Hello everyone! I am looking to gather information on early rubber pocket holsters–as would be used with the S&W Safety Hammerless and similar models from competitors–as well as images of examples that survive today. There is little discussion of these online and almost no images of them, which is a shame.
Looking at period sources, this style of holster is seen in a few catalogues.
On page 384 of Sears catalogue no. 107 (from 1898), we find item No. 36759, “Rubber Pocket Holster, with steel hook,” offered in 32-caliber, 38-caliber, and 44-caliber for $0.24, $0.29, and $0.34 respectively. Note the price difference between this holster and the similar–although lacking a steel hook–soft russet leather pocket pistol holster–item No. 36760–listed on the same page, which is priced at only $0.13.
Page 320 of Sears catalogue no. 112 (from 1902) presents item No. 6T4759, the “Acme Rubber Pocket Holster.” All the copy from the catalogue no. 107 listing has been repeated here, along with a new statement explaining that “with steel clasps to fasten on the outside of the pocket[, . . .] you can pull out the revolver and the holster will remain in the pocket.” Again, the holster is offered in 32-caliber, 38-caliber, and 44-caliber, this time for the lower prices of $0.22, $0.27, and $0.30 respectively. This listing claims that the 32 and 38-caliber holsters are meant for 3½-inch barreled revolvers, while the 44-caliber holster is meant for a 4-inch barreled revolver, which differs from the catalogue no. 107 listing, which claims that it “Will hold revolvers with 3½-inch barrel, or shorter.” At the end of the listing, we are warned in bold that the holster is “Not made for 5 and 6-inch barrel revolvers.” Some unhappy customers must have previously learned this the hard way! Note that the product image has remained the same.
A similar product, the “Rubber Pocket Pistol Case,” is offered in what has been identified as a Simmons Hardware publication from approximately 1894. Here, we see holsters marked in product images as “Le Page’s Pocket Pistol Case,” offered both with and without a clip “to catch on Waist Band to use as Outside Holster,” and possibly in different colors, judging by the product images. Note the difference in how this listing states the clip is to be used; instead of clipping the holster to the pocket, as the Sears listing says to do, this listing tells us to clip the holster to the waist band. Interestingly, caliber is not mentioned in this listing, although we are given a choice of three sizes (small, medium, and large), with corresponding dimensions provided. These holsters are offered by the dozen, with small, medium, and large clipless holsters going for $6, $7.50, and $9 respectively, and small, medium, and large clipped holsters going for $7.50, $9, and $10.50 respectively. I would assume that the small, medium, and large sizes of these holsters correspond with the 32-caliber, 38-caliber, and 44-caliber offerings from Sears. Note that although these holsters are sold wholesale, they are still significantly more expensive than the Sears holsters will be just a few years later; for small, medium, and large clipped holsters, $0.63, $0.75, and $0.88 apiece respectively. Was this high cost due to the holster initially being a unique selling proposition that had yet to see competitors, advancements in rubber manufacturing that were about to take place, Sears’s later economies of scale, or some other reason?
In posts on this forum from 2016, user “opoefc” provides some info:
“Smith & Wesson sold a small belt style "inside the pants" holster for their Safety Hammerless revolvers, circa 1900. They were made of a black. rubberized canvas, as recently invented by Goodrich, and had a metal belt hook/clamp attached to the back of the holster. A S&W logo was stamped on the front of the holster, in red or blue. I believe they were made by a vendor for S&W, as I've seen the identical holsters at gun shows & in collections, w/o the S&W logo . . . There is a picture of that style of holster in the Sears catalog. Sometimes the maker's name & patent info. is stamped on the metal hook - other times it's blank. I've only seen maybe 1/2 doz. of these over the last 60 yrs. that had the S&W logos on them. The Sears type, w/o any logos, show up occasionally.”
I wonder how these rubber holsters were perceived in period? Does the rubber holster provide any advantages over a comparable leather holster? And have these holsters generally kept well, or do they often suffer deterioration?
Please share what info you have on these, as well as images of any you have in your collection!
EDIT: The images were not appearing, so I changed the way I attached them. They are still not appearing the way I would like, but they are better than before.
Looking at period sources, this style of holster is seen in a few catalogues.
On page 384 of Sears catalogue no. 107 (from 1898), we find item No. 36759, “Rubber Pocket Holster, with steel hook,” offered in 32-caliber, 38-caliber, and 44-caliber for $0.24, $0.29, and $0.34 respectively. Note the price difference between this holster and the similar–although lacking a steel hook–soft russet leather pocket pistol holster–item No. 36760–listed on the same page, which is priced at only $0.13.
Page 320 of Sears catalogue no. 112 (from 1902) presents item No. 6T4759, the “Acme Rubber Pocket Holster.” All the copy from the catalogue no. 107 listing has been repeated here, along with a new statement explaining that “with steel clasps to fasten on the outside of the pocket[, . . .] you can pull out the revolver and the holster will remain in the pocket.” Again, the holster is offered in 32-caliber, 38-caliber, and 44-caliber, this time for the lower prices of $0.22, $0.27, and $0.30 respectively. This listing claims that the 32 and 38-caliber holsters are meant for 3½-inch barreled revolvers, while the 44-caliber holster is meant for a 4-inch barreled revolver, which differs from the catalogue no. 107 listing, which claims that it “Will hold revolvers with 3½-inch barrel, or shorter.” At the end of the listing, we are warned in bold that the holster is “Not made for 5 and 6-inch barrel revolvers.” Some unhappy customers must have previously learned this the hard way! Note that the product image has remained the same.
A similar product, the “Rubber Pocket Pistol Case,” is offered in what has been identified as a Simmons Hardware publication from approximately 1894. Here, we see holsters marked in product images as “Le Page’s Pocket Pistol Case,” offered both with and without a clip “to catch on Waist Band to use as Outside Holster,” and possibly in different colors, judging by the product images. Note the difference in how this listing states the clip is to be used; instead of clipping the holster to the pocket, as the Sears listing says to do, this listing tells us to clip the holster to the waist band. Interestingly, caliber is not mentioned in this listing, although we are given a choice of three sizes (small, medium, and large), with corresponding dimensions provided. These holsters are offered by the dozen, with small, medium, and large clipless holsters going for $6, $7.50, and $9 respectively, and small, medium, and large clipped holsters going for $7.50, $9, and $10.50 respectively. I would assume that the small, medium, and large sizes of these holsters correspond with the 32-caliber, 38-caliber, and 44-caliber offerings from Sears. Note that although these holsters are sold wholesale, they are still significantly more expensive than the Sears holsters will be just a few years later; for small, medium, and large clipped holsters, $0.63, $0.75, and $0.88 apiece respectively. Was this high cost due to the holster initially being a unique selling proposition that had yet to see competitors, advancements in rubber manufacturing that were about to take place, Sears’s later economies of scale, or some other reason?
In posts on this forum from 2016, user “opoefc” provides some info:
“Smith & Wesson sold a small belt style "inside the pants" holster for their Safety Hammerless revolvers, circa 1900. They were made of a black. rubberized canvas, as recently invented by Goodrich, and had a metal belt hook/clamp attached to the back of the holster. A S&W logo was stamped on the front of the holster, in red or blue. I believe they were made by a vendor for S&W, as I've seen the identical holsters at gun shows & in collections, w/o the S&W logo . . . There is a picture of that style of holster in the Sears catalog. Sometimes the maker's name & patent info. is stamped on the metal hook - other times it's blank. I've only seen maybe 1/2 doz. of these over the last 60 yrs. that had the S&W logos on them. The Sears type, w/o any logos, show up occasionally.”
I wonder how these rubber holsters were perceived in period? Does the rubber holster provide any advantages over a comparable leather holster? And have these holsters generally kept well, or do they often suffer deterioration?
Please share what info you have on these, as well as images of any you have in your collection!
EDIT: The images were not appearing, so I changed the way I attached them. They are still not appearing the way I would like, but they are better than before.
Last edited:
