Belly Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just an OT, for world travelers and geography buffs. Hyden is in Leslie Co., just west of Hazard. Albany is, indeed in Clinton Co., and is a bastion of my mothers' family (Woods) and has been since the early 1700s.
Auburn is farther west, in Logan Co. Now that we all know where we are (well, I've only had one cup of coffee, but I'm fairly sure) lets quit quibbling over the small stuff. Belly guns, in my experience, are powerful revolvers, modified to be snag free, carried between the hip and the belt buckle. Size, caliber, and number/type of mods are users choice. Genes' definition of "fixed sight" is a later definition that applies to autos (sorta dates him as a "younker" :) ) The only "attachable" revolver fixed sight that I know of, currently, is the one offered by Cylinder & Slide. It is more rugged that the adjustables, but offers no advantage other than that, and nothing at all to the "belly gun concept".
 
Oh yeah Auburn. Heck that's ½ way between Bowning Green & Russelville.



Regarding semi-auto sights... The rear sight on a 1911 pattern pistol is not a true fixed sight. The cirrect terminalogy is windage adjustable or drift adjustable sight.


Semantics, perhaps but what we are talking about is NOT a "groove in the barrel" that would be rifling. :neener:
The "groove" we are discussing is milled into the FRAME. Frame - barrel, two different parts.

Real, honest to gosh, fixed handgun sights are a solid part of the gun.
 
I was acquainted with Charles Askins Jr. On one occasion we both attended a breakfast being given by an industry leader. By happenstance we both arrive early and were the only ones present for about 20 minutes. Our conversation turned to handguns and gunfights and I learn a lot about his views – which to say the least were interesting.

I don’t think he invented the term, but he was one of the first, if not “the first†to popularize the words “belly gun†in print. Sometime during the late 1930’s he got crosswise with Smith & Wesson (the company, not the guns) and thereafter was solidly in the Colt camp. He carried and advocated Colt’s. He also was a good friend of John FitzGerald who I mentioned before, and who worked for Colt. FitzGerald had a considerable influence on Askins’ ideas about what a fighting handgun should be, and it should be noted that Askins personal body count far exceeded that of the legendary western gunfighters that preceded him by a generation or two. His knowledge of gunfighting was not based on theory.

“Fighting men†of that time and place (El Paso, Texas / late 1930’s) preferred revolvers with big bores. Clothing was looser fitting that that worn today and offered more possibilities for hiding a large-framed gun. Thus Askins’ personal belly guns were often built on Colt New Service revolvers which were common and relatively inexpensive. As previously explained the barrels were shortened, as was the ejector rod. A new front sight might, or might not be mounted. The hammer spur was removed so that it wouldn’t snag on clothing when the gun was being drawn. The front of the trigger guard was cut out. I ask him about that, and inquired about it being, “unsafe.†He looked me in the eye and said, “not really, the trigger won’t pull its self, and you know, a fight is pretty hazardous too.†Last but not least, Colt’s “V†mainspring allowed the butt to be shortened and rounded. How much of this was actually done depended on how the user intended to carry the piece. Side pants pocket, inside-waistband and shoulder holsters were particularly popular as ways to lug around such hardware.

From a historical point of view there is no question that many of these guns didn’t have front sights. But at the time such sights tended to be very narrow and hard to see – especially in low light. What we have today is much better, and in retrospect I suspect that if the old-timers had then what we have now they would have kept the sights. However within the context of what and how they were intended to be used they were effective weapons.
 
Very interesting, old Fuff. Thankyou for sharing you own personal experience. I believe the guns were modified to fit the situations of the times, but wonder if the 'old timers' WOULD use the sights, even the ones available today, as they had access and could have made any configuration of sights imaginable. I tend to think the very nature of belly gun use negated the use of sights, as 'belly gun' shots were mostly, by description,' from the hip'. What I find interesting is the common thread thru the years of the concept of the belly gun , in the context of WHY it was used the way it was and believe that that part of history would be well to remember. I believe belly guns came to be used by those that lived in harm's way, because of the nature of an armed confrontation, one that hasn't changed today. I believe that in most situations most will be lucky to have time to 'clear leather' and get a shot off, one handed.
 
so, now that this thread is ruined, can somebody start a new one with pics of their own bellyguns and what you did to trick them out?


i try to buy them already done so. i like snubbies with internal hammers. just "clear leather" point and shoot. no drag, no snag, very easy to operate from the "belly".
 
I'm sorry jerry, how did you opine that the thread was ruined? There's already pics in this thread and as far as 'belly guns' being from the belly( Old Fuff already said alot of 'belly guns were carried in sholder rigs), think , TO the belly,up close and personal, as you're looking in the BG eyes and can smell his breath.
 
GeneC:

During the latter 19th century and early 20th, most handguns had what were called “knife blade†front sights which were very thin and narrow. These were hard to see at best, and in low light possibly impossible. As a result gunmen were more likely to “point†a six-shooter then “aim†it – especially in a close range fight. Consequently the use of sights, other then for precise target work wasn’t seen as important as it is today. If you examine examples of guns that survived the frontier period (or photographs of them) you’ll find a lot of them that are missing the front sight, or the front sight is so worn that there is no relationship between the point of aim and point of impact. Of course if the barrel has been cut off the reason for the lack of a sight is obvious. Men during the early 20th century learned and practiced “point shooting†both at or below eye level. Some got very good at it. When this was the way they shot a front sight didn’t matter, especially on something that was expected to only be used at point-blank range. But in the process these individuals limited themselves to nothing but point blank shooting. Today we don’t have to do this, although admittedly the concept of a belly gun as these earlier day shooters saw it, sights were not necessary.

In more modern times the leading exponent of “hip shooting†from a law enforcement perspective was another Border Patrolman – Bill Jordan, who I also knew. He was without question the fastest “draw and shoot†individual I ever witnessed who could also hit targets as small as aspirin tablets a close distance. Sights on his guns would have been superfluous, but he never removed them – although he did round the corners on adjustable rear ones. This of course was because he wanted to be able to also hit at longer ranges. There is a definite relationship between belly guns and point or hip shooting, and this may be part of the reason such arms are not so popular today.
 
Old fashion Belly Gun

This is a Pre-Model-21 .44 special 3"Barrel bobed hammer that is about the best Belly gun I have come across.
 

Attachments

  • three in m-21.jpg
    three in m-21.jpg
    56.2 KB · Views: 163
Last edited:
Old Fuff, Airboss , thanks for directing this thread in the direction I intended. Old Fuff, I want to question two points you said. One being,"these individuals limited themselves to point shooting. Today, we don't have to do this." While I agree we may not have to be limited to this, I feel point shooting( I'll go along with your terminology) should be a main skill even today for personal defense. Second , you say they aren't as popular, being belly guns, but do you think the point shooting skill should be?
 
I've actually seen a nickel plated Colt New Service that had been "Fitzed" but was NOT factory lettered.

Asking price was $2500.

The guy let me handle it for a while... apparently I was the first guy to walk up and say... hey can I see your Fitz? I don't have an idea of what it was really "worth", and without a factory letter saying it's a Fitz that seemed a bit steep to me.

Impressive doesn't begin to explain what looking down the maw of a snubby with a .45 inch bore.

The other thing I noticed about the revolver was that with all the stuff cut off the gun, a regular holster might not "fit" anymore, so lining a pocket with leather or using a "pouch" styler shoulder rig might make more sense.

The other thing that might surprise you if you've never handled a New Service Colt... it's so heavy that the 45 ACP cartridge is a pussycat to shoot. Shooting up close and fast wouldn't be a problem.
 
In a time long ago, “point shooting†met that you pointed the gun toward a (hopefully close) target without bothering to pick up the sights – which were probably next to impossible to see anyway. If you did the shooting at waist level it was sometimes called “hip shooting,†of the kind you see in western movies. While “point shooting†was relatively common in the old west, hip shooting was far less so. Both required a lot of practice to be effective at any but the closest distance, but shootings did occur where the parties were so close together the black powder muzzle blast from one caught the other’s clothing on fire.

Many thought that both of the above methods were hopelessly inaccurate under any circumstances and at any distance. But during the late 1920’s and 30’s an experimenter and exhibition shooter named Ed McGivern proved otherwise. McGivern influenced many people, among them J. Edger Hoover who headed the FBI, and Col. Rex Applegate. I have Applegate’s personal copy of McGivern’s Book “Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting, and the marginal notes Rex made are as interesting as the book itself.

Hoover intergraded much of the things McGivern had discovered into FBI training, in particular that which applied to hip shooting, and from there it spread into the larger law enforcement community. It remained so until the 1980’s when law enforcement changed to automatics and Jeff Cooper’s “New Technique†that emphasized the Weaver Stance and a “flash sight picture.†Within Cooper’s context pistols without sights had no place.

So which is better, the old or the new? I would say both. Each has there own place and application. Defensive shootings don’t always occur with one standing up in a particular stance. Distances may very from inches to yards. Lighting is unpredictable. One may or may not be in a position to align the sights with their eyeball – which is one reason Crimson Trace laser sights interest me. Since exact conditions and circumstances cannot be predicted unlimited skills taken from different disciplines may be the best answer.
 
Ahhh, crimson trace laser. If/when it can produce a 3" circle out to 10yds and a 6"circle out to 20, then I'll get excited, 'til then, I'd think one'd take longer to find the 1/16th" dot, than to align sights, or just pop off a round and adjust for a direct hit in the second. Btw, I had a copy of the FBI manual on point shooting in the '70's( in my Marine Corps days), where you draw and hold your elbow in close to you side real tight and then turn you body toward the target and you'll hit what you shoot at.
 
>> Ahhh, crimson trace laser. If/when it can produce a 3" circle out to 10yds and a 6"circle out to 20, then I'll get excited, 'til then, I'd think one'd take longer to find the 1/16th" dot, than to align sights. <<

Yup, for a longer shot I'd also use my conventional sights. The Crimson Trace system alows the use of either.

>> I had a copy of the FBI manual on point shooting in the '70's( in my Marine Corps days), where you draw and hold your elbow in close to you side real tight and then turn you body toward the target and you'll hit what you shoot at. <<

Yes, but I don't think it's usually the best way. Neither did McGivern, Applegate. Askins or Jorden.
 
Great comments Old Fluff. I was long a fan of the great ones. Read "No second place winner" more times than I can recall. I think my signature line is taken from Bill's book. I think what has changed is that the current crop of serious shooters train with their sights and, if at all possible, use their sights. I started with IPSC in the early 80's. Got some instruction from the best of that era. In my opinion, if you shoot using your sights, and shoot alot, from the draw, you will develop the muscle memory necessary to put the front sight between your eye and the target...Every Time. Then, up close and personal, when you don't have the time to line up the sights, that front sight will still be in the center of the target, where it needs to be, when you fire. But, you have to shoot consistently. The draw has to be consistent, the sight alignment etc.

I had a range master get mad at me once because he told me to shoot without using my sights. I did. I centerpunched the target. He told me I was cheating and to hold the gun lower, under my line of sight. I told him that was stupid, it takes no longer to raise the gun to eye level than to stop just below my eyes. He got mad and taped up my sights. I center punched the target. He determined that I was cheating and gave up trying to "teach" me how to point shoot. As far as I'm concerned, the only place for hip shooting is at touching range or grappling range. I have seen people miss the entire target at ridiculously close range trying to "hip shoot". They would have had better results had they just beat the target with the gun.

I'm guessing the great old guys just developed the muscle memory necessary to put the muzzle of the gun on the target, the same as we are now. I see using the sights as a training aid to develop that technique for REALLY close shooting and the same stance, arm position etc for longer shots. The only thing I would disagree with Bill Jordan is having different positions, Hip, one arm partially extended for the next distance, arm fully extended for longer ranges and both arms extended for the longest ranges.

If someone is outside of gun grabbing range, why not use the same shooting position? Consistency is good, fast IS smooth. I think if they were alive now, you would see them watching the big name shooters of today and following the lead of what works. Their idea was to win, and the winner got more than a trophy. I'll also bet alot of them would have something as simple as a box stock Ruger SP-101 tucked in their waistband.

Gene C, feel free to do what you want to your gun. It will likely work very well for you. I would really prefer sights on my gun. Any good fixed sight gun (no offense, but that is the terminology of what is on top of a S&W Mod. 10, Ruger SP-101 etc) would serve you well without limiting the gun to "point Shooting" range. The sights are there, they are not in the way, you can use them or not, but you have the option. Also, consider in this day and age, if you shoot at a bad guy, miss and hit an innocent,you may have problem defending your decision in court as to why you removed the device that allows you to aim the weapon that delivered that lethal projectile. The world revolves around lawyers these days, somthing to consider.
 
Gene, under your definition, If the front sight on your gun was pemanently attached, does that mean there is no front sight? You couldn't order a new one! I never knew that the availability of replacement parts was a requirment to prove an items existance. You can't go out and buy another brain. Does that mean you don't have one?
 
Mountiandrew, Don't you have anything better to do with your time? Do you think that just because it was permanently attached(how'd that be possible, I'm not sure), it couldn't be replaced? Even if it was milled with the barrel, the barrel could be replaced. Just because somebody calls something such and such, doesn't make it that. That's called a misnomer. Like a driveway, it's called a driveway, but you actually park on it and a parkway. You don't park on it(although you can), you usually drive on it. I'm just not buying into just because some bean counting yahoo found a way to cut a groove in the frame so they wouldn't have to FIX a sight to it and call it a fixed sight, that it's a fixed sight. So, do yopu have any shred of wisdom or info to share with us on this subject or did you just get on here to show yourself?
 
Gene, my experience with fixed sight revolvers, not only snubbies is that the sight picture is the same, and is just as effective as the sight picture on an adjustable sight revolver. the only difference is that it is not removeable. You line up a square post in the middle of a square notch, and put the post at the point of impact. Exactly like you would on a gun with adjustable sights. The accuracy potential is the same. The implementation is the same. Both are rear sights.
 
I'd like to respond to folks :

Old Fuff, I wouldn't advocate or attempt the 'hip shooting' method, I was just pointing out that that's what was in the manual as late as the '70's.

Sgt127, My whole purpose for starting this thread was to point out that men of not so long ago who walked in harms way preferred a certain firearm to survive. They wrote about it and were steadfast about it. They could have carried 1911's , all tricked out, but didn't. They were adament about the belly gun's use and function. They knew about urban armed confrontations and knew what worked (and what didn't ). I don't believe if they were here today they'd be watching top competiters and fall in line, they'd be too busy with homeland security, doing just what trhey's doing back then. I think they'd be inviting the top competiters to come and join them on patrol. Col. Askins wrote that sights on a gun produced a false sense of security that'd lead the shooter into thinking he'd be able to place a surgical shot quicker and better when the SHTF than pointshoot several at COM. Belly guns by definition and nature are for those 99% of confrontations, that have been reinforced bt FBI statistics, that most armed confrontations are from 1-10ft, 3-5 shots in low light conditions and more often than not, the defender is at a disadvantage( meaning they're lucky to clear leather and get a shot off free hand.). My question here is , have things changed so much that we ignore the past? Has competition and media clouded our better judgement? Just something to think about.

Carpetbagger, well guess what? C&S calls that a fixed sight. Hmmmmm....
 
Jeez, Gene, he offered that link in a helpful way (and that was the converter I mentioned in a previous post). Why are you getting snotty about it? Too bad this potentially interesting discussion can't happen without sniping about terminology and defensive posturing. I'm outta here.
 
Sorry you're so sensitive Chris. I didn't see his post as helpful, I found it kinda condescending myself. Plus, apparantly he doesn't know about S&W sights, as he'd know there's only one mounting hole and to suggest I'd leave the screw(s) sticking up,well, I think my response was nicer than his. Have a nice day.
 
Mountaindrew, good to see you decided to join in( when you imply I have no brain, that's a personal smartass jab and I take it personal). You shared your experience and are entitled to your opinion, just like I am. I just see it differently. I grew up shooting shotguns with nothing on the barrel but a bead on the front. There was no pretention that it had fixed or any other kind of sights, you just looked down the barrel and shot. At 12yrs old I carried a .38 western style revolver, in the hills of KY, for protection from Copperheads and cottonmouths and wild boars(although wild sows with piglets was worse) and wild dogs and critters and such. I remember it had a "v" notched , fixed sight, in that the sight was added to it. Y'all can call a groove in the frame a fixed sight, 'cause the gun makers calls it that while the rest of the industry calls a non-adjustable sight that's added to the gun, a fixed sight, but this is not what this thread is about.
 
Let me get this straight...

Samuel Colt was a bean counting yahoo?
Daniel Wesson was a bean counting yahoo?
Horace Smith was a bean counting yahoo?
Eliphalet Remington II was a bean counting yahoo?
Joseph Merwin was a bean counting yahoo?
Frank Wesson was a bean counting yahoo?
William Richardson was a bean counting yahoo?
Gilbert Harrington was a bean counting yahoo?
Iver Johnson was a bean counting yahoo?
Ebenezer Townsend Starr was a bean counting yahoo?
James Burton was a bean counting yahoo?
Henry Rogers was a bean counting yahoo?
John Browning was a bean counting yahoo?

These Americans, all who were all born well before 1900, all designed famous/popular handguns with integral fixed sights. Some of them were also manufacturers, but some were only designers. Designers don't count beans.

The famous Luger pistol, in its standard form, had an integral fixed rear sight and a windage adjustable FRONT sight.
An INTEGRAL fixed sight is still a sight nonetheless. In fact the S&W Model 58 that I posted a photo of early on in the thread gives just as good of a sight picture as the Cylinder & Slide fixed sight. Come to think of it the C&S fixed sight is one of the only removable fixed rear sights I can think of.


GeneC, please show us ANY other example of a removable fixed sight for a revolver.
 
Bluesbear, do you just highjack threads as a hobby or what? Go start your own thread about sights and I'll consider joining., but I know I'm not gonna change your mind and you're not gonna change mine, so let's drop it. At least I know the difference between Auburn and Albany.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
My custom Mountain Gun is a-l-m-o-s-t done.
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
TonyDedo
T
G
  • Locked
Trouble removing S&W front sight - Need advice
Replies
10
Views
464
Speedo66
Speedo66
J
  • Locked
Fixed sight (esp. SA) - LOADS, POINT OF AIM GUIDE
Replies
1
Views
703
Majic
M
L
  • Locked
Home spun .44 cal. belly gun
Replies
7
Views
880
Gaucho Gringo
G
D
  • Locked
Nylon 66 - Cleaning, sight replacement, ammo?
Replies
6
Views
2K
WNTFW
W
Back
Top