Lanyards & the M1911
Looking at the photos there isn't much "slack" in the lanyard with the pistol holstered. That means that there's not enough slack for the trooper to assume the "book" position for firing. That's likely going to mean "I don''t like it" will be widespread.
-
Jim Bewley
- Society Member
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2001 10:04 am
- Last Name: Bewley
Look closely at the rider in the second picture. It looks like something is attached at the butt of the pistol and the lanyard is running across his chest, instead of from the shoulder. Just a guess.
Jim
Jim
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7553
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
As ad editorial note, please note that this photo now appears on page 2 of this thread (and so appears here now, on this thread, for the second time. I've had a complaint about trying to keep the new lanyard discussion on this thread, which I thought would develop it.stablesgt wrote:
The caption reads:
Promotion ceremonies for Jonathon Wainwright to Brig Genl Nov/1/1938. Regimental standard of 3rd Cav being dipped while passing in review.
What can I say, editing can't please everyone, and if you have a complaint, go ahead and let me know, but please read the new thread or moved thread first.
-
Jim Bewley
- Society Member
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2001 10:04 am
- Last Name: Bewley
I think the move was a good idea Pat. The "saddle cloth" and the "lanyard" threads are almost completely on topic for later searching. 
In the photo above, the trooper has his lanyard coming across his chest, as in the other picture. Maybe I missed this before, but we wore our lanyard loop over the same shoulder as the pistol was on.
Jim
In the photo above, the trooper has his lanyard coming across his chest, as in the other picture. Maybe I missed this before, but we wore our lanyard loop over the same shoulder as the pistol was on.
Jim
-
Pat Holscher
- Society Member
- Posts: 7553
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
- Last Name: Holscher
Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd bump up this old one, but with a new question.
I know that old cavalry officers were hesitant about the M1911 after it was adopted and you can find some comments in print about their preferring the existing revolver, which continued to be issued (and then supplemented by the M1917 revolvers) for quite some time. But I ran across a comment in a magazine the other day where the writer postulated that the grip safety on the M1911 was a cavalry feature. That is, the author, after having had a M1911 unholster (which he was carrying "cocked and locked") when he was riding a horse that blew up, and having the pistol bounce down a ravine as a result, without incident, felt that the Army had required Browning to submit the design with a grip safety with just such events in mind.
Is there any evidence that's correct?
I know that old cavalry officers were hesitant about the M1911 after it was adopted and you can find some comments in print about their preferring the existing revolver, which continued to be issued (and then supplemented by the M1917 revolvers) for quite some time. But I ran across a comment in a magazine the other day where the writer postulated that the grip safety on the M1911 was a cavalry feature. That is, the author, after having had a M1911 unholster (which he was carrying "cocked and locked") when he was riding a horse that blew up, and having the pistol bounce down a ravine as a result, without incident, felt that the Army had required Browning to submit the design with a grip safety with just such events in mind.
Is there any evidence that's correct?