Belly Guns

[1911Tuner]

Well...

Since this one seems to be getin' outta hand here...I'll step in and see if
I can make things a little more peaceful.

GeneC said:

You're trying to tell me the groove is a fixed sight, I disagree.

You may disagree until pigs fly, but you're mistaken on this point.

The groove in the topstrap of a revolver, along with the square, pinched notch at the back IS a sight. The manufacturer didn't make an extra
machining step for no reason. That costs money, and they're in the business to MAKE money...not give the boys in the machine shop something
to do until quitting time.

The add-on rear sight, such as the one pictured above is a way to enhance
the sight picture on a gun that has sights that are hard to pick up in a hurry. The Novak Lo-Mount for the 1911 is an example. The dovetailed
blade sight on a 1911 is NOT a fixed sight. As BluesBear pointed out in
his attempt to teach you a little something...it's drift-adjustable. A fixed
sight is just that...Fixed...Not moveable. It's like that because it offers a
rough reference for aimed fire and because it's durable in an UTYAIA thing with Mongo the Terrible.

Welcome to The High Road, and Semper Fi.

High Honors go to Old Fuff for doin' his level best to keep this one
on topic. Thanks Fuff...for all that you do!

Tuner

 

[GeneC]

Tuner, fine, I'll not mention it again, if everyone else won't either. This thread is NOT about sights, it's about belly guns, where the sights were removed and I'd appreciate it if anyone who posts would keep it on that topic, not to mention the personal jabs.

 

[redbone]

Hmmm.... I'm looking at a S&W 442, with the controversial slotted sighting device and front sight intact. You know, the one I can get 3" groups at 15 yards with. Anyway, what's to snag? Nothing that I see. Certainly not the slotted top strap, or the rounded front sight, or the concealed hammer.

The way I see it, last time I shot an iron-sighted M1, I was just sighting down the barrel.

Just my perspective, not flame intended.

RBH

 

[c_yeager]

it's about belly guns, where the sights were removed

Let me know when you find one. I'd like to see it for grins.

 

[GeneC]

Removed the sights from the equation, meaning the way the belly gun is used negates using sights. BTW, to me, if a part is machined into the frame, that'd be an INTEGRAL part and if it's attached or fastened, then it's fixed to the frame.

 

[BluesBear]

At least I know the difference between Auburn and Albany.

Maybe, maybe not.
But you do seem to be a little fuzzy about the difference between fixed and affixed.

 

[c_yeager]

Ok, I've decided to turn my old mod 66 snubby into a proverbial 'belly gun'. I've dehorned the hammer and removed the bulky adj rear sight. I'm contemplating removing the front sight also. I notice alot of 'snubbys' come stock with no rear sight , but still have the front sight on it. At best a snubby as a BUG is by design and purpose, an up close, last resort (you've lost use of your primary gun) BUG and sighting is moot. Col Askins and Skeeter Skeleton have described belly guns use, anyone else?

This is your original post. If we were to remove all refference to sights there wouldnt be much left. So what is it that you want to know?

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

GeneC said:

...where the sights were removed and I'd appreciate it if anyone who posts would keep it on that topic, not to mention the personal jabs.

That's why Ah'm here(he said with a slow, southern drawl)...before the jabs turned into left hooks and hard right crosses.

FWIW, I have a couple of 1911s that I removed the rear sights from,
and left the stock, GI front sight to give me the opportunity to practice
point-index shooting using the front sight as a reference only. Since
most kill or be killed encounters happen in dim light, and/or at such ranges
that sights are a moot point, it makes sense to learn to hit quickly in
such situations without target-type sights....or without sighting at all, beyond a flash sight picture.

Modification of pistols/revolvers are done for the sake of speed. Removal of
hammer spurs...grinding down and removal of sights...modification of
triggers and trigger guards... removing anything that can snag on clothing or slow the draw...all in the quest of shaving a fraction of a second off the deployment of the gun. People who have been in such situations understand the point that a tenth of a second can mean the difference between goin' home to the family...and a trip down the
Highway of No Return.

Cheers all!

Tuner

 

[Serpico]

In sight ful thread....

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Serpico said:

In sight ful thread....

GROOOOAAANNNN...

NO! You did NOT say that!

 

[Old Fuff]

I wondered when a Moderator might be heard from, and I am delighted to say we’ve attracted one of the best and most knowledgeable.

As I read the original post, “GlenC†had, or was about to modifiy his S&W model 66 into a Belly Gun, or at least what he thought one of those was. He also wanted to explore the overall subject of this interesting weapon and it’s use. To me this would require a look at the history, as well as the weapon itself.

Belly Guns, originated during the 19th century and seem to have been a weapon-of-choice among gamblers. These “knights of the green table†were understandably worried about being confronted by a sore loser who was (a.) armed, and (b.) probably a bit intoxicated. That was a volatile mix under any circumstances. The distance of a probable confrontation wouldn’t be much greater then the width of a card table, but speed would be essential as the gambler would usually be in the role of a “responder,†(one who responds to an attack) while the other party would be the “aggressor,†(or one that presses an attack). Contrary to what many believe today, gamblers desperately wanted to avoid an incident. People tended to gamble with those that didn’t have a reputation as gunmen, so such a perception was usually bad for business – and besides, plugging the wrong person could get the “sporting man†lynched in some places. So under ideal conditions if the gambler produced his sidearm quickly enough he might beat Mr. Sore Loser to the draw and defuse the situation without having to shoot anyone.

So to summarize, professional gamblers wanted something that could be drawn quickly from a sitting position, and be relatively powerful but yet concealable. Being openly armed was not conductive to generating customer confidence, and was sometimes against the law, even in frontier towns.

So it is not surprising that they took the medium or larger sized pistols of the day and cut them down to a more manageable size for their purpose. As a rule they didn’t bother to replace the front sight because, (a.) it wasn’t seen as necessary, and (b.) it might snag on clothing during a draw. When “self-cocker†or double-action revolvers came along they were able to further enhance their guns by removing the hammer spur, which again was undesirable as something that could snag during the draw. In a belly gun, snag-free is one of the most important attributes and a core consideration. This I suspect, is one of the reasons that 19th century gunmen didn’t replace the front sight.

Besides gamblers, both lawman and outlaws carried such guns as a “hideout†or “backup†for obvious reasons. Examples can be found in various historical collections, and most of those I am aware of don’t have front sights.

Shortly before World War One the role of the Belly Gun changed somewhat. Gambling and professional gamblers went out of the picture and law enforcement officers became more prominent in the picture. The gun-of-choice for building such weapons became the modern hand-ejector revolver manufactured by Colt or Smith & Wesson. Colt in particular started making such guns on a custom basis, and most factory-produced guns had front sights of some kind. However, out in the real world users continued to make their own guns and these often didn’t have a front sight.

I have personally known two individuals that carried “sightless†belly guns, made along the FitzGerald pattern. One was a military intelligence officer, and the other was an undercover narcotics investigator. Both were experienced and knowledgeable men that knew exactly what they were doing and why. Both admitted that what they had were not what was the rule, but rather for a very specialized and particular purpose. So long as we have such users the modern Belly Gun will continue to be carried, but I expect in increasing smaller numbers.

 

[1911Tuner]

re: Gamblers

Excellent commentery Fuff, as usual! You should be a writer...

I saw an old Peacemaker once at a show...exhibition only. I won't mention
who the owner was claimed to be, but it was interesting. It was a .45
caliber revolver that was well finish worn...and it didn't have a barrel!
That's right...Since the gambler in question figured that a 250-grain slug
from across a table didn't need to be accurate to do what needed to be done, the barrel was lopped off even with the front of the frame.

Could ya just imagine that big ol' chunk of lead smackin' ya in the chest sideways? OUCH!

Cheers all!

Tuner

 

[Old Fuff]

Yup, I've seen those too. If you see one for sale at a high price be sure it wasn't "converted" recently. Same thing with any 19th century Belly Gun.

The old-timers also made similar weapons using cap & ball revolvers (or cartridge conversions thereof), by cutting back the base pin on which the cylinder revolved, drilling and threading a hole in the end, and eliminating the barrel while using a large-headed screw on the end of the base pin to keep the cylinder in place.

Smith & Wesson top-break revolver were popular too, as the barrel could be cut back on some models as far as 1 1/2 inches without effecting the automatic ejector.

 

[GeneC]

As I read the original post, “GlenC†had, or was about to modifiy his S&W model 66 into a Belly Gun, or at least what he thought one of those was. He also wanted to explore the overall subject of this interesting weapon and it’s use. To me this would require a look at the history, as well as the weapon itself.

Yes, thank you Mr. Fuff, that is EXACTLY what my intent was/is. The History channel did a great piece on the history of the gun just this last weekend. Seems the Chinese invented gunpowder and the gun, made of bamboo and shot round rocks, what, 600 years ago? Bar a few finely crafted pieces thruout history, guns didn't even have sights for hundreds of years. History was made/changed because of the gun- the Ottomans, for instance. But my particular interest is this last Century, particularly with Mr Fitzgerald and Col Rex Applegate and Col. Fairbairn and Col Askins. Seems these are the men who brought art of the belly gun into modern times, but not so much the art of the belly gun, but the importance of the belly gun in modern urban armed confrontations. What I want to know is , has times really changed that much for us to forget/dismiss the tool and the concept that these men used in the meanest of times/places to survive?


Gene Couch
P-40

Semper Paratus

 

[1911Tuner]

Sign of the Times

GeneC said:

not so much the art of the belly gun, but the importance of the belly gun in modern urban armed confrontations. What I want to know is , have times really changed that much for us to forget/dismiss the tool and the concept that these men used in the me

 

[Old Fuff]

Frankly, with the ascendancy of automatic pistols I think many revolver techniques and training methods have been forgotten by the majority of current users. Much the same happened during the history of firearms as we progressed from flintlock to percussion, and then to cap & ball revolvers. They were followed by handguns using metallic cartridges – moving from single-shots to revolvers and finely automatic pistols. Each kind of weapon had its own handling methods, and most of these were forgotten as time passed and new weapons arrived. Small pocket pistols of large caliber and similar snub-nose revolvers are perhaps more popular then ever, but very few seem interested in the modifications advocated by FitzGerald and Askins. This does not dilute the fact that for the purpose intended they were effective weapons. It simply means that most people have lost interest in them. Those that posted on this very interesting thread are obviously exceptions to the rule.

 

[GeneC]

CONCEPT

Tuner said:
"We often make the mistake of assuming that we will have ample time to
go for the pistol on our belt...that we'll see the attack coming in time to
execute the perfect draw and obtain the perfect, two-handed grip, whatever the style...but chances are very high that we won't. In these
mad moments, things rarely go as we think they will. Fractions of seconds
are often decisive. If I have to fight for my life, I don't want to take even
a small risk of being a tenth of a second too late. I want a clean slide
and a smooth finish on a carry gun. (Melted is good.) I won't be in a big hurry to do a pinch-check, but I just MIGHT be in a helluva big rush to clear the leather at some point.

Food for thought. Bottom line is that we lays down our bets and we takes our chances.

Luck!

Tuner

 

[Marshall]

This threads a sight for sore eyes.

 

[GeneC]

Is not.

 

[JohnBT]

Lots of interesting history here.

I have a question.

From time to time I carry one of two guns IWB in a holster to the right of my belt buckle - the so-called appendix carry. One is a S&W 442 with the groove(dare I say fixed sight?) and the other is a BHP with windage adjustable dovetailed sight(it's fixed, the baked epoxy finish has it glued in place) and a bobbed hammer.

Call them belly guns if you wish, cause that's where I carry them, but why would I remove the sights(front, rear, both, whatever) and limit their accuracy at longer distances? The front sights don't hang up on the holsters or on my clothing during the draw.

Just trying to figure out what's to be gained other than a miniscule weight savings.

John

 

[GeneC]

JohnBT, The reason'd be in the quote of Tuner I did. The very concept of the belly gun was that the fight was up close and sights weren't needed (btw, it's not called a belly gun 'cause a where ya carried it, but where ya stuck it when ya shot the feller). Modern Defense pistol says even if it's across the room , use your sights, but if I'm across the room, I'm making my exit. I took off my bulky rear adjustable sight, but will leave my front sight on, so it'll fit in my Don Hume IWB holster.

 

[Old Fuff]

GeneC is correct. The term "belly gun" didn't refer to where it was carried because such weapons were carried in many different ways. The concept was developed by men who wanted a revolver that could be drawn quickly, from a place of concealment and not snag or catch on their clothing. It was intended to be employed at very close distances - so close that it would be pointed rather then aimed - and done rapidly. It was anticipated by a belly gun user that he’d have to respond to an attack that someone else had under way and that anything other then the fastest response might be fatal.

The “belly gun man†was usually experienced enough to understand that gunfights happened at close range, occurred unexpectedly, and didn’t always allow one to assume a particular stance, especially if they happened to be seated at the time. A belly gun might be carried as a primary weapon, but it was usually used as a back-up. However in a face-to-face confrontation they were likely to be used first, not last.

In the southwest at least, what separated the belly gun from the usual run of snub-nosed revolvers (besides some obvious modifications) was the tendency to be chambered for large-bore cartridges. Forty four and forty five calibers predominate.

 

[1911Tuner]

Big Bores Belly Blasters

Betchayacan'tsaythat5timesrealfast...

Old Fuff said:

In the southwest at least, what separated the belly gun from the usual run of snub-nosed revolvers (besides some obvious modifications) was the tendency to be chambered for large-bore cartridges. Forty four and forty five calibers predominate.

Can anybody say...Bulldog? Actually that was a British term for a
short-coupled big bore pocket revolver. I do believe.

 

[Old Fuff]

Not exactly. "Bulldog" revolvers were made that way orginally, and not cut-down out of anything. They used various cartridges from .32 up, but the ones best remembered were in .44 - the trouble is that the particular .44 cartridge had just enough power to get the slug out of the barrel - much like our .41 Rimfire Short.

They were popular. I say that based on the number of fired (in practice) cartridge cases found around the washs in places like Tombstone.

Now take that nickel-plated S&W .44 Hand-Ejector you have and make a mental image of that gun with the barrel cut off at about 3 1/4 inches, the hammer spur removed, and a set of pre-war service grips (of the type used on the USGI 1917 .45) but rounded across the bottom. Solder a low rifle front sight ramp on the barrel, and insert a dovetailed blade with the biggest gold or ivory bead that could be found. Now you get the picture.

Or do the same thing with a Colt New Service, but cut the barrel to 2 inches or even less, and not worry too much about the front sight. In the case of the Colt you may cut off the front of the trigger guard. This wasn't done on many Smith & Wesson's because of the location of the cylinder stop spring assembly and screw.

Most likely you will carry this gun in a IWB holster worn cross-draw, or a shoulder holster - both covered by a vest (summer) or coat (otherwise).

 

[1911Tuner]

Commentary

Excellent, as usual Fuff...Kudos. This thread has merit after all!

Now for the 64 dollar question:

Anybody besides GeneC and Fuff may answer. I suspect that they would
know, and hence would be stacked in their favor....

Why wouldn't a big bore auropistol make an effective belly gun? Compact ... flat/concealable... good calibers available...more firepower...
(whatever that means) A Colt Defender or Officer's Model would be a good one...Why wouldn't that format be even better than a 5-shot, snub nosed
.44 Special like the Charter Bulldog? Hmmmm?

Getcher think' caps on ladies and laddies...

Tuner