I bought a Cathey Enterprises USN holster for my 92A1, and I really like it (I appreciate old-school flap holsters).  It seems that the manufacturer used some sort of leather paint on the interior (rough leather) of the holster, and my front sight was scraping it off (the 92A1 fits a little differently from the M9).  I'd like to just rid myself of this paint and use some leather dye, which is how the older M1916 holster were.

Any suggestions?  The interior looks wrinkly on the other examples I'm seeing of these holsters online.  The paint will scrape off, but it brings some fibers with it.

Attached File

Are you sure it's paint and not dye and that it's actually flaking and not the leather coming loose (or a combination of both)?  Cheap leather holsters (mil contract) are often not good cuts of leather to start with, they're chrome tanned leather and they just dip them in dye vats.  As the leather dries it scrapes off along with the cheap dye that never penetrated well.  You could try using some sort of brush inside but I'd probably try reconditioning the leather; saddle soap and whatever leather conditioner you like.  It'll get softer and, not trying to rain on your parade, don't expect great results, they're low bid holsters after all but there's no reason it shouldn't make it serviceable.  Someone with more leather-working experience than me may be able to give you better info.

I'm pretty sure it's paint.  I've seen leather paint on rough sides of other leather goods before, so it wouldn't be unheard of.  It appears to be a uniform coat throughout, and I don't see any of the rough leather's figure (except where it's peeling). I rubbed a little citri-strip on it, and the color started coming off.  I may just try to citri-strip it, then oil up the leather afterward.

Probably 300 coats of shoe polish.

Your best bet would be Fiebing's 'Deglazer', which is used to remove their Resolene and other finishes.

That's only going to work if it actually is leather paint, though-no idea if it will work on different types of paint they might have used in a military holster.

Larry

I see the "low bid" comment regularly. Not being a jerk here.
If you've ever bid a govt job they do (usually) take the lowest bidder. What a lot of people don't realize is the page after page after page of specs that MUST be met.
The details in a govt. bid are enormous, and (unless the vendor cheats at the real risk of being caught and slaughtered like a lamb) the finished product meets that standard.

With clearly defined (and trust me they can be more than clear) specs, I trust those low bid produced products way more than many commercial off the shelf end products.
When the brand, color code, mil thickness of paint, temp the paint is applied in, nap of the rollers used, baking temp, and about 87 other variables constrained in the paint specs, you do tend to get a known quality, high quality for it's intended use, uniform product from most govt sourced/spec'd "low bid" offers.

Bottom line, some of the highest quality things made in America are from the "lowest bidder".

I understand all of that, I've bid government jobs and worked government and oilfield jobs.  Getting the required certifications on say a tube of grease drives up prices immensely but chain of custodies and service logs are a thing for a reason, but in regards to the discussion at hand, most of the military surplus holsters I've seen were perfectly adequate for the task, often overbuilt, but not the same quality as many of their commercial counterparts, especially those made during wartime production.  I still use a Vietnam era M3 style chest holster for K frame revolvers around the farm (I have one for 1911s as well as a M7 style for 1911s/Berettas), but it is not the same quality as an El Paso Saddlery or Diamond D Guides Choice.

If you've actually bid govt jobs, and you "understand all that", then your "low bid" comments are even more odd.

Expecting a wartime holster produced by the 10's of thousands to millions, to match up compare to a even semi custom commercial holster is even more odd.

Working a govt job in the patch is very different than bidding govt specs.
If you really "knew all that" you'd know that the "low bid" maker had nothing to do with the design or the specs, they simply turn out a product that meets those specs at the lowest offered price due to them being more efficient or stupid or whatever reason. The low bid gag has nothing to do with the end quality of a govt procured item.

Congratulations dude, you've taken something that was a lighthearted comment about mil-spec holsters that everyone knows are made to contract specs and are not on the same level as high end commercial holsters and gotten completely butthurt over it.  I'll be sure and tell my friends that they aren't allowed to make jokes about their armor or jets being made by low bid contractors because it upsets some folks.  

Don't take offence from me man, none intended. Don't bother to tell your friends Unless you REALLY want to.
We work in this world and it's pretty goofy when people who don't spout off about it and it's done a lot, lot, lot. Just throwing out an informed heads up, take it or leave it.
I am not "upset", why would random interweb comments upset me.
My Wife/Chics illness upsets me, internet posts do not.
I'm not even slightly "butthurt", nowhere close to "completely butthurt".

For what it's worth I'd use decreasing grades of autobody sandpaper (starting at a rediculous high grit) to remove inside paint if it hindered function or bothered me.

The recent thread on "Tanker Holsters"  is good, they work, they are comfortable, you can wear them while naked (), I have several, experienced tankers have sung their praises, but I can't grasp the gun with a full firing grip from the ones I own. It just was designed how it was designed and we recognize it for what it is. But we won WWII with Sherman crews wearing it.

It's all good, inflection is lost on the internet.  I apparently misunderstood your post and I added the part about the relatively inexpensive tube of grease costing a small fortune because of the certs it carries- same thing as why a $10 hammer would cost the military hundreds, only one or two companies are willing to go through the expensive testing to get the certs required by the contract or manufacturer.  I like my M3 tanker for working around the farm, it's cheap and doesn't interfere with or get caught on any equipment levers getting in out of the cab.  It's certainly not the fastest and I keep saying I'm going to make a higher quality one myself but I haven't gotten around to it, it works well enough.  Personally I do find it funny to hear someone who used to pilot Super Bugs make jokes about low bid on something that costs millions, others maybe not so much.  

Sorry for the thread drift OP.

Right.
It's like the "what do pipeliners make" thread. I am a 798 Pipeline Welder, I won't touch that thread with a ten foot pole. But I actually know.
People who've never seen a pipeline being built, much less ever worked on one or 60, would hammer me like I was an idiot.
There is 98% bad, wrong,stupid, lying info in that thread. So be it.

Correcting "common knowledge" missinfo on the web, is a losers game.

Traceability is a real thing, it costs money to do. That makes a tube of grease mo spensive. But there are lots of people who will cheat, cheat, cheat. Look at the china crap fasteners in the supply chain. Since the late '80's, I don't want that crap installed on an Abrams.