Jump to content

Waterproof Pistol Covers


dustin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Great picture Dustin !

Just wondering about pictures in posts #7 , 8 , 9. So there were at least two variations of the National Carbon made covers, one with wide tip and one with narrow tip? I assume that they were just little changes in manufacturing with no other means?

Thanks! Fausto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's some great pics here!

 

Here are a couple of covers that I have, I'll have to compare them to the types previously shown.

 

Also a photo taken aboard the Enterprise (from Charlie Pate's book, US Handguns of WWII).

 

 

post-4361-0-15694500-1371559348.jpg

post-4361-0-17703900-1371559366.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Linda !

your covers are identical to the 5 ones - mint and unused - I bought in the 70s... And according to what Dustin has said they should be National Carbon made, wide tip variation... Do you agree?

Great picture and great book ! And by the way yours Victories are outstanding !

Fausto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dustin !

Great and in deep explanation. So, no pistol covers expressely made for Victory revolvers, but just covers - in lightly different shapes - which would accomodate both .45 and Victory. Very good to know !

Once again the Forum - and its expert guys - teaches things that, up to date, are not in the books... Thanks again for this fine thread...

Fausto

Like I stated in the opening post I do not have all the details. I have not ruled out the possibility of a specific cover for the victory but if marked SB 212 then it is for the Automatic. There are unmarked covers by Buchsbaum but I do not know if the markings have just faded or washed away typically there is a faint blue blur indicating there once was a part number.

National Carbon was known for variations, this can be evidenced in their 1 qt. water bladders.

I do have some speculation but that is just that....speculation. I think the square throat wide tip model (right) was an improved revision allowing for easier removal of the firearm versus the SB 212 and the tapered type (left). If you look back at the picture in post #10 the covers get bunched when in holster and if the other covers having a tight fit already are used , add some shrinkage then removal can be challenging. Basically the square throat cover allows for expansion and contraction and wiggle room for removal. I try to refrain from speculation as much as possible but sometimes thats all we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a firearm was kept in such a cover for an extended period, would it not be prone to potentially harmful "sweating"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a firearm was kept in such a cover for an extended period, would it not be prone to potentially harmful "sweating"?

Very good point !

In reading "survival" accounts and Air Sea Rescue reports firearms are mentioned from time to time. In several of them it was briefly mentioned that these covers are prone to do what you stated causing corrosion etc. The response was the covers do not provide overall adequate protection. In one case it was stated that when the firearm was removed from the cover is was found inoperable, seized from corrosion, this was after a several day drift in a life raft. Salt spray is one nasty critter the cover provides better protection than having none all. It was strongly recommended that the firearms remain heavily oiled to combat issues and recommended that preservative be carried on the person in fact preservative oil or paste was a standard component of the M-592 back pad kit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Here is a USMC pilots photo. The guy on the far right wraped his pistol in oiled cloth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0hkw.jpg

 

 

Small article about waterproof cover from Naval Aviation News. As we can seen at the pic: .38 revolver is in standard cover like in Dustin post. Without special shape for revolver barrel.

 

83x4.jpg

 

 

 

The best regards,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Not the ones you have pictured as they are a late model type post D-Day. Unless some sort of distribution list surfaces I would say no they were not used on D-Day as they were a new item with limited service distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See posts #7, 8 & 9. See post #5 for a manufacture variant. If one were to step out onto a limb and add one to a D-Day display the covers in posts #5 & 8 would be the most correct but again questionable if they were used by infantry. There could however be an argument made for the use by naval personnel considering this item is a Bureau of Ordnance (US Navy) item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

From here we demonstarte the demand for a more effective method of protecting the firearm. It is arguable on which service prompted the development of the cover in which we are so familiar with but a few details point towards the Bureau of Ordnance. At this point it is important not to make the correlation with the C-1 vest. The C-1 vest was simply an item that utilized this article as a component. The AAF does not have a specification or drawing number for this cover but the BuOrd does covered under three 123111,123112 and 123113 BuOrd stock number 74c-307 titled as Cover, Protective for Pistol or Revolver. These covers were introduced in late 1944 and did not see wide spread use until 1945. Touching back briefly with the C-1 vest , there are three patterns the first two did not utilize this cover...why? because it did not exist. It was not unitl the distribution of the third pattern, early 1945, that these covers were utilized as standard. It is only in 1945 pictures that we see these covers in use from my observation up to this point.

Several examples... photo taken summer 1945 unkown bombarment groupattachicon.gifimage.jpg

This photo was 'lifted' from the 330th Bomb Group's website.

 

Why do you state 'unknown'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the simple fact I did not know, from details in the photo it was obvious they were aircrew and by saying "bombardment group" it was more generic. If I had indeed "lifted" it from the website I would have known it to be the 330th BG. By the quality of the photo I'm assuming it came from the National Archives either the Signal Corp or Air Force filings therefore it is part of the Freedom of Information Act and publically owned.

I always find it humorous when people obtain pictures from the National Archives and water mark them like History Link 101, they are public property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post number 28 is a perfect example, the picture is from a book and was courteous to note the publication however the picture itself is public property in fact I have the same photo that I personally copied while at the National Archives and I can cite the record group and slide number of the photo. Lifted is implied stealing. Copyright has been discussed on the forum here several times and any picture posted on the internet or elsewhere can be used for educational or instructional purposes in its basic translation. Any second hand ownership of any photograph cannot be copyrighted, if I understand the law correctly. Background of photos get lost when passed around and that is the situation here and the photograph that I posted may or may not have had its origins on that website. My question to you is....did that photograph come from an archive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the simple fact I did not know, from details in the photo it was obvious they were aircrew and by saying "bombardment group" it was more generic. If I had indeed "lifted" it from the website I would have known it to be the 330th BG. By the quality of the photo I'm assuming it came from the National Archives either the Signal Corp or Air Force filings therefore it is part of the Freedom of Information Act and publically owned.

I always find it humorous when people obtain pictures from the National Archives and water mark them like History Link 101, they are public property.

No actually it came from my father. It was taken with his personal camera.

 

I always find it 'funny' when someone LIFTS a photo for their own benefit.

 

So NOW that you KNOW where it came from.., why don't you credit it where it is due.?

 

This is NOT public property. It is copyrighted.

 

It is only available on the web in two locations.

 

My website.., and here.

 

At least I know where you found it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No actually it came from my father. It was taken with his personal camera.

 

I always find it 'funny' when someone LIFTS a photo for their own benefit.

 

So NOW that you KNOW where it came from.., why don't you credit it where it is due.?

 

This is NOT public property. It is copyrighted.., and you stole it!

 

It is only available on the web in two locations.

 

My website.., and here.

 

At least I know where you found it!

oh and 'Dustin' here is the proof in GOOGLE of where you 'lifted' it from my site.

 

So, you seem like an adult. I am certain you will do the 'right' thing!

post-158328-0-10447900-1430231687.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie Flick

Hello the330thBG:

 

Welcome to our Forum.

 

Where possible we like to provide proper attribution for any photos used on our site here. Perhaps you would be so kind as to identify your father so that he can be given the proper credit. Do you have any background on when and where the photo was taken? It is certainly an excellent image and one that illustrates the pistol pouches being discussed in this thread very well.

 

Regards,

Charlie Flick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm sorry your so upset about the photo. I never claimed it was mine and was using it for educational purposes which benefits EVERYONE here and who reads this thread, I have zero personal gain from this or "own benefit" and is not a selfish act. Your acting like I'm trying tell sell it on eBay or using it in an advertisement or something. This photo has made it through at least 4 computer upgrades for almost a decade, I have many conversations via email and get sent many photos, someone could have sent it to me. I have put many hours into research and expense into "information" and share it for free on the forum regularly so I actually take offense at "lifting for personally gain". I have to fly 3,000 miles to the National Archives and have personally logged almost 100 hours there and post many documents on this forum for FREE. So I am really looking at this like I really don't care as that photo was only used to point out the use of the waterproof pistol cover nothing more nothing less. There is no intended deception involved.

So to cover the loose ends ....All photos, except the one in question, that I posted are National Archives and from my personal collection!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I over reacted, clearly. I apologize. Bad day at the office.., translates into being a &*&^^ for small reasons.

 

Cheers!

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

From here we demonstarte the demand for a more effective method of protecting the firearm. It is arguable on which service prompted the development of the cover in which we are so familiar with but a few details point towards the Bureau of Ordnance. At this point it is important not to make the correlation with the C-1 vest. The C-1 vest was simply an item that utilized this article as a component. The AAF does not have a specification or drawing number for this cover but the BuOrd does covered under three 123111,123112 and 123113 BuOrd stock number 74c-307 titled as Cover, Protective for Pistol or Revolver. These covers were introduced in late 1944 and did not see wide spread use until 1945. Touching back briefly with the C-1 vest , there are three patterns the first two did not utilize this cover...why? because it did not exist. It was not unitl the distribution of the third pattern, early 1945, that these covers were utilized as standard. It is only in 1945 pictures that we see these covers in use from my observation up to this point.

Several examples... photo taken summer 1945 unkown bombarment groupattachicon.gifimage.jpg

Here are Smisek (A/C) (L) and Woolson (P), both of K-29, looking over the latest posted orders. This was taken in July 1945.

 

Photo taken from http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ny330bg/airfields.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello the330thBG:

 

Welcome to our Forum.

 

Where possible we like to provide proper attribution for any photos used on our site here. Perhaps you would be so kind as to identify your father so that he can be given the proper credit. Do you have any background on when and where the photo was taken? It is certainly an excellent image and one that illustrates the pistol pouches being discussed in this thread very well.

 

Regards,

Charlie Flick

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ny330bg/airfields.htm

 

 

Here are CAP Raymond B. Smisek (A/C) (L) and 1LT Robert Woolson (P), both of K-29, looking over the latest posted orders. This was taken in July 1945 at North Field, Guam.

The B-29, (K-29) was part of the 314th Bomb Wing/330th Bomb Group/458th Bomb Squadron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie Flick

Excellent! Thank you, the 330thbg, for providing us with the proper attribution and identification and location of those airmen seen in the photo.

 

BTW, I also want to say that I have seen your website and it is top notch.

 

Regards,

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...