It's incredible just how much scrutiny the Bond books require, to be clear on how the original Fleming titles inventory his pistols and gunleather.

Using a set of PDFs of all 13 of his original titles I was able to zero in on what he actually says there vs. what perhaps I thought he did :-).

bond book series holsters.jpg This is hardly legible for you, dunno why, it's rather a large image.

So: essentially, from the 1st title that was Casino Royale: Chamois leather shoulder holster, skeleton grip Beretta 25 automatic. It remains this combo until From Russia With Love at which point Fleming has committed to Boothroyd that he will create a problem with Bond's Beretta to enable a change in the next book; curiously there is no holster involved in this mishap, with Bond instead entangling his silenced pistol inside his waistband.

The book series is infamous for Fleming's Dr. No title pairing the Walther PPK with a Berns-Martin shoulder holster that wasn't made for automatics. And yes, from the letters between Fleming and Boothroyd we are clear that Boothroyd meant the Centennial and the Berns-Martin for Bond and the Walther PPK for Bond's post-war European enemies.

Immediately realizing his mistake Fleming corrected his error in all the books that appeared after Dr. No.'s intro of the PPK in 1958: the holster usually stayed a Berns-Martin but was not ever a shoulder holster again: it became a waistband holster. But so subtle was the changeover that it was only over the last year or so that I realized how Fleming had solved 'the problem with Berns-Martin' by simply -- changing its 'style'.

Berns-Martin DID make IWBs, as we've discussed here before. I have mainly revolver images in my files:

1942 fairbairn (3).jpg Fairbairn's 1942 book showing the Berns-Martin IWB

iwb calhoun (1).jpg A Calhoun City marked Berns-Martin IWB; so 1950s

undated.jpg An undated cut that I think is from McGivern's era; so 1930s.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

A well done, useful post.

BTW, I've seldom found a fiction author who mentions holster styles or models. Very few authors know anything about guns. Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm series is the outstanding exception. But Hamilton died years ago. 2006? Peter O' Donnell's Modesty Blaise series was usually excellent in that regard. I think he probably read, Guns & Ammo for ideas. He knew about Gaylord, because he had Modesty's pal Willie Garvin make her a modified version of Gaylord's Gun Hawk holster.

Boothroyd wrote an article for, Sports Ill. about 1961-62 that detailed the Bond guns and his connection to Fleming.

Modesty Blaise made an impression on me, as a teen, for walking into a room full of gangsters and taking her shirt off to distract them, then started shooting.

The Sports Illustrated article was 1962; I have an original copy. It was also published in the London Times that year. And of course the first Bond film, Dr. No appeared that year. It was these three appearances that caused Fleming to start getting letters from folks he termed 'gun maniacs' because of the pairing of the Walther with the Berns-Martin.

The two articles were actually the result of Fleming writing the story as the forward for a book by Boothroyd. I think he meant to heap praise on Boothroyd for giving him good advice. But by pointing out his own error so publicly, and then the film which doesn't mention the Centennial in the scene with M and Boothroyd (who is not Q by the way, despite a rather embarrassing article by Dennis Adler)(equally embarrassing for him were the ill-founded comments by a holster maker named Lockwood, about the screen holster) he had opprobrium heaped on him.

He speaks of this in his interview published in Playboy after his death in '64. Even Boothroyd wanted him to switch from Berns-Martin to a Threepersons holster! Boothroyd got all his knowledge from a set of Charles Askins articles appearing '54-'56 including Charlie's misguided understanding of Tom's legends (promulgated by Tom himself).

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

More recent James Bonds (Daniel Craig) movies, Skyfall, Spectre, and
Casino Royale, used suede IWB holsters made by Vega.

Vega is located in Tuscany (Italy) and do a lot of business worldwide.
Decent quality and price friendly, they are readily available in the USA.

Here is my one remaining Vega. Pancake style with elastic over the
trigger guard for retention. Shown with my Colt's Agent.

Attached Images

SAM_1343.jpg (92.0 KB, 93 views)

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

In Dr. No, reportedly, Bond was asked to turn in his Beretta 418 for a
sidearm more powerful and better suited for a Double O. A Walther PPK.
Q, the Secret Service Armorer, said "the Beretta is a ladies gun sir."

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

Older Walter in Vega OWB holster, conceals and carries well.

Attached Images

D74E2A8D-6FBE-4DE0-AB90-7D3005D9EA7D.jpg (121.8 KB, 38 views)

Phil-

I don't believe that Fleming ever said which Beretta .25 Bond had.It could have been the 950, with tip-up barrel.BUT... he said that Bond had used it for 15 years, so a 418 is the logical item. Taping the grip was to slim the gun (hardly worthwhile) and perhaps to deactivate the grip safety.

I corresponded with Boothroyd in my youth and he wanted Bond to have the Centennial on him and a Model 27 .357 to replace the long barrelled .45 Colt in his Bentley. A major reason was that Bond could use .38 ammo in the .357, if he was out of Magnum ammo. The .357 also allows easier long range shooting.

As for the PPK, Fleming was very concerned about concealability. He favored small autos. As a former Naval Reserve intelligence officer, he carried a Browning .25.

BTW, the OSS commander Bill Donovan gave Fleming a Colt Official Police .38. He held it on some paperback book covers. I think the long barrelled .45 Colt in the Bentley was based on his own New Service. (5.5 inch barrel) You can see these guns and his Ruger MK I .22 in a feature on him in, Life from the early 1960's.

Fleming was referred by Boothroyd to an article in Am. Rifleman, comparing the US .45 to several Axis pistols of WW II. Fleming liked what he read about the PPK, so that's what Bond got. Also, the PP and PPK were very common among Euro police and intelligence agencies then.

After the S&W M-60 appeared in 1965, Boothroyd declared it the perfect Bond gun, as it was stainless, and he liked snub .38's over small autos. But Fleming died the previous year, so nothing came of that.

Various authors have produced Bond books since Fleming's death but none has really impressed me as having a good sense of the character. The guns they've chosen are hard to explain. One had Bond carry a Browning M-1903 in 9mm Browning Long!

There was a series of paperback books out in the 70's titled "The Executioner", I believe the author was Don Pendleton. I read one of the books and the author brought into play numerous weapons. I don't recall if the author factually described the weapons and their capabilities or not, that was after all 50 years ago and I only read one book and never bought more.

That was also my reaction to that series.

I vastly preferred the Matt Helm and Modesty Blaise series.

Texas Star, some of Fleming's guns were purchased by the late R.L. Wilson and Robt. Q. Sutherland from a sale at Holland & Holland in the spring of 1967. They included the 4" Official Police, S/N 718128. The Ruger .22 pistol was S/N 196902 and the Browning .25 was S/N 257024. The Colt Official Police is illustrated in The Book Of Colt Firearms.

Darn it, that's just not completely correct. There is as much misinformation on this subject on this forum, other forums, and internet websites, as there is information. Then it all gets repeated as 'fact' because modern researchers don't go back to the original documents.

Let's agree that the books are ground zero, and the films are irrelevant to what Bond was meant to have used. We also have all of Boothroyd's letters to Fleming, and Fleming's in reply. So we don't even need to guess; we actually know the details.

Boothroyd did not refer Fleming to an American Rifleman article etc. etc. that resulted in the Walther. Boothroyd's letters are quoted, largely complete, in Fleming's own article in Sports Illustrated; and the full, complete versions are in The Man The Golden Typewriter. Instead, Boothroyd mentioned the U.S. Army Ordnance Corps testing of 1948 (which I have not ever found) -- and the reference was made to answer Fleming's question "regarding weapons to be carried by Russian agents".

1962 fleming sports illustrated (4).jpg 1962 fleming sports illustrated (5).jpg 1962 fleming sports illustrated (6).jpg

So to repeat what's been mentioned more than once: the Centennial was meant by Boothroyd for Bond because it was a brand new model, with an aluminium frame in .38 Special -- introduced 1952. His letter to Fleming was 1956, written after a 1953 book. The Berns-Martin -- well, Boothroyd HAD one, for his Fitzed Smith revolver and Berns-Martin was 'kinda new' having been back in business only since 1950. Boothroyd's B-M was very new and very shiny. Fleming issued the Centennial to Bond and the Walther as almost an afterthought.

boothroyds at the royal armouries (2).jpg boothroyrds at the royal armories (3).jpg Both are at the Royal Armoury in London; a fact we worked out here on this forum :-).

The point of my original post was really, that once he worked out the error, and before the film appeared and his article appeared, all in '62, Fleming changed the holster from shoulder to waistband while keeping it a Berns-Martin, and so staying with the Walther to do so.

Also to repeat: Boothroyd got ALL his information for his recommendations to Fleming, from several Charlie Askins articles that appeared in Gun Digest, 1954 and 1956. Berns-Martin, Myres, Tom Threepersons, all of it; to which he would have added the 1953 Berns-Martin catalog, the next one issuing in 1956 (dated price lists). Boothroyd was no kind of expert; he was a geek or nerd, who caught the attention of Ian Fleming in a sort of "Big Bang Theory" comedy episode (think Sheldon Cooper and Stephen Hawking).

The Beretta: Phil says it could have been a 418 and yes, it could have been. This pistol was made in several variants since WWI and there was a version being made at that very moment in time (1953 when Casino Royale was published). And Bond receives a replacement Beretta, identical and brand new, in Diamonds are Forever, a consequence of the first one being confiscated by his enemy. So: a current model and not something he supplied personally, or took off an enemy agent; an 'issue' pistol. Could it have been the M1934 in .25 ACP, which did exist? Maybe, but we'll not ever know.

I don't see a mention of 'taped grips' in Fleming's books and admit I could've missed it; but that would mean that my PDF reader did, too. We can agree that full taping would simply bind the magazine through the open ports in the grip frame! But if someone wanted to avoid that and tape up his grips, then I expect it would've been 'grip tape': it was sticky and used on tennis rackets, golf clubs, baseball bats in that era -- to keep the little grip in the hand perhaps?

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

I'll also mention, that if one were to reread Casino Royale, one would find it to be a very 'film noir' (but a book not a film!) story and Bond is not only driving an old Bentley that is huge and heavy, but he's up against an enemy driving away from him in a sedan that is noted as being a heavyweight, too. Car bodies in them thar days were solid as -- the Texas Rangers originally adopted the .38 Super to deal wiht the thick steels of car bodies and separate frames and engines, switching then to the .357 Magnum for same. I can certainly sympathise with Boothroyd for thinking the .25 ACP to be fully inadequate as a weapon for that particular war; hence the .357 Magnum recommendation that could also fire the Centennial's closer range .38 Specials.

I recall that Bond does not ever draw his Beretta in that book, not even against humans. We find ourselves in present time, outguessing a couple of chaps in the early 1950s trying to get current for a not-so-secret agent; when even us Yanks generally weren't using more than .32 and .38 revolvers (FBI being exceptional, by adding .38 Special and .357 Magnum)(also suiting Boothroyd's recommendations).

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

Red -

You know a lot about holsters, but I think you're underrating Geoffrey Boothroyd. I also KNOW I saw the reference to that, American Rifleman article, which I also read.

I've read a number of Bothroyd articles in gun magazines, both in UK and US titles,and I have his magnificent, The Handgun, Crown Publishers, 1970. I am astounded by its overall quality, super photos, and knowledge of firearms throughout history. It's absurd to dismiss him as a jerk or nerd.

I am probably the sole person here who personally correspond with him.
I still have one of his letters, sent on stationary from the Dr .No film set.

I can't read your pages posted here. Far too small. But I read most or all of that when it was new and I also wrote to Ian Fleming, suggesting a S&W M-36 with a three-inch barrel and a Gaylord holster, with the Berns-Martin Triple Draw as an alternative for inside waistband or shoulder use. I received a nice reply from his secretary, saying that he was away, but would show him my letter on his return to England. He may have read it; I never heard from him. I think he was tired of answering "gun nuts."

If you've read all of his books, you'll recall the disparaging comments about men who are serious firearms enthusiasts having mental problems, maybe substituting gun knowledge and use for a lack of male potency. That's in,The Man With the Golden Gun, and is a theory often floated by anti-gunners.

And it's often correct, although as Freud said, "Sometimes,a cigar is just a cigar." I might add that other objects appeal to that psyche, including loud guitars and hot cars!

I try not to let his assertion worry me. I like girls as much as Bond did, and have other interests than guns. BTW, I'm virtually certain that I know more about wine than Fleming did. My wife was quite a bit better looking than his, and I owned the same model of Rolex watch. (Explorer I) Nor have I put my health at risk by excessive drinking and smoking, trying to look like a macho man!

Despite my feelings noted above, I read, The Man With the Golden Gun, first in excerpt in, Playboy, and later when the title hit bookstores. Apart from that dig at gun owners, it's a good read.

I can understand Fleming's impatience with letter writers. Boothroyd told me that some had actually suggested arming 007 with cap and ball .44 Remingtons!

That's almost all valid :-). I didn't refer to Boothroyd as a 'jerk' but as a 'geek'. I personally am both a geek and a nerd and find neither term offensive. It just means that we may have more enthusiasm than knowledge. The Brits have another term, such as being 'a tragic', example 'cricket tragic': love the game, can't play at championship level, go to all the games anyway, the den is decorated in the team colors, etc.

I've been through all the literature: Boothroyd's advice all came from then-current Askins articles; it was the reference in one of his final letters, when he caught the error about the PPK and the B-M in an advance copy, and suggested that Bond be switched to a Threepersons holster (!) that it became obvious the source of his expertise: because Askins wrote about Berns-Martin and Myres and Threepersons often and recycled the photos, too. Remember I knew Charlie and I got to know his 'type' from him and all the others I've known from his era of gun magazines. ALL of Askins legends about Threepersons are false; hundreds of references to prove it.

I may know a lot about holsters, but I know even more about holstory -- including Bond's because I study these things most days. And waaaayyyy too much about Tom Threepersons.

Boothroyd was working for ICI Ltd. when he was writing to Fleming! ICI Ltd made fertilizer and paints and other chemicals. He sets forth his credentials in his second letter to Fleming that he is an enthusiast and a collector; but nothing there even suggest that he is a firearms expert nor firearms author in that time. Quite young and had not served in WWII, so limited experience. An enthusiast, a geek, a nerd. Nothing wrong with that. But not an expert.

ICI Ltd. you'll find in Wikipedia; and his full credentials to Fleming in The Man With the Golden Typewriter. Abbreviated version in Sports Illustrated. Was he an expert by his 1985 article in a British gun mag? Sure could've been. But not in 1956, and said he couldn't even 'afford' (his word) a new, $60 revolver.

My images: I thought everyone on this forum knew -- a double click on an image does pop up a tiny image in another window. But close the window and it will reappear full size :-). If there's another way -- so far it's the way that the forum has offered me to date -- I'd be glad to know how to include the full-sized images instead. Witty knows but has not ever told me!

I encourage you to read the literature; I'll even send you a link to my hardrive file that will let you peruse the lot, regarding the sequence of events. You'll need to email me through that function on the forum and then I can link it back to your email address.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

Another Bond fan has a giant site about Bond; German as I recall. And in it he expounds on Fleming's writing about the thumb safety. He uses the discussion about putting the safety 'up' to reason that we can decide which Beretta it is because on only one of the .25s can we reason that 'safe' is 'up'. Otherwise Bond is holstering with his pistol on 'fire'. Even the PPK, he reasons, is 'up for fire'.

1940s beretta 6.35 mm (1).jpg 1940s beretta 6.35 mm (3).jpg

You know what pistol is 'up' for safe? The Browning .25, which another member has pointed out was a pistol of Flemings.

f9368308c2be30b664eebf15d35c895a.jpg 884ae7feb6d97c17adbd55597105cb7a.jpg

So you see, we can outsmart ourselves by only seeing what we think we see; when in this case, for example, "it's the hidden, third option" that would be correct. I've discovered through years of research for Holstory, thinking I was only 'fact checking' when instead it turned into 'mythbusting'. Turnerriver can verify the dividends this has yielded in terms of getting the facts right instead of perpetuating the myths.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

A legend is a story that has come down through history, that may have
had some truth to it in the beginning. The story is often expanded and
embellished to the point that the grain of truth is lost. If the story cannot
be verified, it is a legend.

A myth, on the other hand, is a story that although widely known, and
believed by many, is totally false.

In a perfect world, or on a perfect internet forum, it would be nice if
posts were identified as legend, myth, opinion, or factual.

If something is stated as a fact, I believe (opinion) that the poster
should cite 2 credible sources. A credible source should be reasonable,
logical, and based on very strong evidence.

Unfortunately, posts do not have a label stating whether they are
myth, legend, fact, or opinion. That is for us readers to figure out,
and that is the interesting and enjoyable part of it. Just call me crazy.

__________________
In Omnia Paratus

I love to read your posts on topics like this, but your images of presumably full size book pages are coming out tiny and it is not the issue about going from the thumbprint preview to the actual posted image as you describe.

Even the larger book page images are extremely small in terms of both pixel size and implied physical size (i.e., pixel size divided by resolution). That's what matters if they are to be readable. I measured one of your book page images at a mere 233x295 pixels. No wonder it is just a blur to me.

Something is compacting your full page photographs or scans to an extreme degree... and that's too bad because I would love to read them.