No activity in this forum for a month so lets see you Brills or copies of Brills. Here are mine, all copies. From the left, 3” J frame, 4” N frame, 1911.
Hopefully the damn picture has been added, again. Thank you all for your patience and making me aware of the problem. Apparently when I deleted the duplicate post, all the photos were deleted.
So, Who was or is Brill? Can I guess they were a holster maker?
What did they do that was so special they would get special recognition?
I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, I just can't figure out where this thread should be going.
If the holsters you have in this thread are copies, what would make them get the recognition of being a Brill copy?
We all pretty much know what a "Fitz" revolver is, because they're so unique, and so easy to define. I've never heard of Brill before, so I'm not sure how to respond.
As a Holster guy I appreciate the Brill which was designed for the Texas Rangers as I have been told but I do not own an example. I do own many fine leather holsters made by other holster makers from the 20th century. My nicest is one made by another Texan Bedell Rogers.
So, Who was or is Brill? Can I guess they were a holster maker?
What did they do that was so special they would get special recognition?
I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, I just can't figure out where this thread should be going.
If the holsters you have in this thread are copies, what would make them get the recognition of being a Brill copy?
We all pretty much know what a "Fitz" revolver is, because they're so unique, and so easy to define. I've never heard of Brill before, so I'm not sure how to respond.
Brill was an entrepreneur who lent his name to theholster designed by and for the Texas Rangers. The Rangers in the cities were told to carry their revolvers and pistols tucked out of sight. Captain Hughes had some ideas and took them to several leathersmiths. His design was called the Sunday holster and it was basically a hideout holster worn on the trouser belt
I'm fascinated by how the Brill came about at all, and that it turned out to be the first 'modern' holster that was engineered in a complex fashion for a purposeful result. We had one at JB's western museum and I had no idea at the time what it represented and I doubt JB did either. It's...
www.holsterguys.com
I knew a couple of us older revolver men favored the Sunday holster or Brill but mostly I wanted to stir a bit of interest in the leather forum.
Thanks for asking, I hope we explained it for you.
So, Who was or is Brill? Can I guess they were a holster maker?
What did they do that was so special they would get special recognition?
I'm not trying to be a smart a$$, I just can't figure out where this thread should be going.
If the holsters you have in this thread are copies, what would make them get the recognition of being a Brill copy?
We all pretty much know what a "Fitz" revolver is, because they're so unique, and so easy to define. I've never heard of Brill before, so I'm not sure how to respond.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery....
Those of us that build holsters, the Brill design is a timeless treasure,
as is the Threepersons design. I like em both.
Thanks for all the Brill info. I’ve only seen a few examples in person....and recently made this attempt at one myself:
The Brill examples I’ve examined all had the wide stitched welt, uniquely stitched toe connecting the pouch to the back flap, and the rakish “cuff” set at various places along the pouch to accommodate a specific belt width. I set this one up to take a 1 1/2”-1 3/4” belt.
Mr. Keith....
For the most part, the pouch on all of the Brill holsters I’ve examined looked suspiciously similar to an original Threepersons holster. Without the thick full-length welt, back flap, and cuff, of course. Any personal thoughts on that?
Mr. Keith....
For the most part, the pouch on all of the Brill holsters I’ve examined looked suspiciously similar to an original Threepersons holster. Without the thick full-length welt, back flap, and cuff, of course. Any personal thoughts on that?
This is what I have found with the Brill design....With the full back flap, I have found it much easier to adjust the dwell of the handgun for a snugger fit to the rib cage,as opposed to Threepersons design that seem to allow the pistol butt to stick out away from the gun belt.
Also, with the Brill design, the 'Garter' can be positioned to allow the belt to fit with out any play or with as much as desired.
You are correct in noting that the actual holsters are very much alike.
Here's a pic or two of my personal holsters....
.
The kinda 'Brill' style that I wear the most, rides high and tight which aids in concealment when needed.
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
I would like to build myself another like this'n
.
...Mr. Keith....
For the most part, the pouch on all of the Brill holsters I’ve examined looked suspiciously similar to an original Threepersons holster. Without the thick full-length welt, back flap, and cuff, of course....
The link I supplied above answers some of those questions. The Threepersons holster was a pared down Brill, maybe. Similar holsters, to both styles had been around for years. The Brill was designed as a lightweight holster to be worn on the trouser belt. The cuff allowed the cant of the holster to be designed in and the position of the fold determined the width of the belt. The article explains it better. The examples I have used and own are not light by any means. I hope to get an accurate reproduction for my 4”, N frame soon
A forum community dedicated to Smith & Wesson firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, gunsmithing, troubleshooting, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
www.holsterguys.com
