Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:43 PM
-db-'s Avatar
-db- -db- is offline
US Veteran
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 4,077
Likes: 10,916
Liked 4,036 Times in 1,392 Posts
Default

Is it still appendix carry when a left-hander does it?
__________________
SWCA #2842
SWHF #448
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:10 PM
SG-688 SG-688 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 568
Likes: 97
Liked 776 Times in 227 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
No, I would not agree that this is any better or worse than the picture you posted of Bruce. The tiny difference is insignificant. Both are in front of the appendix and both cover the leg with the muzzle. But I am curious, why do you think one is worse than the other?
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #53  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:23 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -db- View Post
Is it still appendix carry when a left-hander does it?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:26 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG-688 View Post
My picture.
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #55  
Old 08-19-2017, 07:50 PM
Ziggy2525 Ziggy2525 is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 136
Likes: 35
Liked 173 Times in 63 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -db- View Post
Am I the only one here getting a kick out of some of these guys, apparently unfamiliar with who he is, trying to argue with Red and tell him, in so many words, he doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to holsters and carry?

I'm sorry, but this is some real comedy and God bless Red for taking it all in stride.
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.

Last edited by Ziggy2525; 08-19-2017 at 07:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #56  
Old 08-19-2017, 08:22 PM
-db-'s Avatar
-db- -db- is offline
US Veteran
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: MI
Posts: 4,077
Likes: 10,916
Liked 4,036 Times in 1,392 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy2525 View Post
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.
Good point but I've not seen anyone correct any error he's made.
__________________
SWCA #2842
SWHF #448
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #57  
Old 08-20-2017, 01:45 AM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 901
Liked 1,591 Times in 695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -db- View Post
Am I the only one here getting a kick out of some of these guys, apparently unfamiliar with who he is, trying to argue with Red and tell him, in so many words, he doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to holsters and carry?

I'm sorry, but this is some real comedy and God bless Red for taking it all in stride.
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #58  
Old 08-20-2017, 08:11 PM
Watchdog's Avatar
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
US Veteran
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 7,242
Likes: 11,972
Liked 15,561 Times in 4,149 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
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.
__________________
I can't get no...satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #59  
Old 08-20-2017, 09:00 PM
Muss Muggins's Avatar
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: southeast Missouri
Posts: 7,601
Likes: 2,678
Liked 9,215 Times in 3,301 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -db- View Post
Am I the only one here getting a kick out of some of these guys, apparently unfamiliar with who he is, trying to argue with Red and tell him, in so many words, he doesn't know what he's talking about with regards to holsters and carry?

I'm sorry, but this is some real comedy and God bless Red for taking it all in stride.
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 . . .
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 08-21-2017, 07:27 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 700
Likes: 485
Liked 1,693 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG-688 View Post
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.
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
Holstorian (tm).
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 08-21-2017, 07:29 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 700
Likes: 485
Liked 1,693 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
Dude, I got in an argument here with Ayoob. Everybody gets to defend their position with me. Sometimes, they're wrong . . .
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
Holstorian (tm).
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-21-2017, 07:33 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 700
Likes: 485
Liked 1,693 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -db- View Post
Is it still appendix carry when a left-hander does it?
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
Holstorian (tm).
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-21-2017, 09:09 PM
SG-688 SG-688 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 568
Likes: 97
Liked 776 Times in 227 Posts
Default Patton?

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. ...
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #64  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:30 AM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 11,697
Likes: 1,736
Liked 10,897 Times in 4,471 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
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 :-).
Indeed it is more accurate.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-23-2017, 11:06 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 700
Likes: 485
Liked 1,693 Times in 535 Posts
Default

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
Holstorian (tm).
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #66  
Old 08-28-2017, 07:18 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 700
Likes: 485
Liked 1,693 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
Indeed, I have no idea who he is. Even so, I appreciate a good discussion and will jump in if I feel there is a misnomer or difference in terminology that seems odd or wrong. In my opinion, calling appendix carry the wrong terminology, when in fact the gun is carried directly in front of the appendix, seems ludicrous to me.

But I digress. Let's look at this another way. Based on the OP, where an article was posted about something getting inside the trigger guard of a holstered pistol, is this an acceptable holster design?

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.

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-whatcouldpossiblygowrong-1-jpg Safariland duty holster, of the type involved.

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-whatcouldpossiblygowrong-3-jpg Hopefully not a Safariland, same problem tho.

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-whatcouldpossiblygowrong-4-jpg Safariland duty holster

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-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
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-28-2017 at 07:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-29-2017, 05:57 AM
ChattanoogaPhil's Avatar
ChattanoogaPhil ChattanoogaPhil is offline
Moderator
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,267
Likes: 7,386
Liked 19,099 Times in 5,624 Posts
Default

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.




Last edited by ChattanoogaPhil; 08-29-2017 at 06:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-29-2017, 09:07 AM
ChattanoogaPhil's Avatar
ChattanoogaPhil ChattanoogaPhil is offline
Moderator
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,267
Likes: 7,386
Liked 19,099 Times in 5,624 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
P.S. I recently discontinued builds for all striker pistols without an external safety
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?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-29-2017, 04:13 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 700
Likes: 485
Liked 1,693 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil View Post
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
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-29-2017 at 06:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-17-2017, 01:23 AM
Out West's Avatar
Out West Out West is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,386
Likes: 232
Liked 296 Times in 131 Posts
Default

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?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-21-2017, 02:00 AM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 700
Likes: 485
Liked 1,693 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Out West View Post
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
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 09-21-2017 at 02:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-21-2017, 02:53 AM
7shooter 7shooter is online now
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In the Cloud
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 781
Liked 674 Times in 250 Posts
Default

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.

Last edited by 7shooter; 09-21-2017 at 02:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:01 AM
DD357 DD357 is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985. The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Morgan Co, IN
Posts: 594
Likes: 402
Liked 395 Times in 229 Posts
Default

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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTS 1985 5 1/2" Ruger Redhawk 44 Mag Blued in Excellent Condition STEVESKI GUNS - For Sale or Trade 0 03-29-2016 11:00 AM
WTS: SPF - S&W Model 41 - 7" - 1985 - box & 2 mags - SPF macdab GUNS - For Sale or Trade 4 07-01-2014 10:55 AM
Carry Gun Paradigm Shift doc540 Concealed Carry & Self Defense 31 12-09-2013 09:26 PM
""WITHDRAWN"" WTS OR WTT 1985 Browning Citori Long tang Grade III .410 skeetshooter GUNS - For Sale or Trade 2 03-25-2012 03:52 PM
1985 624 3" Lew Horton Photo acco40 S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 3 10-18-2009 06:24 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:15 AM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)