pistol lanyards

[rayg]

Here's a photo of the three different pattern lanyards I have that were adopted by the US post 1900.
The bottom is a 1903 dated and is the 1st type adopted. It was used on the 1892/94/96 pattern 38 long Colt revolver which had a lanyard ring added to the butt in 1903. It was also on the 1909 45 LC revolver and the early 1911 autos.

The middle one is pat. dated 1917 and was used in WWI and up through WWII.

The top one is dated 1943 and is the last pattern used in WWII.

There are newer patterns made since WWII.

[Rick Throckmorton]

The lanyards were a necessity when training with the M1911 Colt for mounted use. There were several incidents in which soldiers accidentally shot their horse when pulling him up while using the M1909 Bridle (with both curb and bridoon reins). If the horse bolted at the sound of the pistol firing, and the trooper quickly tried to use both hands to pull him up, it was a natural action to clinch your fingers, thus causing the M1911 to fire, hitting the horse in the neck. The rapid, repeatable firepower of the automatic pistols had their advantages, but you had to have constant awareness to safely use them. The trooper no longer had that long double action pull of a revolver to lessen the chance of an accidental discharge, and with the issue of the M1911 had only to pull that trigger a quarter inch for it to fire...and keep firing seven times each time the trigger was pulled. Finally, specific orders had to be issued that when the horse bolted, to drop that pistol and let it hang by the lanyard, to lessen the problem. (Of course, just the issuance of such an order isn't the first thought in a soldier's mind when you horse runs away. I'm sure there were many "personal lessons" imprinted on the faces of privates by sergeants to get such a problem resolved.)

Of the various periods of use, I seem to recall seeing lanyards in use more commonly in photographs during the very late 1890s and early 1900s. The M1892 .38 Colt revolver had the lanyard ring attachment, however, the first patterns, the actual M1892s did not have them. I will have to check some references to recall when the lanyard ring first appeared on them. Of course the M1909 Colts had the lanyard ring as well as the M1911.

From fiddling with a few original lanyards over the years, one of the drawbacks I always found was that none of them seem long enough. They always seem so short that you cannot fully extend your arm when shooting, especially when shooting to the rear.

When searching photographs, one of the problems you will find is that the color of the lanyards are the same color as the summer uniforms. They tend to blend in and are hard to see. Also, an American soldier is an American soldier. When he identifies something as a pain in the butt, he's not going to be burdened with it unless he has a strict officer he answers to.

Rick T.

[rayg]

Of the various periods of use, I seem to recall seeing lanyards in use more commonly in photographs during the very late 1890s and early 1900s. The M1892 .38 Colt revolver had the lanyard ring attachment, however, the first patterns, the actual M1892s did not have them. I will have to check some references to recall when the lanyard ring first appeared on them. Of course the M1909 Colts had the lanyard ring as well as the M1911.


To the best of my knowledge, the lanyard rings first were put on the 1903 vesion of the 1892 Colt revolvers as that is the first dates on the 1903 lanyard although I had heard, (unconfirmed) that someone saw a 1902 dated lanyard.

Some earlier dated revolvers were upgraded post 1903 with the rings also, Ray

[mnhorse]

To the best of my knowledge, the lanyard rings first were put on the 1903 vesion of the 1892 Colt revolvers as that is the first dates on the 1903 lanyard although I had heard, (unconfirmed) that someone saw a 1902 dated lanyard.

Some earlier dated revolvers were upgraded post 1903 with the rings also, Ray

Last evening I examined a nice Colt US M1894 in caliber .38 Colt Long. It has a lanyard ring that was added during one of many "updates" to this series of revolvers. The legend is that the installation of the rings caused much of the mutilation of marking on the butt.
Richard

[bisley45]

From m1911.org, a thread about the Hickok lanyard; not many replies, so far...

http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?t=62591

Hickok was, of course, a maker of watch fobs and other men's accessories. I have a couple of pretty nice sterling watch fobs that were made in the 20s and 30s.

The Marines have a few special-ops units that are being issued 1911s, and they are equipped with a coil-type lanyard that attaches to the belt and does indeed allow for full extension of the shooting arm.

I've been lightly customizing a 1911-pattern pistol, and recently added a lanyard ring mainspring housing. I intend to use it with one of the coil lanyards when I'm riding, hiking, or engaging in any activity to sufficiently vigorous to separate me from the pistol. The trouble with the lanyard ring lies in seating a fresh mag; it's pretty easy to raise a blood blister on the heel of your hand if you're not careful. I get around this by adding "slam pads" to my magazines.

I can imagine that the lanyard clip could swing itself into the mouth of the mag well, interfering with a clean reload. Would a cavalryman be expected to break off contact after emptying his pistol, in order to give him time to control his reload, or was he expected to go to his rifle at the earliest opportunity? At the time of its introduction, was the 1911 even issued to EMs, or reserved for non-coms and/or officers?

It has always seemed to me that the 1911 was issued with a pistol-and-sword cavalry in mind, but at a time when that very kind of cavalry was disappearing.

[Pat Holscher]

Here's a photo of the three different pattern lanyards I have that were adopted by the US post 1900.
The bottom is a 1903 dated and is the 1st type adopted. It was used on the 1892/94/96 pattern 38 long Colt revolver which had a lanyard ring added to the butt in 1903. It was also on the 1909 45 LC revolver and the early 1911 autos.

The middle one is pat. dated 1917 and was used in WWI and up through WWII.

The top one is dated 1943 and is the last pattern used in WWII.

There are newer patterns made since WWII.

Thanks Ray, excellent examples.

[Pat Holscher]

The Marines have a few special-ops units that are being issued 1911s, and they are equipped with a coil-type lanyard that attaches to the belt and does indeed allow for full extension of the shooting arm.

Both the Army and the Marines use a few M1911s still for special troops.

I've seen photos of the coil lanyard in use with the 9mm M9, but I couldn't find one handy to post. I'll try to put one up later.

[Pat Holscher]

At the time of its introduction, was the 1911 even issued to EMs, or reserved for non-coms and/or officers?

It has always seemed to me that the 1911 was issued with a pistol-and-sword cavalry in mind, but at a time when that very kind of cavalry was disappearing.

The M1911 was issued to ems right from the start. Officers actually started purchasing them from Colt as early as available as well.

[Pat Holscher]

It has always seemed to me that the 1911 was issued with a pistol-and-sword cavalry in mind, but at a time when that very kind of cavalry was disappearing.

That's an interesting point. The saber was, of course, still an issue arm at the time the M1911 was adopted.

Still, I don't know that the adoption of the M1911 so much reflected that as it did a fairly unique American view towards the sidearm, which still sort of carries on. The sidearm had been so readily adopted by the US after the introduction of the revolver that it nearly supplanted the saber in the field. Every American cavalryman carried a sidearm from at least 1865 on, which is unusual. There are some other examples of that, Canadian cavalrymen all carried revolvers, I think, in the Boer War, and as J.V. has pointed out, Russian cavalrymen all carried revolvers at one point. As we also know, Rhodesian and Portuguese mounted infantrymen carried sidearms after WWII. But in most armies, most ems did not carry sidearms.

In the US case, the widespread use of sidearms, it seems to me, influenced the remainder of the service. Sidearms spread down to NCO's in nearly every branch at least by WWI, and the U.S. Army issued a lot of pistols to ems in general during World War One. The same is true of WWII, and you can find photographs of all sorts of troops carrying sidearms who you wouldn't expect to be carrying them. Paratroopers, for example, seem to have carried a lot of sidearms. The US saw nothing inconsistent about issuing a sidearms to a soldier, including an officer, who also was issued a rifle, which was something that started with cavalrymen.

It still seems to me that the US uses an unusual number of sidearms. I wonder if we can't trace that back to the influence of the cavalry.

[bisley45]

Good points all, Pat. In reading comments left by current active duty personnel on other sites, a lot of brand-new EMs seem surprised that they can't have a sidearm.

[Pat Holscher]

Good points all, Pat. In reading comments left by current active duty personnel on other sites, a lot of brand-new EMs seem surprised that they can't have a sidearm.

In terms of changing times, as least as late as WWII, there was a fair amount of tolerance for ems carrying private sidearms. I imagine the number of men who did that was very small, but it did occur. Years ago I read a story by an officer who carried the Browning designed .45 ACP pistol that was a predecessor to the M1911 all through WWII. Patton, of course, famously carried a Colt Single Action Army and a Smith and Wesson .357. Ambrose noted somewhere in Band of Brothers that a lot of paratrooper acquired pistols they were not issued. Colt sold early M1911s to officers, which shows that at least quite a few of them purchased their own arms.

I've heard from somebody who is in the know that Marine Corps snipers, at least, often are self equipped even now with their own sidearms. According to the individual who told me this, they are typically M1911 variants.

Otherwise, now I'd guess there'd be very little chance the Army would tolerate privately owned sidearms overseas. I could be off the mark, and if I am, I'd appreciate being corrected.

FWIW, in WWI British officers were expected to supply their own sidearms, as they had been for many years. For that reason, there's a lot of variety in what British officers carried. They were supposed to use .455, which was nearly the only requirement, but you can see examples where this wasn't adhered to. The M1911 saw some purchases from British officers, and both T. E. Lawrence and one of his brothers purchased M1911s which they carried during WWI.

[wkambic]

When my son was in Iraq he was a comm specialist in a Humvee. The comm station was very "busy" and there was no way he could effectively use his rifle for self defense if things got "western." He requested issuance of a pistol and was denied because there not enough sidearms available. He noted that all the "FOBERS" and "FOBETTES" (the more senior personnel who spent all their time at the Forward Operating Bases) had no trouble getting issued pistols.

There was also a very strict "no private weapons" rule.

When I was flying in the early '70s my personal weapon was a Browning HiPower in 9mm. I picked it based upon the wide availability of 9mm ammo. I had a personal safe in my stateroom where I was required to keep the weapon when not in use. If .38s were to be carried they were kept in an arms trunk in the Ready Room and were issued and recovered by the Squadron Duty Officer.

Our issue pistols were S&W .38s. We were also issued tracer ammo for the .38s as they were to function as small "flare guns" to assist search aircraft in finding us if we went down. Later we were issued "pencil flare" guns (one shot devices).

It would seem that the "anti-weapons hysteria" of the past quarter century (or so) is having more impact than is healthy.

[HawkHero]

Pat;

Soldiers are not permitted to carry personally owned sidearms overseas.

As for lanyards on the M-9, they are used but mostly by aviation folks. I used a coiled one when flying, especially after hearing about the poor crew chief from RI who chose not to use one and lost his M-9 when it fell out of his Gen 2 Air Warrior vest in Iraq (The vest has a pocket for your sidearm and spare magazines, very handy) He was forced to pay for the lost weapon and an MP unit ended up finding it about a year or so later while on patrol. They returned the weapon to the unit who then had it de-milled and mounted on a plaque for the crew chief who ended up paying for it after losing it.

Even the new 3-point M-16 and M-4 rifle slings are designed so that they can be carried but quickly brought into a firing position. I used one for awhile, but prefer the old 2-point sling since you can use it to stablize the weapon while shooting.

--Brian

[HawkHero]

Bill;

Aviators are still issued pencil flares for use should they be shot down. I carry a set I "aquired" from an old ALSE guy when I go hiking or riding out in the woods. They make great signal devices and can start a hell of a fire if you're not careful when using them!!

--Brian

[Joseph Sullivan]

Ray:

I was under the impression that there was an all-leather lanyard issued in there somewhere, too. Once I thought I had found one in an on-line auction, but when it arrived it was the more common sash-cord model patented Feb 20, 1917. However, the cord was brownish instead of olive.

[Pat Holscher]

When my son was in Iraq he was a comm specialist in a Humvee. The comm station was very "busy" and there was no way he could effectively use his rifle for self defense if things got "western." He requested issuance of a pistol and was denied because there not enough sidearms available. He noted that all the "FOBERS" and "FOBETTES" (the more senior personnel who spent all their time at the Forward Operating Bases) had no trouble getting issued pistols.

There was also a very strict "no private weapons" rule.

When I was flying in the early '70s my personal weapon was a Browning HiPower in 9mm. I picked it based upon the wide availability of 9mm ammo. I had a personal safe in my stateroom where I was required to keep the weapon when not in use. If .38s were to be carried they were kept in an arms trunk in the Ready Room and were issued and recovered by the Squadron Duty Officer.

Our issue pistols were S&W .38s. We were also issued tracer ammo for the .38s as they were to function as small "flare guns" to assist search aircraft in finding us if we went down. Later we were issued "pencil flare" guns (one shot devices).

It would seem that the "anti-weapons hysteria" of the past quarter century (or so) is having more impact than is healthy.

An old friend of mine, who I've now lost track of, once told me of carrying a HiPower briefly while a Navy pilot in the 60s. Yours is the second instance I've been aware of them being used by the US in some semi official role, although a former Navy SEAL I once knew told me that they were used by the SEALs as they're widespread global use meant that if they were left behind, it wasn't automatically clear who had dropped them.

The prohibition on unofficial sidearms is indeed a bit of poor thinking. It's odd to think that in many armies, up to the mid 20th Century, nearly any officer's arm was privately owned. In the German army, the use of private sidearms by officers was still very common in WWII. As noted, private sidearms was the rule for British officers in WWI. While the U.S. Army has issued sidearms for a very long time, the carrying of privately owned sidearms, or at least acquired sidearms, was still pretty common in WWII. The real concern would be the use of ammunition barred by the Geneva Convention, rather than the arm, if properly thought through.

Still, it would seem that at least at high levels the private arm lives on. I recall seeing a photo of Gen. Schwartzkopf during the first Gulf War in which a side by side shotgun was in his room. Pretty clearly that wasn't an issue arm.

[Pat Holscher]

Ray:

I was under the impression that there was an all-leather lanyard issued in there somewhere, too. Once I thought I had found one in an on-line auction, but when it arrived it was the more common sash-cord model patented Feb 20, 1917. However, the cord was brownish instead of olive.

I'm curious about this also. Also, I'm curious if somebody has a photograph of the lanyard with the double attachment, one for the pistol, and one for the magazine, that was used very early on for the M1911.

[Kurt Hughes]

There was an officers version of the 1903 RIA lanyard shown in Ray's photo, it is made from leather braided around chalk line, an example and full description can be seen in "Horse Equipments and Equipments for Officers and Enlisted Men" 1908.
Interestingly most of the snaps on those 1903 enlisted/officers lanyards do not actually fit the lanyard loop on the Colt M1911 pistol, the snap being slightly too large, it can be played around with to fit but the snap does not move freely, although they will fit the loop on the magazine.

Kurt.

[Kelton Oliver]

Handguns don't win battles...they only save the lives of individual soldiers. While that's not particularly important to military planners, it is crucial to individual soldiers. To put it bluntly, the decision to forbid soldiers to carry sidearms is an official statement that the individual soldier's life isn't important. I disagree with the decision and the thinking that it represents.

[Pat Holscher]

Handguns don't win battles...they only save the lives of individual soldiers. While that's not particularly important to military planners, it is crucial to individual soldiers. To put it bluntly, the decision to forbid soldiers to carry sidearms is an official statement that the individual soldier's life isn't important. I disagree with the decision and the thinking that it represents.

I agree with you that a ban on private sidearms should be lifted. I could see the point if it pertained to longarms, as it would be a standardization disaster if various soldiers attempted that, but sidearms makes no sense at all. At the very most, I could see a person being required to carry ammunition that complied with international requirements (i.e., fmj).

Having said that, I do not think that the decision represents an official view that the soldiers' lives are unimportant. Indeed, the traditional American reliance on heavy weapons demonstrates the opposite, as the government will rightly spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to use a heavy weapon where some others would choose the cheaper, and riskier course of action of sending in an infantry squad.

Rather, I think it simply reflects that modern American society has become increasingly goofy about weapons, even while the US still remains amongst those nations where widespread firearms ownership is common. Even now we still have a "big" Army reflective of the Cold War Army, and that big Army will by necessity incorporate a lot of people who have no prior exposure to firearms, and chances are no particular like of them. I'd guess this is less so of National Guard units, being much more local, and therefore sometimes more rural, and often made up of a different demographic. I know that the old NG unit I was in included a very high percentage of men who engaged in shooting sports. Anyhow, the Army, like a lot of modern urban America, is reflecting the unthinking view that pistols are "bad".

It's interesting how this has evolved. And it isn't exclusively an urban rural thing. At one time, on both the continent and in North America, the owning and carrying of sidearms was fairly common. George S. Patton and Theodore Roosevelt give us examples of well known historical figures who occasionally packed a sidearms in the cities. In literature, nobody thought Dr. Watson was penned as a dangerous personality when Holmes instructed him, as he nearly always did, to "bring your service revolver". There's no evidence at all that Europe was a more dangerous place when officers bought their own sidearms, nor is there any suggestion that big American cities were more violent when it was easy to buy a sidearm in them. Indeed, the better evidence is the opposite in the case of American cities today.

And it really makes no sense for the military today. After all, if you trust a young man with heavy weapons, you ought to trust him with a pistol. With a smaller military today, than we've had in some time, it might actually make more sense to generally allow it, and adopt the old British practice of requiring officers to purchase their own sidearms. Purchasing them in that fashion saves cost to the government, most officer probably go out and buy a sidearm at some point anyhow, and it fosters a certain view that the Army ought to encourage.