dc9 Posted June 2, 2014 Share #1 Posted June 2, 2014 Hello All, I came across this mag pouch and suspect it might be for the Colt 1903 .32 ACP mags. Compared to my 1942 Boyle .45 ACP mag pouch it is shorter in overall height by 1 1/2" and the pockets definitely do not fit a .45 mag. Any thoughts? Thanks, Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted June 2, 2014 Share #2 Posted June 2, 2014 Looks like a .45 mag pouch to me. Maybe it's shrunk some over the years and made by a different manufacturer. I'm not aware of a mag pouch like this forte 1903. They came with a leather pouch. Ronnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomorgan Posted June 2, 2014 Share #3 Posted June 2, 2014 I'll second that it looks like 45 to me and don't think they made 1903 mag pouches in canvas.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyCanteen Posted June 2, 2014 Share #4 Posted June 2, 2014 I am positive this issue has come up before (for a later M1956 style .45 pouch I believe Arturo posted years ago). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIl Sanow Posted June 3, 2014 Share #5 Posted June 3, 2014 The .32 ACP and .380 cal.Colt hammerless pistols were purchased by the Army for issue to a limited number of men, along with a shoulder holster. From what I have been able to ascertain, they were issued to couriers, etc. Certainly these guys had to have some sort of mag pouch, and I think this is it. The leather GO belt rig similar to that worn by Gen Patton did not come along until then end of the war and was worn as a symbol of rank. Thise of course did have special hip holsters and leather mag ouches -- for both the .32/380's and & .45's. I really doubt a .45 pouch would shrink this much and retain its shape and color. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldabewla Posted June 3, 2014 Share #6 Posted June 3, 2014 I always wounder if they shorten the pouches flaps closure and changed other gear made smaller like this to save on material? as maybe a shortage of canvas at some point in time? anyone try to side a 45 clip down inside and close the flap? Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc9 Posted June 3, 2014 Author Share #7 Posted June 3, 2014 anyone try to side a 45 clip down inside and close the flap? Yes, I tried to insert a .45 mag and, realizing that canvas items can shrink or get tight after 72 years, it was very difficult to insert the mag and it wouldn't go more than 1/2 way in. The key dimension of each pocket that is smaller is the width: 1 1/8" versus 1 5/8". The depth is roughly the same at 3/4". Given the wear on the LTD and the rear snap; it would appear this pouch was used. I would offer that if it was used to carry .45 mags, it would readily be able to fit them; this is not the case. This pouch was designed for a smaller dimension magazine and it seems logical it is a .32 or .380 as Gil suggests. Good commentary - thank you. Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artu44 Posted June 7, 2014 Share #8 Posted June 7, 2014 I have an identical HOFF 1942 which accepts perfectly 1911 mags and I've experienced that canvas can shrinking very bad. Nobody made mag pouch for 32 nor is worthwhile modify an exsisting .45. IMHO it's matter of shrinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artu44 Posted June 8, 2014 Share #9 Posted June 8, 2014 Just to complete, here my WWI mag pouches. You can see how badly shrinked that Russel. Of course it was advertised as .32ACP mag pouch. Snapless were made for first issue mounted ctg belts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted June 8, 2014 Share #10 Posted June 8, 2014 Hello! I agree about shrinking, but don't forget the manufacture mistakes which can be observed very often. To tell the thruth I observed more "monsters" in WWII production than in WWI. In WWI the general standard seems to be quite even in properly sized pouches. Anyhow, here a little selection of too big or too small pouches. All brand new, no one used. The worse are those made by Avery (both 1942 and 1943) and V.B.Co. 1942 (by the way I was unable to identify these makers up today. Can anyone help?). Cheers! Fausto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted June 8, 2014 Share #11 Posted June 8, 2014 a true Avery 1943 "monster"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted June 8, 2014 Share #12 Posted June 8, 2014 a selection of sizes by Avery 1942 and one Hoff Mfg.Co. 1942... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted June 8, 2014 Share #13 Posted June 8, 2014 and last but not least a very tall V.B.Co. 1942... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted June 8, 2014 Share #14 Posted June 8, 2014 the back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted June 8, 2014 Share #15 Posted June 8, 2014 And just for fun a R.H.Long 9-18 pouch... Perfect in size but marked outside, just over the flap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now