On recommendation of Red Nichols, I bought Blued Steel and Gunleather and Packing Iron. Packing Iron is reputed to be among the best references for gunleather (holsters, belts, cartridge carriers, saddle scabbards, et al.) of the American frontier West. I'm hooked.

I'm also confused specifically about holster details. First-quality holster and saddle makers living in the frontier did not line their holsters, apparently, until near the turn of the twentieth century. Suede and calf leather liners - do they serve a purpose other than cosmetic? I would think that their softness would become a liability in a short time for working cowmen, attracting abrasive dirt (that current urban holster wearers would not have as an issue).

I noticed that no first-quality maker used horsehide. Rather they used varying grades and thicknesses of cowhide. Today many holster wearers tout horsehide as being significantly more durable than cowhide. If this is accurate, why was horsehide not used by any top-of-the-line maker?

And lastly, is verdigris a cosmetic defect only? If it is not, how did cowmen and other frontier outdoor workers deal with it when using gunleather having leather cartridge loops? Excluding woven cotton/canvas/wool cartridge belts, the only ways I can think of to deal with verdigris are shooting a lot, or periodically removing cartridges from leather belt loops and wiping them off. On their faces, neither way makes appears to make good sense.

Let me start by saying I've done many leather projects and this would only be my personal observations.

Lining a holster is more than cosmetic. The rough side of cowhide can be pretty abrasive especially if it picks up any dirt particles. A smoother liner like calfskin is less likely to do that.

Personally I don't see much real benefit of horsehide vs cowhide.

As far the verdigris (corrosion) they just had to clean the cartridges occasionally until the advent of nickel plated. They can get enough build up that it can make chambering difficult.

your point about fit is absolutely correct. When I was talking about lining I didn't mean suede leather. light weight calfskin grain side up inside, heaver cowhide grain up outside. Basically two pieces of leather attached to one another with the smooth side showing.

Heaps of great points here. Packing Iron is exceptional because it contains only a single error of commission that I can find -- and leaves out the Threepersons holster design entirely! For that reason it is almost a 19th century-only book (though the full chapter on Heiser would seem to belie that assertion; another thread someday).

Holsters lined with thin leather were not uncommon, especially from South of the Border; the facing of the holster was also thin. To appreciate why MAYBE holsters weren't double thickness cowhide, one could consider that 15 ounce (VERY thick) leather costs not much more per square foot than 7 ounce leather (thin enough to do what's being suggested. Pricing is not proportional to thickness because the tanner wants to make the veg leather as thick as possible because, generally, certainly in that day it was destined for shoe soles. Making it thinner is where sueded 'splits' come from (that line Safariland kydex holsters) for which they get comparably little and m/b chrome tanned for strength.

Verdigris was a huge problem and IS the reason for the belts with cotton belt loops. The story might even be in Packing Iron? It's caused by brass or copper against oiled leather, which oil was added to protect the set from water (and also adds strength to the leather fibres via lubricity). Aluminium cases, and as mentioned nickel plated cases, do not have this problem.

Horsehide: there is only one tanner in USA and one tanner in Japan that tans horsehide today. Then, and now, the yield from a horsehide is incredibly small and the ideal choice was from the two cheeks of the animal, called 'shell cordovan'. It's also very thin! Often about 6 or 7 ounce. I have some that sits unused, it's the solution to no kind of problem :-).

Carbon is spot-on about moulding. Tony at Sparks argued that moulding was for retention; but that's only kinda true because it was introduced back in Heiser's day to prevent wear -- as Carbon says, that cylinder is a mighty big 'high spot' and gunnies are a bit precious (I mean no disrespect) about their blued finishes becoming silvery. Different with today's s/s metals.

I have an article from a 1950s newspaper in which the Heiser foreman is commenting on having hundreds of moulds for their holsters; and Packing Iron includes in its chapter about Heiser a lengthy description of their moulding process (hey, I managed to come back to the point of the thread).

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

Yuh gotta love it here. . . . Every question answered.

Many thanks, guys.
***
Holsters made by F. A. Meanea (Cheyenne, Wyoming Territory) on pages 120 and 121 are very close to my design preferences, as is front cover's holster. A less aggressive throat - that is, less trigger exposed and a little deeper into the pouch, more restrained decoration, and sewn or open muzzle rather than sewn-in teardrop plug. Page 106's pouch configuration on the L. Klipper & Sons holster is about right for me. Its rear skirt has too much leather. A holster like what I tried to describe would be a wonderful "home" for my Freedom Arms Model 97 5.5-inch 45 Colt revolver.

Is the Meanea/Klipper pattern holster made by one of the shops specializing in Frontier West leather?