Yuku free message boards

Dez -

Wearing an impractially low slung revolver strapped to his thigh...

This could open up an interesting thread of its own about police tactics and counter ambush strategy....

I don't know when or why the fashion was adopted for strapping revolvers to the leg. Presumably it arose during the Great War and was effective during periods in the trenches or on raiding parties when access to weapons, and lots of them, was a key requirement for survival. Some hold it was instigated by the 'cowboy' movies of the time but I'm not so sure that in the 1920's low slung or cross-draw rigs were that commonplace in the movies. Certainly though it was adopted at an early stage by the Auxiliary Division and gave them a very cavalier look and no doubt a certain 'presence' on the street.

But I still can't see what advantage it gave. From an upright position you'd have to stoop slightly, remove the safety strap on the holster, then present to a firing position with a long length of lanyard flapping about in the wind (and rain?). From a seated position in a crowded lorry it would also be quite awkward to withdraw a revolver from a holster in a timely fashion (think of the fellow to your right also moving about in a panic or elbowing you sideways)...and in any case the S.O.P. was to de-bus in an ambush and take up positions away from the killing ground that a disabled lorry would become. Contemporary photos do show the Auxies wearing them on patrol but I would posit that many preferred a cross draw position when seated in lorries, and actually removed the holsters from their legs and stuck them in their belt. The attached photos are an example of a patrol going on, or recently back, from patrol and illustrate this (~not definitive I know, just an example)



This guy carries both a cross draw and also a Colt 1911 on his thigh, thus getting the best of both worlds?



The photo of Simm in the earlier post shows a revolver carried unusually low and I can only think this was done for effect and not for any practical military purpose.
I've carried revolvers and pistols (never as a soldier I add!) in a variety of field conditions and from personal experience a properly holstered firearm, securely carried on a belt either left or right handed was the only safe way of moving about. A gun on my leg was awkward and got in way and more often than not got knocked or hung up on some obstacle or another - quite scary if like me you're afraid of something going bang.

But this is just my assumption, and as yet I haven't found any contemporary reference to the usefulness of such a way of carrying a weapon. 
      

Yes Paddy but the real reason for that is the body armour and tactical equipment they wear makes it almost impossible to reach a belt mounted pistol. There's quite a debate going on about the value of thigh vs chest mounted but that's another story. As regards 'Hollywood', I believed this explanation for a long time but I'm not so sure now. I've tried to find evidence of this style in western films of the 1919-20 period but failed - the actors wear natty shirts and scarves and very high mounted guns but I can't find the leg mounted style as adopted by the Auxies.

I think Ballyroughan's reference to the book 'Revolver Shooting in War' is a highly significant find. I've always believed that the Auxiliary Division was very proactive in trialling new methods and tactics and led the way in what we now call 'mobile counter insurgency' warfare - that the book was used by F Company lends weight to that hypothesis and shows how willing they were to adopt the latest combat techniques. Perhaps this book was the basis for adoption of the twin revolvers/leg straps for which they became noted?