Bucheimer and Bucheimer-Clark holster fit charts - 1953-1975 & later

[Arisin Wind]

I have inherited a BUCHEIMER CLARK shoulder holster and despite my best efforts can't match the numbers stamped on it with any in the listed catalogues. It says 15-85. It also is LH. Any help with interpretation and as to what model fun this fits would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I've never seen a 15-85. The 15 refers to the holster being a shoulder holster. The 85 is for the type of handgun.

 

[Ranxerox]

I have inherited a BUCHEIMER CLARK shoulder holster and despite my best efforts can't match the numbers stamped on it with any in the listed catalogues. It says 15-85. It also is LH. Any help with interpretation and as to what model fun this fits would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Why don't you post a pic, so that the experts here can better make their guess?

I'm interested myself because I also had this issue a couple of times, they say it's all searchable but I don't find anything, recently with 2 clark yaquis with two different numbers but both stated for the same gun...

 

[SG-688]

85

I have inherited a BUCHEIMER CLARK shoulder holster and despite my best efforts can't match the numbers stamped on it with any in the listed catalogues. It says 15-85. It also is LH. Any help with interpretation and as to what model fun this fits would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Confirming 15 as number used by B-C as a shoulder holster model number.

Other information in the stamp, mainly location, can indicate the time frame the holster was made. LA, Valencia, etc.

As to the fit code 85..... No, we don't have an 85 in the fit code list.

84 and 86 are 4 inch and 6 inch N frame magnum S&W revolvers.
85 for a 5 inch N frame would fit the general Bucheimer and Bucheimer-Clark number progression.

And then, none of the catalogs we have show numbers for Ruger DA or Dan Wesson revolvers even though both were made during the catalog years we have. Don't have any idea why not. We're eager for more late 70's and 1980's catalogs.

85 might be for a Ruger or a DW - or something else - but at the moment I'd bet on 5 inch S&W.

As always, there's a lot of art in interpreting the fit code with duplicate and repeating numbers used over the years and with different holster models. A CTL-F search can have several hits - or none - or hit gun model numbers.

Craig

 

[Arisin Wind]

Confirming 15 as number used by B-C as a shoulder holster model number.

Other information in the stamp, mainly location, can indicate the time frame the holster was made. LA, Valencia, etc.

As to the fit code 85..... No, we don't have an 85 in the fit code list.

84 and 86 are 4 inch and 6 inch N frame magnum S&W revolvers.
85 for a 5 inch N frame would fit the general Bucheimer and Bucheimer-Clark number progression.

And then, none of the catalogs we have show numbers for Ruger DA or Dan Wesson revolvers even though both were made during the catalog years we have. Don't have any idea why not. We're eager for more late 70's and 1980's catalogs.

85 might be for a Ruger or a DW - or something else - but at the moment I'd bet on 5 inch S&W.

As always, there's a lot of art in interpreting the fit code with duplicate and repeating numbers used over the years and with different holster models. A CTL-F search can have several hits - or none - or hit gun model numbers.

Craig

I think you are right the 85 is for a 5 inch N frame. Model 15 holsters for 5 inch N frames are quite rare. I've seen two on the big auction site in the last 15 years or so and both went for $1000 - $1500 if I remember right.

A piece of trivia. A 5 inch model 15 shoulder holster was used in the first Dirty Harry movie. Harry's 6.5 inch Model 29 doesn't quite fit in the holster in scenes where it is shown.

 

[Arisin Wind]

The "5 inch holster with a 6-1/2 inch revolver" is a tale concocted by Jerry Ardolino who was not even THERE when the films were made (as he makes clear in his own book though he implies otherwise in his various writings, he was in Chi Town in uniform instead). All his other claims are hyperbole, why not this one, too?

In the movie you can see Harry's gun is not fully seated in the holster in several scenes.

 

[rednichols]

In the movie you can see Harry's gun is not fully seated in the holster in several scenes.

Exactly; not fully seated. Doesn't look like 1.5" off the mark to me, though. A friend recently attempted to fully seat his revolver in the early Bucheimer-Clark No. 15 with the post/screw assembly and failed. So we must consider that the Ardolino tale is apocryphal; he was not there, he does not know, so we must use our own intellects to spread news we're sure of.



The holster does look thoroughly sprung, for the benefit of its use in the films perhaps.

 

[Arisin Wind]

Exactly; not fully seated. Doesn't look like 1.5" off the mark to me, though. A friend recently attempted to fully seat his revolver in the early Bucheimer-Clark No. 15 with the post/screw assembly and failed. So we must consider that the Ardolino tale is apocryphal; he was not there, he does not know, so we must use our own intellects to spread news we're sure of.

View attachment 562730

The holster does look thoroughly sprung, for the benefit of its use in the films perhaps.

I agree with you. You need a big bag of grainy salt when conversing with him.

OP - Pictures sure would help.

 

[rednichols]

Here's a holster some questioned was actually made - the classic B-C model 15 shoulder holster for an auto pistol - in this case fit code 74 for the Colt Commander pistol.

The LA mark preceded Valencia, indicating early production.

At the time I took the pictures, the only issue was the fit of the holster, so I didn't take a picture of the marking. -- added picture --

The fit is not good, and would be better if the sewn section fit under the slide instead of on top of the slide. The strongest point of contact is on the grips.

The screw does its job of adjusting the clamping force of the spring - but interferes with the pistol. It was darn difficult the get the pistol into the holster. Better probably on a revolver or perhaps when worn. The rest of the harness is missing, so couldn't test that.

The holster body is sewn to the harness rather than laced as on later versions.

It is Ardolino who has claimed the No. 15 was not made for the autos until he personally 'fixed it'. As if. This one for the 45 automatic (even the Commander didn't exist in Ed Clark's time) is so-marked as Clark Holster, the company that originated the No. 15 and whose successor, Bucheimer-Clark, appeared with it from 1959. So, plausibly as old as Clark's 1929 patent . .





P.S. the No. 15 was also made, without changes, by the new S&W Leather Goods of 1969; likely courtesy of Al Kippen ex of Bucheimer.

 

[crazyphil]

Way back in the late 1970s my Dad had a S&W Combat Magnum. He let
me shoot it, so I had to have one. So, it wasn't long before I had one too.

I bought 2 Lawman Leather shoulder holsters from Jerry Ardolino a few
years later. One for my Dad and one for myself. I still have mine, shown
below with my Model 67 Combat Masterpiece.

Ardolino still advertises in his web site, calling it "the real original Dirty
Harry", and "Beware of imitations". How does he get away with that?

I had to replace my shoulder pad. Otherwise still in pretty good shape.
Not a lot of use.

 

[rednichols]

Exactly; not fully seated. Doesn't look like 1.5" off the mark to me, though. A friend recently attempted to fully seat his revolver in the early Bucheimer-Clark No. 15 with the post/screw assembly and failed. So we must consider that the Ardolino tale is apocryphal; he was not there, he does not know, so we must use our own intellects to spread news we're sure of.

View attachment 562730

The holster does look thoroughly sprung, for the benefit of its use in the films perhaps.

And this is the great big gob of interference with the revolver's muzzle, that's built into the B-C No. 15 version that was used in the Dirty Harry films. So -- not amenable to an actor holstering his big Magnum with less than the greatest of care and effort:



The No. 15 was reconfigured to become the No. 15L, the "L" appearing to indicated 'lined' which it was/is. This new configuration did more than eliminate the post and screw assembly that shows on the outside of the holster. It also moved the covering for the spring from the inside where it was a form of lining itself, to the outside.





The spring then would've changed from being held tightly by the post and screw to create spring tension, to supplying its own tension as a torsion spring. Some retention would have been lost, too, because the ledge of stiff leather that inhibited the fluted cylinder was now gone; moved the the outside as an ornamental feature.

Ardolino did worse than that in later years. While the holster was being made for his company by Bucheimer-Clark the new spring was machine-made and was tempered. Today he uses a length of wire in his holster that has been laid inside the holster layers while it is flat and untempered, then bends the holster and spring assembly into a folded holster. No spring action!

My testing demonstrated that the Dirty Harry holster made today in this way will not retain an M29 against simply falling out.

 

[Arisin Wind]

Ardolino did worse than that in later years. While the holster was being made for his company by Bucheimer-Clark the new spring was machine-made and was tempered. Today he uses a length of wire in his holster that has been laid inside the holster layers while it is flat and untempered, then bends the holster and spring assembly into a folded holster. No spring action!

My testing demonstrated that the Dirty Harry holster made today in this way will not retain an M29 against simply falling out.

I did not know this. Makes the holster...worthless

 

[Pistol33]

I've got one just like it but mine is a weave pattern. It fits my Colt Detective Special.

What a great thread. I just ran across this one today and I'm thinking it maybe fits a Colt .32 or 380 automatic based on this thread. Thoughts?

 

[SBT22OPR]

Can anyone help identify this holster, please?

Howdy, fellow Smith and Wesson fans! Long time lurker, first time poster here! This thread was the motivation I needed to finally make an account and interact with you fine folks, which I know is long overdue.

Would anyone be able to help me identify this Bucheimer shoulder holster? It is stamped 01 914 with no other notations. I combed through the pdf, but I can't seem to find anything like that number or format. Any help at all would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance, gents. Looking forward to getting to know the usual suspects here and contributing where I can. Cheers!

 

[rednichols]

Howdy, fellow Smith and Wesson fans! Long time lurker, first time poster here! This thread was the motivation I needed to finally make an account and interact with you fine folks, which I know is long overdue.

Would anyone be able to help me identify this Bucheimer shoulder holster? It is stamped 01 914 with no other notations. I combed through the pdf, but I can't seem to find anything like that number or format. Any help at all would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance, gents. Looking forward to getting to know the usual suspects here and contributing where I can. Cheers!

It is J.M. Bucheimer's direct knockoff of the Bianchi X-15. That makes it ideal for the 5" 1911 and a K frame 4" will also fit.

 

[SBT22OPR]

Thanks

It is J.M. Bucheimer's direct knockoff of the Bianchi X-15. That makes it ideal for the 5" 1911 and a K frame 4" will also fit.

Thank you, sir!

 

[SG-688]

....

Would anyone be able to help me identify this Bucheimer shoulder holster? It is stamped 01 914 with no other notations. I combed through the pdf, but I can't seem to find anything like that number or format. ....

To assist others reading the chart and deciphering 01 914..

The first two digits denote the type of product.
01 = holsters
02 = belts
03 = clubs and saps
04 = ammunition and magazine carriers

The second series of digits indicate the holster model.
The third series of digits indicate the holster size code.


So it's a holster with the model number 914 from the 1980's era that we still have not well documented.
Why no third set of digits? We can only guess. Perhaps a universal fit.

 

[Ranxerox]

As noted elsewhere, this is a continuing work in progress. It's gone on so long that I am in the classic position of having forgotten more than I'll ever know - or something like that. I have to look again each time I go back. Credit to the many who have contributed especially Red Nichols and John Witty. (Buy their book!!)
Craig SG-688

How to read Bucheimer and Bucheimer-Clark holster codes:

Generally the first numbers and letters stamped on the back of the holster designate the model of the holster; the numbers after the dash designate the size. Letter prefixes and suffixes indicate options, such as color - if different than brown - black russet [R], lining [L], floral carving [F], basket stamping [W], left hand [LH], and a new discovery - [E] for elastic straps.

With a few exceptions, this is not a chart of model numbers. Too many for that. The chart is searchable for the fit number.

To find what handgun fits a holster, search only for the numbers after the dash. A few exceptions, like the Hank Sloan and Pacemaker, may not have a dash and require letters and/or numbers in addition to the numbers for the correct search result.

AND THEN -- the fit code numbers are not unique. The same number may appear with several different handguns depending upon the era and the model of holster. Inference may be required. A large holster for a handgun with a long barrel probably does not fit a Chief Special.

.

Hi everybody...I found this, it's supposed to come from the hamburger police and yes, it is a concealer. But I can't find the number 81 anywhere in the lists. My guess is a Sig Sauer P225, can anyone enlighten me? Here the pic:

 

[SG-688]

Negative for C81. Also don't know the meaning of the little castle stamp. And the Concealer is a Bucheimer product - not B-C.

Mystery upon mystery.

I had another thought, but that recent maker doesn't use that stamp.

A picture of the whole holster might give a hint at the pistol by the shape of the molding.

 

[Ranxerox]

Negative for C81. Also don't know the meaning of the little castle stamp. And the Concealer is a Bucheimer product - not B-C.

Mystery upon mystery.

I had another thought, but that recent maker doesn't use that stamp.

A picture of the whole holster might give a hint at the pistol by the shape of the molding.

Hi,

and thanks for replying- I suppose I had to provide more detailed information, the stamp on top is a stylized

Coat of arms of Hamburg - Wikipedia

thus my guess of the hamburger police, for which the Holster might have been a customized order.

This could be the reason why it is not listed in the official charts, but I already know some guns that fit in it because I tried out a few and the Holster seems to be an all- eater. To find out for which gun it is specifically designed for, it would be helpful to know the years in which it has been manufactured.

It would be then easy to check which was the duty gun in Hamburg at that time. Here some pics for your interest guys:

The guns are, in order of appearance:

- ISSC M22

- Sig Sauer P225 (probably the "right" one)

- Sig Sauer P226

- Beretta 92 F

 

[SG-688]

A 1980's magazine article that I saved says P6 for Hamburg.

The "crosshair" B symbol is a 1980's mark.

Everything in the Bucheimer saga mid to late 80's got really mixed up.

I'll put down 81 tentatively as a designation for Sig!!