Is it still appendix carry when a left-hander does it?

__________________
SWHF #448

My picture.

The Bruce Nelson version - and the Sinatra position - place the muzzle outside the leg, as with the FBI/kidney position, rather than inside the thigh.

An AD is still bad, but significantly less bad.

I'm not preaching on that myself. My hobby horse is the common mistake - fueled by Cooper on Handguns - that Nelson carried muzzle forward.

As I stated earlier, no, but the idea is the same. You make my point for me. Muscles don't have memory, but the concept of "muscle memory", while not actually existing, does work and is the correct phraseology.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Sorry, got caught up in the moment. Yes, your picture.

Without a broader view, it still looks like it's pointed at his leg to me. In fact, I'm surprised to see Col Cooper with a gun in that position. It is definitely a rule #2 violation, as is any appendix or belly carry.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

You know, I studied all kinds of math in college. Still use it quite a bit 40 years later. My wife, who didn't study math in college, finds where I've made simple addition and subtraction errors in our checkbook. I could jump up and down claiming to be the math expert in our family, but that doesn't make my errors any less wrong. In real life, nobody bats a thousnd over the long haul. Nobody's above having their work critiqued.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Good point but I've not seen anyone correct any error he's made.

__________________
SWHF #448

Why should I not argue against someone's points if I think they're wrong, simply because of who they are?

I know exactly who he is.

Exactly. I mean, God forbid we ask questions or say something contrary to someone else's comments or opinions.

Even Keith, Cooper, Skelton, Askins, Jordan, and other icons of the shooting world were not infallible. And there isn't anyone on the scene right now who is infallible, either, and that includes anyone posting on this forum.

This is a forum. A forum is a place where people share opinions and experience, ask questions, and often disagree. I see no reason to let respect for someone's experience stand in the way of honest counterpoints, I don't care who the "expert" is.

A "new paradigm - since 1985"? There isn't anything new about a "paradigm" or anything else that's 32-years-old. Perhaps it was new then. It certainly isn't now.

Dude, I got in an argument here with Ayoob. Everybody gets to defend their position with me. Sometimes, they're wrong . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I appreciate your thinking, because that pic of Bruce is treated like a tablet from the Mount; when in fact it doesn't picture at all what AIWB fans think it does. I knew Bruce but won't pretend to speak for him, and I respect his choices because he lived in a kill or be-killed world -- and did -- as a narcotics agent. But that pic is not a holy 'authorisation' for belly carry!

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

Muss, I think I'm going to have to head over to my other threads and make this point: you appear to be looking for my posts because you are an AIWB fan and you know that I am against it; and then you make argumentative, nonsensical posts that you imagine are 'responsive'.

I've known Mas for decades and I've never known him to be wrong. But PLEASE don't take this as permission to hijack my thread to provide a list; please start another thread of your own.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

Cooper called this 'spleen' carry. He apparently was speaking in terms of 'in the general region of the following organ' because I think only the Poms carried over their kidneys (WWI?) and I think it would take a bandolier hunting holster to carry over the spleen.

I'm sure we'll agree that the clocking system (I admire whoever thought of it) along the belt is superior, as long as one is not guessing :-). Easy way to make the determination, is that the seam of the trousers is at 3:00 on the right side and at 9:00 on the left side.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

In the spirit of fun, as always ... just to be contrary ... On the flip side of my prior post, I thought of a possible example of cocked and locked carry before the Cooper revolution:

In a famous incident, then Lt. Patton's holstered, tuned .45 fired when he stomped his foot. I've always guessed he was carrying C&L for that to happen.

Some did it; we've all seen pictures of Texas Rangers, etc. too. But hammer down - and chamber empty - was surely much more common.

I remembered this early example of Cooper promoting C&L - but also with a surprising suggestion:

WHAT Good IS A Pistol? Major John D. Cooper Marine Corps Gazette, 1946

1. With the pistol cocked and on safe, .....
2. From the same condition of readiness ....
etc.

... I do not believe that the service pistol is perfect ... (Say it ain't so!)

Since we have brought up the matter both here and previously of a properly designed automatic pistol, let's look at what we mean by "proper design."
First, we should by all means retain the service cartridge. ...
Around this cartridge, we should build a double action automatic pistol. Double action is now found in the German P-38 and could easily be adapted to our needs. The pistol should possess a double column Mauser type magazine ... the grip could be reworked, given more slant and slightly curved. ...

Indeed it is more accurate.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Thanks to all, for helping me to clarify what I was trying to say, via our vigorous discussion(s). I've updated my website accordingly!

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

I had to go back and look for this post, because it misses the situation entirely. The situation is not about covering guards; it's about NOMINALLY covering guards on striker pistols; exacerbated by the use of lights even in concealment, belly carry style. P.S. I recently discontinued builds for all striker pistols without an external safety; the pic by Rastoff is of a SIG with hammer and safety and double action.

whatcouldpossiblygowrong (1).jpg Safariland duty holster, of the type involved.

whatcouldpossiblygowrong (3).jpg Hopefully not a Safariland, same problem tho.

whatcouldpossiblygowrong (4).jpg Safariland duty holster

whatcouldpossiblygowrong (8).jpg Safariland concealment holster

I have these in my 15,000-strong image collection under "what could possibly go wrong?".

An image of another maker's holster, with a DA pistol in it, simply wouldn't load to the Forum; I wanted to include it because the trigger was equally exposed but it's not the same problem: the DA pistol has a hammer, and an external safety; which was my point at the outset.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

Just one of many concealment holsters for a Glock with weapon light. Holster follows the weapon's contour quite closely right up to the grip.

IIRC, your website offered holsters for Glock safe action pistols. Were they designed with wide gaps between the trigger guard and holster, with and without a weapon light?

Glock safe action pistols haven't changed recently that I'm aware of. So I was curious if you don't mind me asking, what has changed for you?

Yes, I was offering them. I only just worked out the con! Which is why I titled the thread as I did.

Your post shows just how difficult it is to get that lightbulb to appear over the head: covering the guard doesnt make the Glock action safe! And covering it adds a danger of entanglement. Yet we can agree that the guard on these pistols cant be left uncovered. So making holsters for them is Sophies Choice and instead, I choose not to build for them at all.

And its not our job, as holster makers, to make these pistols safe. Its the pistol makers job.

Is it really that hard to grasp?

Here is a legal case in which Glock and the holster maker, and others, were sued when a police officer was shot in the back by his son, who was able to withdraw the pistol and fire it without needing to take the pistol off 'safe'. I'm paraphrasing, but think I've reached the essentials of the case. The court's ruling is quite long and I've not read through it all, but a quick scan advises that Glock is still a defendant.

CHAVEZ v. GLOCK INC | FindLaw

I'm not listing it so that we can pick the case apart; that's a matter for the court. I'm listing it so that we can consider how these matters snowball; and how a non-aficionado viewed his situation, esp. one who was accustomed to a Beretta DA pistol vs. a Glock action.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

Dang! I'm not smart enough to understand the OP's point. For the last many years my carry pistols have all been striker fired with no external safeties. I've looked at all my holsters for these firearms (the ones I use are mostly made of kydex) and I can not see a way that any object could actuate the trigger of my pistols while holstered.

I do carry AIWB. Never carry with a light attached (or anything else). So what is the greater risk?

Is your greater concern the location of carry, striker fired pistols or the design of the holster?

It is a struggle for some, perhaps many, and I reckon at least partly because there are several issues being mixed together; and when one issue is 'successfully' defended, then some may think 'all problems solved'.

First: AIWB, when taken literally, means the pistol is being carried at about 1:00 because that's where the appendix is. In this position the wearer is muzzling himself when seated. Well, if all the pistols before the Glock was introduced couldn't be carried this way without violating the first rule of gun safety, be assured that Glocks can't be either.

People can, and do, decide to carry this way anyway; it's not what my post is about; but you asked.

Second: AIWB, when taken historically, means the pistol is being carried at about 2:00. In this position the pistol can be carried without muzzling even when the wearer is seated, when the muzzle is angled to the rear.

Again, not what my post is about.

Third: holsters can increase the safety (I'm not referring to security/retention; but to safety) of carrying a pistol, when the pistols have moveable external parts. These include double action triggers, external hammers, grip safeties, thumb safeties -- by interfering with their movement into a firing position (such as a rising or falling hammer) AND not interfering with their operation.

On the other hand, straps have been known to enter the guard during holstering, and have been known to switch off thumb safeties, and have been known to depress grip safeties (across-the-grip straps).

Fourth: holsters can affect (I didn't say 'effect' and I didn't say 'increase') the safety of carrying a pistol, by covering the trigger guard. This has been done / not done since there were holsters mid-1800s. Holsters today generally include covered guards but there are plenty of designs that leave the trigger exposed; depends on the design of the pistol, doesn't it? Modern replicas of the famous Threepersons holster for revolvers are plentiful, and have a fully exposed trigger and guard.

Covered guards can inhibit, and even absolutely prevent, a third party from pressing the trigger. But they can also cause the trigger to be depressed: a finger in the guard whilst holstering, something else caught in the guard whilst holstering, catching on the edges of a trigger shoe (not much used today but a significant trouble once-upon-a-time).

My post was partly about how the use of lights caused gaps at the covered guard, near the trigger, and the holster makers didn't notice until after the accidents began. It's my view that they, and their consumers, made an assumption that covering the guard created, ipso facto, safety. It didn't. Instead it added a risk and I gave examples of real-life situations.

Fifth: striker pistols, whether an early 20th century Colt .25 or an early 21st century Glock, don't have a hammer to block up or down. Now the holster maker is helpless to incorporate a feature into his product, that will provide the additional safety level that he does for all other forms of pistol.

So regardless of the consumer's confidence in his pistol and his holster maker, there is one less safety feature available for a holstered Glock (as an example of a striker pistol), than there is for any other pistol. And it CANNOT be included: blocking the hammer.

Sixth: stealthily the 'perfect storm' of (1) no hammer to block, (2) use of lights that are bigger than the width of the trigger guard, and (3) carrying at 1:00 or 12:00 or 11:00, has formed; and all three began, and then combined, during this century.

And from the arguments received, not a lot of people have noticed. And that's what I want them to do: notice, because once they work out the physics involved, they'll realise that their reasoning will not compensate for the physics.

__________________
Red Nichols The Holstorian

To paraphrase my 1960's teenage girl friends little old Irish Grandmother when watching a complicated mystery plot on tv " That's a Hitchcock to me ".

__________________
I like Ike.

Interesting thread. Yeah the pic's of those holsters look less than ideal to me as well. I have to admit I am not comfortable carrying a gun between 9 & 3 (front of course) and I prefer a revolver or a DAO auto as a CCW. I like external hammers. I won't fault someone for choosing something else, however I do agree we each must take responsibility for our choices.

__________________
K & N S&W revolvers