The gun was designed for mounted calvary troops and meant to carried in a full flap military holster and carried hammer down on an empty chamber. When drawn the slide was racked and the safety put on till you needed to fire. Once done firing the safety was put back on. The safetys were small compared to what most often shows up on 1911s today. When you wanted to reholster the safety was taken off, the hammer lowered with the off hand, or the thumb of the shooting hand, and the piece reholstered. When introduced most soldiers were used to either Colt SAAs or da revolvers and lowering the hammer on a loaded round was a matter of no special concern.

Many soldiers soon found it saved time to simply keep the hammer down on a live round and thumb cock the piece after the draw.

If you have ever run around the coutryside with a 1911 cocked and locked in a full flap GI holster you will see that it don't stay C/L for long. The piece jostles in the rig when jogging or on horseback. Troops did not carry it this way.

The gun was often carried on the half cock notch to keep thumb cocking, or racking the slide easier.

In two world wars and a lot of other wars troops taught themselves other methods of using the 1911 for both strong hand and weak hand: racking the slide one handed, using the rear sights to rack the slide against a boot heel or table edge, thumb cocking or cocking with the heel of the off hand, etc. (There were no FLGRs to impare this in fighting .45s)

The 1911 is a versatile gun.

tipoc

smince
January 6, 2006, 06:39 PM
I have a 1911 holster from the late 70's/early 80's. It is made by Seldeen Leathersmiths. The holster is designed kind of like a modern fast-draw type with a thumbreak. The difference is that it has a leather stop inside for the front of the slide and the spring plug. The gun is carried in this holster in Condition 3. Grasp the gun as if drawing, but push down. The slide stays put, but the grip/barrel goes down and chambers a round as it comes back up. The thumbreak is also released at his time, and the gun comes out of the holster ready to fire. Very quick in practice, once you get used to it. Obviously, it won't work with a full-lrnght guide rod.

I've never carried this holster for serious use, just to play with at the range. It was once advertised as "the answer" for those who didn't like C&L carry.

Archie
January 7, 2006, 05:09 PM
It's hilarious! No kidding.

Chic Gaylord was a holster maker of some reknown. It seems (I've never seen an example of his work) he made a pretty solid holster in terms of construction (the designs were not impressive).

A shootist, he was not.

F'rinstance, in his commentary on being a sucessful gunfighter, part of the requiement is a '...steely eyed glare...' or somesuch nonsense.

F'rinstance, he demonstrated 'fast draw' as if for serious use, with a tied down holster and a High-Standard double action revolver in .22 long rifle.

F'rinstance, his notation that a Colt .38 Special revolver would handle heavy reloads that would turn a Smith & Wesson revolver into a hand grenade.

F'rinstance, he didn't know diddly squat about carrying or using any sort of semi-automatic pistol.

And my favorite, his description of a New York police detective's personal revolver; a Colt New Service in .45 ACP; shooting a reload of a huge bullet, near 300 grains of lead SWC at over 900 feet per second. The revolver was cut down on both ends (which really did happen) and carried as a hideout.

Chic Gaylord really didn't know what he was talking about. (Except maybe for holster construction; the designs he shows are rather primitive.) And he took himself way too seriously.

But I'll buy a copy of the book if I can find one. It's too funny for words and a perfect bad example of how to do things.

ClarkEMyers
January 7, 2006, 08:31 PM
I'd be hard pressed to decide between Chic Gaylord and Bruce Nelson.
Gary Brommeland

I would have to agree that Gaylord, and Nelson were probably the most influential of the modern day holster makers.
Louis F. Alessi

There are some who think Chic Gaylord advanced the art of holstermaking.

Granted that Gaylord's musings about early gunfighters don't match his discussion of their holsters there are those who have seen the elephant and won competitions at the world level who have gone on the record with more than a little respect and admiration for Mr. Gaylord.

Dave R
January 7, 2006, 09:51 PM
Rubbing the gun against your pants isn't going to work. I dunno. I have practiced it as a one-handed drill. Doesn't work well on dress pants, or pants with a high polyester content. But seems to work fine on jeans. Just gotta use enough force. Sights dig in pretty well. Leaves a nasty bruise.

gordo b.
January 7, 2006, 10:19 PM
While it certainly is dated technique wise. Chic was the real deal! He taught me to crouch and point shoot (Fairbarn method used by OSS ect.) with that High Standard when I was 14 or so!

"his description of a New York police detective's personal revolver; a Colt New Service in .45 ACP; shooting a reload of a huge bullet, near 300 grains of lead SWC at over 900 feet per second. "

I don't know about the bullet, it IS possible as I get 800+ fps with a 286 cast .45 AR load in my new Services.

And that NYPD detective was my Uncle Gil I believe , as he left me his Real Fitz New Service in the early 70's (complete with lead weighted butt!!!!) which I sold for a couple thousand bucks 20 years ago as it was getting worn out on the cylinder restraining lug on the left side of the frame and there was no real easy repair, and this rich guy HAD to have a real 'Fitz'!

I really think the couple Gaylord ,signed, holster I STILL have since the early 60's are VERY comparable to anything available today. He was the only show in town,to my knowledge, for a REAL concealment holster. All the 'princes of the city' from across the country and most of the spooks ect. of the time paid homeage to his NY city store front(!!!!:eek: ).

So before you go dissing somebody who has been there and done that way more than you are EVER gonna do:p I'd think about the slapjack that these ole boys would have upside your internet bred head!:D

pickpocket
January 7, 2006, 11:13 PM
If you want to carry a 1911 for self defense have a round in the chamber and carry it cocked and locked. Do not trust your life to uneccesary tricks.

Yeah, I've walked several friends through their first CCW purchases and I never advocate a 1911 as a carry weapon unless you're _very_ comfortable with your handgun and know what you're doing.
It's sexy as hell, but not the safest choice for the untrained.

Bare Bones
January 8, 2006, 10:58 PM
I never had the chance to meet Gayloard, but the people that we knew in common had nothing but respect for him as a man and a holster maker. I was at a handgunner's convention put on by Super Vel (as I remember) and a lot of the big names were there. As the dinner passed into the distance and the serious libations came to hand the stories erupted. He was very well thought of by Bill Jordan, Charlie Russell and everyone else under the cigar and cigarette smoke. I (as the resident greenhorn) nodded, sipped and kept my mouth shut...;)

BlueTrain
January 9, 2006, 06:27 AM
I have to disagree with tipoc's ideas about the intentions for the .45 automatic.

First of all, it was designed to be used by everyone, not just the cavalry. It is true that the U.S.Cavalry used more handguns than any other cavalry but it was not just for them. The early holsters had straps to keep it from swinging up and down, the later one had leather thongs.

Secondly, I believe the original intention was the the .45 automatic to be carried hammer down on a loaded chamber. It so states that in a US Army manual I have dated 1917. However, to be fair, it says that under a part about preparing to go on to the range. That only implies that it was understood that it should be carried that way all the time. I'll have to go back and read it again. In any event, I don't think it can be carried hammer back in the issue holster. This whole part bears re-reading when I get a chance.

Although it was later that other handguns were also adopted, not counting the 1917 revolvers, it was also apparent that older revolvers were still in use at the time because the same instructions state that the revolver should be loaded with an empty chamber under the hammer, in other words, with only five rounds. I'm sure that wouldn't not have applied to the 1917 revolvers but here I am assuming that they were being accurate and consistent in the manual. The only other revolvers still in use would have been the .38 Colt and the .45 Colt (1909?) as I think the single actions had finally been retired.

Although I said the .45 was not just for the cavalry, the army was still mainly a horsed army in 1911 and it wasn't just the cavalry that rode horses.

One more thing, what are "unnecessary tricks" involving a .45 auto? There are those who dismiss hollowpoints as "trick bullets."

pickpocket
January 9, 2006, 10:49 AM
Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that every weapon has a manual, and every service has a manual about its weapons and weapon safety. The thing is, 90% of the stuff like this does not apply to a normal combat situation...meaning that nobody is going to expect a soldier (or anyone, for that matter) to carry a condition 3 pistol in a non-permissive environment.
Most of the stuff in the manuals is just to provide one more layer of training, one more brick in the foundation. Manuals are a great place to learn, a great place to start, but I would doubt that the writers ever intended for their scenarios to be the end-all/be-all.
You gotta think; if it doesn't make sense to carry a certain way in a certain situation, then you probably won't be carrying that way. There's a way that people are expected (especially LEO/military) to carry their weapons on during peacetime/training, and a way that people are expected to carry their weapons when they have to be ready for anything.

:)

ClarkEMyers
January 9, 2006, 12:16 PM
More useful than repeating other threads on cocked and locked is noticing that Sergeant Loughnan is NOT Mr. Gaylord's ideal for using the 1911 but rather an example of an individual under orders overcoming the handicap of a bad policy when he can't change it.

The story goes that Sergeant Loughnan was shot once when he was not able to do anything with an empty chamber and determined that would not happen again. Under orders to carry an empty pistol there was no option for cocked and locked or loaded and hammer down so loading in a hurry was his choice.

Bill Jordan was not a fan of the 1911 in his book No Second Place Winner and I don't think anybody ever mocked Mr. Jordan for putting his finger on the trigger of his revolver early in his fast draw - almost certainly not to his face. Similarly there is no reason to expect today's consensus behavior from other folks 50 years ago.

Doubtless today Sergeant Loughnan would follow the modern technique of holding the pistol sideways :D

Archie
January 9, 2006, 06:58 PM
There are some who think Chic Gaylord advanced the art of holstermaking."Advanced"? In what manner? From what I know, Gaylord's main contribution was double stitching and construction methods. Bell Charter Oak Holsters offer "Chic Gaylord Brand Holsters" and claim Gaylord invented the thumb break retainer. If that's true, he did well. However, his designs were never what I would consider to be 'advanced'; even for the time. Take a look at http://www.bellcharteroakholsters.com and check out the duty holsters presented as designed by Gaylord. Several of them do not allow the pistol to be properly gripped prior to removal from the holster (no space under the trigger guard). I will note the first time I say Gaylord's book was in the early '70s and many, many people (including me) still carried revolvers.

I think the designs of Tom Threepersons, S. D. Myres, and George Lawrence surpass Gaylord’s designs. But that can be a matter of individual taste. I know what I want a holster to do and not do.

As I admitted, I've never seen a Gaylord holster in the flesh, so they might be somewhat different than the various pictures and internet reproductions. I'm willing to look at one or six and then alter my opinion. However, as I said in my original post, Gaylord was a holster maker of some renown. It is his ‘gunfighting’ information I find lacking.

Another example of his dismal lack of knowledge shows in his discussion of carrying a automatic with a round chambered, in the form of a 1911 Government Model. Gaylord presents, as ‘…the way to do it…’ a reverse twist holster which mandates the user pass the muzzle of the gun past his own body, as he is cocking the hammer. Okay, in those days few men carried a 45 auto cocked and locked – and from Gaylord’s devotion to revolvers, I’m sure he would have had fits at the mere suggestion – it does not take much thought to prefer a straight draw holster which does not cross the user’s body. Even in the ‘50s we knew about that sort of thing.

Archie
January 9, 2006, 07:13 PM
While it certainly is dated technique wise. Chic was the real deal! He taught me to crouch and point shoot (Fairbarn method used by OSS ect.) with that High Standard when I was 14 or so!A .22 long rifle revolver is an excellent training device. Such a handgun can be most useful as a small game gun. It is certainly better than a wishful thought as a home defense tool. However, using such a firearm while attempting to pass as a ‘gunfighter’ is just plain silly. The ‘Gunhawk’ holster he built to do his quick draw or fast draw (I never can remember which is which) is not useful for any other purpose. Making a loud noise with a .22 blank drawn from a specific holster in a short period of time may impress folks; but it’s not much of a useful real world skill.

…his description of a New York police detective's personal revolver; a Colt New Service in .45 ACP; shooting a reload of a huge bullet, near 300 grains of lead SWC at over 900 feet per second.I don't know about the bullet, it IS possible as I get 800+ fps with a 286 cast .45 AR load in my new Services.One of the ‘problems’ (giving me some hilarity) from the book was the description of the load changed from text to caption. The other was Gaylord’s claim about how much stronger Colt revolvers were than S&Ws. Frankly, any load at a pressure level dangerous in any reputable firearm made from the ‘30s on is dangerous in any other.

Just for correspondence sake, my load for 45 AR, shot out of a S&W 1917 revolver changed into a ‘Fitz’ style snubby is a 250 lead SWC at somewhere in the low 800s. I used to use a dose of Unique, but I’m going to have to rework the load for WW231. It prints nice clean big holes and regulates to the sights out to about 25-30 yards. It’s not a maximum pressure load either, so it’s not hard on the revolver as well as fairly fast to recover for multiple targets.

… NYPD detective was my Uncle Gil … he left me his Real Fitz New Service … (complete with lead weighted butt)…Wow! Was that a real FitzGerald gun? If so, that is a nice piece of history. I don’t recall Gaylord’s book mentioning the lead weighted butt, but it makes sense from a control standpoint. From a carrying standpoint it’s a bit of a negative, but one can’t have everything.
Yes, the name “Gil” rings a bell. I must confess it’s been several years since I read the book last. If your uncle lived long enough to retire and give you his revolver, he must have done something right. Don’t transfer my amusement at Gaylord's expense to your honored uncle.

I really think the couple Gaylord, signed, holster I STILL have since the early 60's are VERY comparable to anything available today.I’m sure the holster is worthwhile as a historical and collectable artifact. I collect holsters, after a fashion; especially those with a law enforcement intent. What guns do these holsters fit, and are they belt holsters or concealment rigs? And, just out of curiosity, Gordo, what do you do for a living?

tipoc
January 9, 2006, 09:05 PM
On the origins of the 1911 and how it was carried see see Bady's work "Colt Automatic Pistols", Ezell " Handguns of the World", and Smith and Smith "Small Arms of the World". The calvary had the dominant say in the piece in it's developmental stages. Jeff Cooper has also written quite a bit on early modes of carry and training.

Hammer down on an empty chamber was and is today the preferred method of carrying a SAA by Colt or a clone of Colt.

Gaylord was well respected by his contemporaires both as a holster designer, gunsmith and shootist. There is a great deal to learn from his book.

An inexperienced and arrogant phycisist these days might read Einstein and think "What a bunch of dated and obviously humorous crap". He'd be wrong. So someone reading Gaylord today might say the same. They'd be wrong also.

Colt revolvers are still considered today as being stronger than S&Ws in their lock up. But they have always been harder to work on and more prone to going out of time and once out of time harder to repair. In decades past more smiths knew how to repair them as well. Nowdays most gunsmiths are entirely unfamiliar with Colt wheelguns.

Read John Taffin or Mike Venturino on .45 Colt loads at 300 grains at 900 fsp. This is do able. 250 grains at 900 fps is common.

By 1946 the U.S. military began looking for a DA auto to replace the 1911 in part due to accidents in it's handling. GIs carried it a number of ways. Hammer down on an empty chamber, hammer down on a loaded chamber, on the half cock notch, etc. Rarely cocked and locked. For the military this was a problem.

These methods of carrying the 1911 wern't and are not "tricks" they are techniques. Some better than others. The 1911 man learns his piece.

Gaylord did not like autos much. Neither did Elmer Keith or Bill Jordan. Neither did most Americans till the late '70s and 80s.

tipoc

gordo b.
January 10, 2006, 12:23 AM
Archie: I think I am beginning to see your perspective, and it is reasonable. The Design of Gaylord holsters was only remarkable in the concealment designs , which were very close to what Alessi sells today. The executuin was VERY good, but not as godd as Milt's nor Nelson's , Bell Charter Oak stuff is not quite as well made as a Gaylord/Seventrees.
The Lead Weighted Butt was to slap people in the skull,according to my LONG departed uncle.:eek: Maybe that's why the cylinder wouldn't close without aligning it carefully!
Listen; Chick Gaylord's time was the 50's-EARLY 60's. When I went plainclothes while still in the military in 1970-he was history, and his stuff dated. When I was a genuine Gubbamint Agency sworn agent in 1975 his little scabbard for a Colt Cobra he made me in early 60's still was field a couple years though!
Since 1983 I have only been a reserve officer for a local agency . My business, that I own, is Diesel Fuel Injection service:cool: it's a strange world!:D

Jack Malloy
January 10, 2006, 09:14 AM
If you have ever handled an original model 1911 as opposed to the a-1, you will find that the thumb safety is almost impossible to use, as its very, very small, not at all like even the standard "mil spec" safeties of today which are huge in comparison. The original was flat against the slide and only had a minor tab sticking out towards the end, and not very far at that. its even harder to use than the old style Browning High Power safety...
You also find that the original 1911 had a super wide hammer, roughly the same size as a Smith N frame target hammer and a smaller grip safety tang.

Basically the rest of what you said was true. It was designed for cavalrymen to carry in a flap rig hammer down on a LOADED chamber. The grip safety was an add on. That was in the field. Around base the gun was traditionally carried hammer down on an empty chamber.
Up till the 70s actually, many 1911 fanciers carried hammer down on a live round in the chamber and even hammmer on half cock over a loaded chamber, which is why colt changed the half cock notch to an intercept.

Bill Jordon was not necissarily anti-auto. He discusses autos in No Second Place Winner and he points out that the autos of his day were not reliable with lead bullets and that FMJ ammo didnt have enough stopping power for law enforcement use.
Jordon noted (and had a photo of his own) the 1911 could be had with bigger sights, a custom extended thumb safety and the grip safety tied down and that it could be modified to handle hollowpoints and lead bullets but that the expense of doing all that to each gun made it too cost prohibitive for most departments.

I read Handgunners Guide last summer. Gaylord points out that the 1911 commes into it's own as a gun for clearing dark alleys as you can lay down a volley of fire and reload rapidly.
While some of what is in both books is outdated today, there is still much valuable information you can glean from them and they are well worth reading especialy if you are a revolver man.

Something to remember. We had high capacity autos and assault rifles in the 50s and 60s. Its just nobody in Hollywood new about these "high tech weapons of death."
So movies and tv shows generally featured .38s and riot guns.

And cops trained for real life contingencies. Like pulling over a speeder and winding up in a shootout. Or handling a prowl call and getting shot at by a sniper.
In those REAL LIFE situations being able to draw and fire and hit what you aimed at RAPIDLY was much more conducive to officer safety than the idea of having to fire 46 round in less than a minute.
In the late sixties there were concerns about types we would call Terorrists today carrying machine guns and machine pistols and being "outgunned" with the then standard .38. Speedloaders came along along with the popularity of Magnum rounds and you did not hear too much concern about being "outgunned" for some time afterwords.
(It can be downright educational to read old Gun books from the seventies).
Some departments did experiment with 1911s, High Powers and the then new S&W 59s. But the revolver stayed pretty much in the running till the early to mid 80s.....
What happened?

Movies like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard and tv shows like Miami Vice seem to have been the predominant factor in the switchover from autos to revolvers as then and now, most real life gunfights are over after three rounds have been fired and take place at a distance of ten feet or less.



Jack the Literary Critic for The Firing Line....

LOL...


>>>he gun was designed for mounted calvary troops and meant to carried in a full flap military holster and carried hammer down on an empty chamber. When drawn the slide was racked and the safety put on till you needed to fire. Once done firing the safety was put back on.<<<

ClarkEMyers
January 11, 2006, 10:16 PM
There was a real famous guy in the sixties named Chic Gaylord. As some of his customers say, he had the hands of a craftsman, the eye of an aartist and the mind of a scientist. He majored in art in college and after graduation worked as a cartoonist for the famous Peter Arne[ sic actually Arno I think], dean of American cartoonists. He finally went on his own and in his shop on West 47nth St NYC he began to develope the finest holsters for law enforcement people. He never advertised as his fame came from word of mouth. He also became known in those days to be the top man in combat shootng. He made holsters for every type situation and all type pistols. He once put on a demo with 17 weapons concealed on his body. I had the pleasure of meeting him a number of times when a friend in law enforcement asked me to go.
..........................

Austin Behlert
Pistolsmith, retired.[deceased]

Gaylod was quite a guy. I remember talking to him a few times on the phone when I was playing around making holsters for myself, and a few cop friends.
He spent a lot of time talking about design, the benefits of heavy thread for stitching, and properly molding a gun to a holster.
In those days, he used real guns to mold the holsters. Today, it's just not possible with all the different manufacturers, models, and variations of the same model available.

Not many people realize it, but Chic passed away about 10 years ago. He was in a nursing home until his death. One of his good friends, Lefty Lewis, a retired NYPD Detective, and holster maker, used to visit him regularly.

Chic certainly was the father of the concealment holster as we know it today.

Lou
_________________
Alessi Holsters, Inc.
You'll never know it's there, until you need it..

.....I can't take credit for the originality of that design. It's actually an old Chic Gaylord design that he called 'The Dragoon', and was intended as a cross draw holster worn on the belt with large heavy guns.
I adapted it to a shoulder rig back in the mid seventies, and it has been a popular hunting rig for many of our customers for almost 30 years now. We've made minor changes over the years, but essentially it is the basic Gaylord design..
........
Lou
_________________
Alessi Holsters, Inc.
You'll never know it's there, until you need it..

......Actually Chic Gaylord was the first holster maker to use a pull through snap on his holsters. Later, Paris Theodore also used it frequently on many of his designs.
I believe I was the first maker to design a shoulder rig with the pull through snap in the trigger guard though. That was in the early 70's.
.... [emphasis added]

Lou
_________________
Alessi Holsters, Inc.
You'll never know it's there, until you need it..

I'm not going to quote some of the folks who have been a little bit less in the public eye - though as an exercise for the reader there are quite public endorsements by truly well qualified people who carried a gun in odd places for Uncle Sam and from some of the early IPSC people - in some cases the same people.

If anybody really thinks I'm fabricating these quotes PM me. If you're not impressed by Luigi and Austin and their work we have nothing much to say to each other. They may be mistaken but they really are primary sources.

ClarkEMyers
January 11, 2006, 10:58 PM
Another example of his dismal lack of knowledge shows in his discussion of carrying a automatic with a round chambered, in the form of a 1911 Government Model. Gaylord presents, as ‘…the way to do it…’ a reverse twist holster which mandates the user pass the muzzle of the gun past his own body, as he is cocking the hammer. Okay, in those days few men carried a 45 auto cocked and locked – and from Gaylord’s devotion to revolvers, I’m sure he would have had fits at the mere suggestion – it does not take much thought to prefer a straight draw holster which does not cross the user’s body. Even in the ‘50s we knew about that sort of thing.

I can't speak for how many but there have always been some who carried a 1911 cocked and even unlocked depending on time and place.

I myself was no doubt much too influenced by Mr. Gaylord as I have been known long ago and far away to carry a 1911 cavalry draw - in my limited experience if I'm frex in the back of a restaurant booth with a loose table shoved into my admittedly loose gut so I need to present if at all from such a cramped seated position and can't just dive under the table a cavalry draw allows both a better seated draw and a better weak hand draw than my current more relaxed carry of an Alessi GWH (weak hand draw behind the back and I'll be waving the muzzle all over there is no Utopia). Fortunately for all concerned I never had to do it but I did agree with Mr. Gaylord as to the utility from awkward positions. Today I'd need a special accomodation to present from a belted-in position in a typical small car - I'm impressed by the Horseshoe velcro model for special situations myself. Again today a contingency unlikely to arise but quite different from an upright uniformed Sam Brown belt carry or a Jordan Holster or.......

I'm by no means defending the book - which today is a curiosity piece - but I was impressed by a few things and my betters who started out smarter than I ever was were more impressed by more things.

On the historical use of the 1911 I suggest inter alia the 1940 edition of FM23-35 Automatic Pistol, Caliber 45....... available for easy viewing at http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/manual.htm

Doug.38PR
January 13, 2006, 02:02 AM
Why wasn't cocked and locked considered good practice back in the 50s and 60s? I mean what did people back then figure the lock switch was for?

Jack Malloy
January 13, 2006, 09:34 AM
In the fifties and sixties the revolver was considered to be the nea plus ultra of combat handguns....


There are a couple of factors.
One is that law enforcement officers were more concerned with speed of the draw on the first shot. And of course the handle of a revolver sticks out and makes for a faster draw than an auto draw, and there was no safety to fumble with.
Secondly the revolver was considered more reliable. Remember, the shooters of the 50s and 60s grew up with IMPORTED military surpluss autoloaders, many of which were produced by slaves in wartime conditions against their will, and were not as reliable as the pre-war autos from the same makers were.
So a lot of .32s and .9mms from German controlled countries were prone to malfs and breakages. Some people just assumed that this meant that all autos were that way. They did not stop and think, "Hey, this gun was made by a captive in a plant against his will."
Also, in an era of the DA revolver the idea of a gun with a cocked hammer in the holster would have given a lot of people the willies.

Remember, in the teens and 20s a lot of cops carried autopistols for awhile. Some like the Colt model 1903 pocket models had no exposed hammer and to be ready for action you had little choice but cocked and locked.
At that time LE was still getting used to revolvers that cocked themselves so an autoloader was not that big of a deal.

tipoc
January 13, 2006, 06:01 PM
Jack, I may have stretched a point saying that Gaylord, Jordan, Keith etc. "didn't like autos much" it would have been more accurate had I said that they preferred wheelguns (though Jordan referred to autos as "ammo burners", "jamamatics", etc.). Gaylord and Keith considered them specialized weapons for either concealment (Gaylord, the Walther PPK) or as Keith did, praise the accuracy of the Luger but considere the 9mm ball ammo available at the time as good only for a battlefield and not so good for hunting or self defense.

We should say that these were the opinions of experienced shooters from a particular generation who were familiar with both U.S. made and imported guns. Among the broader population there was a general impression that autos were less reliable than revolvers. They were also specialized. Pocket guns like the Colt M1903, hideout pieces like the Browning .25s and .32s. But for serious work a wheelgun was preferred.

For the first half of the last century leverguns were the American rifle of choice. The popularity of bolt action rifles was slow to grow and only took off in the period tween the wars and in the 50s. Semi auto rifles for hunting and sport have only come into the picture the the last 30 years or so. There were exceptions to this (the BAR and Remington) but in general they were few.

"back then what did people think the lock was for?"

It was used the same then as today only probably more so. Think of how you use the safety other than for carrying in a good holster cocked and locked. Same.

Firearm tactics have evolved over the last century a good deal. From the gunfighters of the old west (and East who had their techniques too) to McGivern, to Fairbain and Sykes, The OSS and the FBI, to Jeff Cooper (who popularized carrying cocked and locked) and popularized two handed combat shooting, to these days. Along the way old techniques are sometimes forgotten or rediscovered.

Reding the old texts is always rediscovering our past and is useful.

tipoc