Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-09-2017, 09:10 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.

I do virtually all my posting over on the gunleather forum. Nevertheless I reckon this particular topic might do more good here than there.

First, consider that holsters only exist because the pistol maker made them necessary; that is, they didn't provide for a way to get a handgun out of the hand whilst not shooting :-).

Second, consider that pistol makers give NO consideration to holsters when they develop a pistol; a very old case in point was the Smith M59 that had such a gigantic slide stop that it wouldn't allow pistols go into some holsters; and Smith declined to do anything about it until holsters started actually pushing the slide stops out of the pistol! Accessory makers, too -- trigger shoes were wider than the trigger guard and caused all kinds of discharges at the end of the last century.

Third, consider that holsters didn't always cover pistols' trigger guards; quite the opposite because access to the trigger was considered by the market to be necessary. For these holsters, it was DA autos and revolvers, SA revolvers, and Condition Three SA autos.

Fourth, consider that when guards began to be covered by holsters it was because of the 1911 suddenly being carried in Condition One (1970s); and attacks by BGs on holstered pistols became the norm. These pistols had/have external safeties and most holsters blocked the firing pins, except at a pistol range.

Fifth, consider that when holster makers were confronted with the new Glock-action type pistols, they assumed that this "Big Bear" paradigm should be applied to these, too. Been that way ever since, to the present day.

Trouble is, they didn't see this coming: my USA armourer (an experienced LEO with notches) sent this along to me the other day --

"Remember when I tested how obstructed the trigger had to be for the Glock to go bang in the Safariland duty holster? It got a real world test and failed:

Shooting during police funeral came from holstered gun - Local News - 13 WTHR Indianapolis ".


He and I began to do this testing because we DID see this coming. The above situation is mirrored by a very recent recall of 18,000 holsters here in OZ for that pistol and holster, when a struggle for the gun ended in a discharge: accessible trigger and no external safety.

I've had many an online dialogue with holster makers, and there is no awareness that the sand has shifted under their feet; nor any sense of responsiblity to you as users. And that is despite knowing that the 21st century trend is belly carry (incorrectly called appendix carry) with this type of action.

So I bring it to the attention of USERS; to increase awareness of what should have been an obvious risk, in case there are those who haven't fully considered it.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Like Post:
  #2  
Old 08-09-2017, 10:14 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

Maybe in Indianapolis it was a Sig P320 and they banged the back of the pistol.
__________________
Vegan by proxy.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #3  
Old 08-10-2017, 12:27 AM
ExcitableBoy's Avatar
ExcitableBoy ExcitableBoy 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: Feb 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 382
Likes: 681
Liked 622 Times in 235 Posts
Default

HUH?!?!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 08-10-2017, 12:57 AM
Moo Moo's Avatar
Moo Moo Moo Moo 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 2014
Posts: 18
Likes: 34
Liked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Here is a link to the news story about the recall of Victorian State Police and their new holsters for the S&W M&P's.

Victoria Police's $1.6m gun holster bungle
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-10-2017, 09:11 AM
TomkinsSP's Avatar
TomkinsSP TomkinsSP 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: May 2017
Location: E of America's Great Lake
Posts: 281
Likes: 39
Liked 198 Times in 95 Posts
Default

+1 At Islandwanda or some such place the British (fighting the Zulu) could't get thier ammo out of the neat wooden boxes it was shipped from England in. That was how long ago...
__________________
Its better without the...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-10-2017, 11:10 AM
Absalom's Avatar
Absalom Absalom is offline
SWCA 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 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,657
Likes: 2,625
Liked 6,251 Times in 2,372 Posts
Default

Sorry if I sound too snarky, but is your somewhat disorienting dissertation saying anything other than: Holsters that cover the trigger are safer?
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 08-10-2017, 12:44 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: 7,221
Likes: 11,928
Liked 15,482 Times in 4,136 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Second, consider that pistol makers give NO consideration to holsters when they develop a pistol...
I'm not being smart alecky here...but why should they? They're gun manufacturers. Holster makers design and craft their holsters to fit a particular gun, not vice versa. It's been that way since handguns came into being. I know that no one went to Sam Colt or Col. Scholfield and said, "Here...make me a revolver to fit this holster I just made."

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
...a very old case in point was the Smith M59 that had such a gigantic slide stop that it wouldn't allow pistols go into some holsters; and Smith declined to do anything about it until holsters started actually pushing the slide stops out of the pistol! Accessory makers, too -- trigger shoes were wider than the trigger guard and caused all kinds of discharges at the end of the last century.
This isn't clear to me. Are you saying the Smith M59 wouldn't fit holsters that were specifically designed for it, or that they wouldn't fit holsters that were already on the market and fitting similar pistols?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Fourth, consider that when guards began to be covered by holsters it was because of the 1911 suddenly being carried in Condition One (1970s); and attacks by BGs on holstered pistols became the norm. These pistols had/have external safeties and most holsters blocked the firing pins, except at a pistol range.
I'm sure you know more about holsters and holster R&D than I do, but I'm going to disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. There's no way from 1912 to 1970 that people weren't carrying their 1911s cocked and locked. The pistol was designed to be carried that way...no one in 1970 "suddenly" just had some sort of "Ah, ha!" moment and started carrying in Condition 1 and everyone else followed suit. And I don't believe that "attacks by bad guys" was the tipping point for holsters to start covering the trigger/trigger guard. Sorry, I just can't agree with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Fifth, consider that when holster makers were confronted with the new Glock-action type pistols, they assumed that this "Big Bear" paradigm should be applied to these, too. Been that way ever since, to the present day.
Well, sorry again, but you've completely lost and confused me now, because I simply don't know what the hell the "Big Bear Paradigm" is. I've never heard that term or euphemism or analogy or whatever it is before.

I'll leave this for the more intelligent forum members to figure all this out and maybe report their findings. It's just too pretty a day here to sit shaking my head in front of an unfeeling computer monitor.
__________________
I can't get no...satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Like Post:
  #8  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:33 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

I see I was being too circumspect :-). Yet all in all, I appreciate that the responses so far are reasonable.

The holsters in question: Kydex Safariland holsters, which are moulded in such a way that the trigger can still be accessed, by either a BG (the Victorian situation) or a random object (the US story). So: the trigger is "covered" in name only. Sorry, I thought that was obvious from the stories.

The pistols in question: so-called 'striker fired' pistols with a single action trigger (that little gizzy in the centre of the trigger is not a 'safety' as we know them; it is there to keep the trigger from moving to the rear when the pistol is dropped on the back of the slide, from inertia; causing a discharge). Without realising it, compared to other pistols around which all of today's holsters were designed around, anything that enters that gap in the holster can fire the pistol.

So, compared with the pistols around which the modern holster was thought-through (the DA revolver, the condition 3 SA auto, the DA auto, the SA revolver) there is a safety factor that hasn't been considered by holster designers and makers. That is, it is not the same problem, yet modern holsters are adapted from the old ones.

Indeed it's quite like carrying, not a cocked and locked 1911, but a cocked Single Action Army: it's not safe just because the trigger is now covered.

Why would I bother to post? Because literally no one else has been paying attention on 'your' (holster wearers) behalf, that today's pistols have actually CREATED a danger when the trigger is covered:

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-appendix-dan-ger-1-jpg

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-appendix-dan-ger-3-jpg

Both pics are of the same wearer.

The practice of carrying pistols without regard for where the muzzle is pointing drifted over from competition where the pistols are generally 1911s and are not carried loaded; instead they are loaded on the line just before competing.

The point then, of the articles, is to point out that it's necessary that 'you' (the wearer) be aware of the unnecessary risk you're taking, because neither (a) the pistol maker nor (b) the holster maker realises (they think it's the same risk it has always been).

Some comments reinforce this: whatever mythology has developed around the 1911 being 'designed' to be carried in Condition One, you should realise that it was rarely done until the 1960s and Jeff Cooper's Big Bear competitions (the point of that reference) inspired first competition shooters, then concealment carriers, then police departments to the point where it became the norm. But the pistols have changed.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-12-2017 at 05:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:44 PM
Inusuit Inusuit 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: Feb 2013
Location: SE Wyoming
Posts: 1,362
Likes: 1,583
Liked 1,647 Times in 628 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomkinsSP View Post
+1 At Islandwanda or some such place the British (fighting the Zulu) could't get thier ammo out of the neat wooden boxes it was shipped from England in. That was how long ago...
It was Isandlwana, it was 1879, and the ammo box thing is an urban legend. The crates had a sliding wooden lid held in place by one screw that was easily dislodged by a blow with a rifle butt.

Archaeological analysis of the battle site revealed both bent screws and tin lids from the internal ammo containers. The movie distorted the facts.

On topic, I agree that it's the job of holster makers to work around firearm design. Admittedly, not all designs are holster friendly. My CZ 70's protruding take down button is a good example.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #10  
Old 08-12-2017, 06:05 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

And a parallel revelation: it's very likely that the average person's holster never saw a real pistol, even in the design stage. A review of sites and forums shows that at least all the small makers rely entirely on 'blue guns' from design through production ("just got a 'banana' for the new Smith, now I can take orders"). That means they aren't ever confronted with moving controls like buttons and triggers, and slides that can move out of battery, for example. Or triggers that move enough to fire the pistol if something gets into the guard even after the pistol is holstered.

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-milt-sparks-2014-9-jpg
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-12-2017 at 06:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 08-12-2017, 07:35 PM
Supreme's Avatar
Supreme Supreme 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 2016
Location: NC
Posts: 37
Likes: 47
Liked 23 Times in 11 Posts
Default

I'm lost, was trying to follow your points, but nah it's not working
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #12  
Old 08-12-2017, 09:09 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith 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 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 21,688
Likes: 25,568
Liked 17,584 Times in 8,733 Posts
Default I think that you are right in saying...

More guns are being carried concealed, at least in the US, and that the immense variety of guns and holsters make the best decision difficult. I try to get holsters that are made for that particular gun. However, I was stumped when I was asked if I wanted the 'Artemus' cut? Maybe the gun is more accessible to me, but also to bad guys and foreign objects.

Some holster are fine when new and get more pliable (like the backs of a pair of sneakers). They can fold and catch the trigger while trying to holster.

I know very little about holsters so I have to do research and make sure the choice is a good one and doesn't leave me open to mishaps.

Not coming from the viewpoint of holsters primarily, I'm having difficulty seeing your points except that "Every gun needs a correct holster' and just going out and buying a holster often isn't good enough.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #13  
Old 08-12-2017, 09:55 PM
SG-688 SG-688 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 568
Likes: 97
Liked 775 Times in 227 Posts
Default

My 1970 model 55 was made for cocked & locked carry, yet my 1974 Safariland model 54 came with the thumb snap configured for hammer down carry. I was dumbstruck. Fortunately, the tension induced when snapped with the hammer cocked helped keep everything tight.

Here's a picture from about 1970 showing a motorcycle cop carrying a .45 hammer down in a model 55. Shocking.
Attached Thumbnails
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-safariland-m55-hammer-down-vernon-ca-jpg  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #14  
Old 08-12-2017, 10:11 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG-688 View Post
My 1970 model 55 was made for cocked & locked carry, yet my 1974 Safariland model 54 came with the thumb snap configured for hammer down carry. I was dumbstruck. Fortunately, the tension induced when snapped with the hammer cocked helped keep everything tight.

Here's a picture from about 1970 showing a motorcycle cop carrying a .45 hammer down in a model 55. Shocking.
Absolutely on point. Condition One (a system of conditions that Jeff is credited for inventing) just wasn't done before the '70s. Now it's taken for granted to the point where concealment holsters are actually strapless, not least because thumbsnaps can actually switch the thumb safety to 'fire' by pressing the snaps together. Again, because the thumbsnap was invented for DA revolvers and then adapted to SA autos, for which it is unsuited.

For anyone I couldn't explain well enough for -- if you're carrying a Glock, nevertheless your holster's configuration is just a 1911 holster adapted to the Glock action, and doesn't safeguard you as it would the 1911 -- that's my failure. Ideally -- carry with the muzzle in a safe direction, your holster maker isn't paying attention to the risk you take otherwise :-). Not even the biggest ones (Safariland) nor the smallest (insert your favourite so-called 'custom' maker (they're standard products, not custom).
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-12-2017 at 10:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #15  
Old 08-12-2017, 10:38 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 rednichols View Post
And a parallel revelation: it's very likely that the average person's holster never saw a real pistol, even in the design stage. A review of sites and forums shows that at least all the small makers rely entirely on 'blue guns' from design through production ("just got a 'banana' for the new Smith, now I can take orders"). That means they aren't ever confronted with moving controls like buttons and triggers, and slides that can move out of battery, for example. Or triggers that move enough to fire the pistol if something gets into the guard even after the pistol is holstered.

Attachment 297718
I think I'm a bit slow. If I'm following your train of thought correctly you're saying three things.

1) The current trigger protection on holsters is inadequate for modern pistol design, but it's difficult to tell by lookimg at it.

2) lots of holster makers are building holsters using blue guns without testimg them with real pistols.

3) You believe this puts comcealed carry people at risk, paticularily if their holstered pistol is pointed at vulnerable body parts.

Is that close to your point? Could you post some additional comparison pics to help us understand good trigger design from a bad one.
__________________
Vegan by proxy.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-12-2017, 10:39 PM
TxShooter TxShooter 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 2000
Location: East Texas
Posts: 134
Likes: 22
Liked 82 Times in 20 Posts
Default

It sounds more like the nature of the beast than an actual design deficiency. If you wish to carry a pistol with a weaponlight, the mouth of the holster has to be sufficiently wide to accommodate the bezel, then the leather, Kydex, or whatever is tapered to cover as much of the trigger as possible. Depending on the design of the pistol some holsters will have more of a gap than others. Personally, I find it an acceptable tradeoff to have a light mounted for uniformed patrol or raids, vs. the remote possibility that something will work its way into the gap.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #17  
Old 08-13-2017, 01:31 AM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TxShooter View Post
It sounds more like the nature of the beast than an actual design deficiency. If you wish to carry a pistol with a weaponlight, the mouth of the holster has to be sufficiently wide to accommodate the bezel, then the leather, Kydex, or whatever is tapered to cover as much of the trigger as possible. Depending on the design of the pistol some holsters will have more of a gap than others. Personally, I find it an acceptable tradeoff to have a light mounted for uniformed patrol or raids, vs. the remote possibility that something will work its way into the gap.
Indeed, that is also a direct consequence of rigid Kydex being moulded to allow the light into the holster; my armourer and I have had that discussion separately. Trouble is, if it create a problem for unsophisticated users (and we know that includes many a street cop), then they don't know the risk until after the fact.

It does suggest that if a holster can't be made to safely accommodate a given pistol configuration, then the holster maker shouldn't be building the holster at all; and it should go back to the the pistol and accessory makers to get the combination right (via the P.D., for example, which is what is happening in the Vic PD case).

That's just not possible for the individuals who buy a single unit off the rack for personal use; he has no leverage (yet); yet they are counting on 'racing to improve the breed' such as competition and uniform use. So he doesn't know that the protection he had when he carried a 1911 or a Combat Magnum, isn't actually there -- and another problem he hasn't thought of has been added.

"Nature of the beast" reminds me of the well-known management book called "The Bed Was on Fire When I Laid Down on It" -- as an excuse for going along with the problem, it begs failure. I don't mean that as a personal attack; I mean that the holster maker has the discretion to do the right thing on your behalf.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-13-2017 at 01:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #18  
Old 08-13-2017, 01:46 AM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy2525 View Post
I think I'm a bit slow. If I'm following your train of thought correctly you're saying three things.

1) The current trigger protection on holsters is inadequate for modern pistol design, but it's difficult to tell by lookimg at it.

2) lots of holster makers are building holsters using blue guns without testimg them with real pistols.

3) You believe this puts comcealed carry people at risk, paticularily if their holstered pistol is pointed at vulnerable body parts.

Is that close to your point? Could you post some additional comparison pics to help us understand good trigger design from a bad one.
I did say those things. Is that a complete summary? I think I meant to say that the industry, and its buyers, don't realise that a Glock action pistol in a 1911 action holster design ADDED a layer of risk that they, and consumers, haven't even considered.

Of course we've all seen plenty of posts about holsters of old, saying "I wouldn't carry my guns with that exposed trigger guard" yet it's a DA revolver. The reason trigger guards were covered was not to protect the gunman from himself; it was to protect him from assaults on his weapon. That immediately caused trouble with the trigger shoes that were so common in the 1960s and throughout the 1970s: designed for competition, they 'bled' over into holsters -- and because they are wider than the trigger guard by a lot, LOTS of shootings whilst holstering occurred. So the Bianchi company, and most every company since then, added warning labels to the products, and to the packaging.

This new situation (well, it's been around for yonks) creates the ADDITIONAL problem of the gun being fired when its simply being carried; not just when holstering or drawing. So covered guards solve one problem but create another.

Best summary, then: if you're carrying a Glock action pistol, realise that your holster maker thinks he's thought of everything when in fact he hasn't. That's why old pics of, say, Bruce Nelson carrying his Commander cocked and locked in what he called 'forward of hip carry' (mistakenly called 'appendix carry' which is an old, rough label that Jeff used) are not instructive when carrying a Glock action: there is no 'locked' to go with the 'cocked'. I actually had this blue with a small holster maker a few years ago, and he never did "get it".
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-13-2017 at 01:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #19  
Old 08-13-2017, 02:30 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: 1,313
Likes: 891
Liked 1,589 Times in 693 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
I see I was being too circumspect :-). Yet all in all, I appreciate that the responses so far are reasonable.

The holsters in question: Kydex Safariland holsters, which are moulded in such a way that the trigger can still be accessed, by either a BG (the Victorian situation) or a random object (the US story). So: the trigger is "covered" in name only. Sorry, I thought that was obvious from the stories.

...

Why would I bother to post? Because literally no one else has been paying attention on 'your' (holster wearers) behalf, that today's pistols have actually CREATED a danger when the trigger is covered
Oh no. I get exactly what you're saying. I just think you're wrong.

The trigger of a striker-fired pistol needs to be covered. This is a necessity. The pistol has a firing pin block which can only be deactivated by depressing the trigger, so controlling the trigger is key. This is, in many respects, quite similar to the 1911 and thumb-strap holsters, in that the strap's interference between hammer and firing pin is the critical safety design (not the manual safety). The difference is that the "firing pin block" on the Glock is internal, whereas on the 1911, it's part of the holster.

Lacking a manual safety does not make them any less safe than any other design.

You've written a long-winded post about a "problem", but you seem to think it's some new one, when it's not.

There have always been cheap, miserably-poor holsters.

Writing about this over and over again, and telling me about some twit in Australia that bought 18,000 poorly-made holsters that I wouldn't have spent two bucks of my own money on, makes me feel as if you think I'm a twit.

TL;DR--I don't need a PSA to tell me how to buy a holster. I think the slower kids over on ARforum or Glocktalk would benefit from it more.
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
  #20  
Old 08-13-2017, 06:06 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
Oh no. I get exactly what you're saying. I just think you're wrong.

The trigger of a striker-fired pistol needs to be covered. This is a necessity. The pistol has a firing pin block which can only be deactivated by depressing the trigger, so controlling the trigger is key. This is, in many respects, quite similar to the 1911 and thumb-strap holsters, in that the strap's interference between hammer and firing pin is the critical safety design (not the manual safety). The difference is that the "firing pin block" on the Glock is internal, whereas on the 1911, it's part of the holster.

Lacking a manual safety does not make them any less safe than any other design.

You've written a long-winded post about a "problem", but you seem to think it's some new one, when it's not.

There have always been cheap, miserably-poor holsters.

Writing about this over and over again, and telling me about some twit in Australia that bought 18,000 poorly-made holsters that I wouldn't have spent two bucks of my own money on, makes me feel as if you think I'm a twit.

TL;DR--I don't need a PSA to tell me how to buy a holster. I think the slower kids over on ARforum or Glocktalk would benefit from it more.
Oh, I'm not wrong. Nor am I saying that the trigger shouldn't be covered :-). And my post is not directed at the sophisticated user.

But then if you think I'm wrong, but in this case I'M the sophisticated user (50 years of professionally dealing with the rights and wrongs of holsters), then the PSA went to the right place: you personally, and heaps of others, didn't and still don't grasp the risk you're taking. The Glock action is a different risk from the 1911 in condition one.

Safety includes necessary risk -- a driver of a forklift is actually sitting on the forklift and the lift can and does tip over; yet it's necessary because the machine needs an operator -- and unnecessary risk, such as someone standing under the loaded, lifted pallet to inspect it (yes, I've seen it and stopped it).

My post is to say 'the emperor has no clothes': some/many/all don't know they are taking an un-examined, unnecessary risk :-). But don't be going and telling Safariland that you never did think much of their products (those are the holsters in play here in Oz), they'd be displeased. And that it's Safariland holsters in Australia is not indicative that they aren't as smart here, as you are there.

I think that's enough on this topic from both of us. Some will get it, some will not, and "time has already tolled": the accidents that were predictable, are already happening.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #21  
Old 08-13-2017, 08:07 PM
OLDSTER's Avatar
OLDSTER OLDSTER 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 2016
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 2,659
Liked 1,635 Times in 555 Posts
Default new paradigm

Whew !! My brain can't keep up with this thread !!
__________________
SWCA 2952
John
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #22  
Old 08-13-2017, 09:17 PM
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: 1,313
Likes: 891
Liked 1,589 Times in 693 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Oh, I'm not wrong. Nor am I saying that the trigger shouldn't be covered :-). And my post is not directed at the sophisticated user.

But then if you think I'm wrong, but in this case I'M the sophisticated user (50 years of professionally dealing with the rights and wrongs of holsters), then the PSA went to the right place: you personally, and heaps of others, didn't and still don't grasp the risk you're taking. The Glock action is a different risk from the 1911 in condition one.
I actually don't think you're the "sophisticated user" here. I think you're uncomfortable with striker-fired pistols unequipped with a manual safety. I think that the fact that I don't agree with you makes you feel insecure, because by this point, most people either agree with you or stop engaging with you.

I think that that is why you are resorting to an argument by authority.

I think that it's humorous that you do this without knowing precisely who I am. And I think that asserting that I am somehow in danger without knowing what holster I use, how I checked it for safety, what gun I carry, and what technique I use to "dress" with it is very funny.

I also think that you're normally a good poster, but you're a bit off-base on this one. That's fine--I never agree 100% with everyone.

But by all means, please--what is this risk that I am taking?
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #23  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:17 AM
Rpg Rpg 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: May 2013
Location: Denver area
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 5,013
Liked 3,550 Times in 1,413 Posts
Default

I think Red know exactly what he's talking about.

Wise A would do better thinking about what Red has to say instead of engaging in selection bias (defending what he owns because he bought it).
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #24  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:20 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: 7,221
Likes: 11,928
Liked 15,482 Times in 4,136 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moo Moo View Post
Here is a link to the news story about the recall of Victorian State Police and their new holsters for the S&W M&P's.
I read that article. It's totally worthless for informational purposes.

It doesn't even say what the problem with the holsters was, and it doesn't name the manufacturer. It also doesn't even describe the holsters or what they're made from, other than to say they're "custom made". Smith & Wesson and the M&P pistol aren't even mentioned in the article.

There's nothing to see there. Period.
__________________
I can't get no...satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #25  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:35 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: 7,597
Likes: 2,677
Liked 9,190 Times in 3,297 Posts
Default

All I know is that every holster in which I've ever carried a Glock, since about 1990, covered the trigger, and I also know from being too close that when you try to holster a Glock with your finger on the trigger, it will eventually go bang . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #26  
Old 08-14-2017, 01:43 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: 7,221
Likes: 11,928
Liked 15,482 Times in 4,136 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Some comments reinforce this: whatever mythology has developed around the 1911 being 'designed' to be carried in Condition One, you should realise that it was rarely done until the 1960s and Jeff Cooper's Big Bear competitions (the point of that reference) inspired first competition shooters, then concealment carriers, then police departments to the point where it became the norm. But the pistols have changed.
Well, I guess you're talking to me, since I'm the one who brought up the "mythology" about the 1911 back up there in Post #9. I won't argue the point very far, but I'll say this: If the 1911 wasn't designed to be carried cocked and locked, why do you think John Browning designed the pistol with two mechanical safeties and the third "safety" being the trigger, itself, that had to be pulled to fire the pistol?

And this whole thing about carrying cocked and locked being done only "rarely" before the 70s or the 60s is simply apocryphal. You offer no evidence or documentation to substantiate that statement, but seem to think I should accept it as gospel simply because you say so. That's not gonna happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Absolutely on point. Condition One (a system of conditions that Jeff is credited for inventing) just wasn't done before the '70s.
Here we go with that again. His Majesty Jeff Cooper didn't "invent" Condition One any more than I invented smokeless powder. What Cooper did was define carry conditions for the 1911...by that I mean he gave them names. He didn't invent doodly squat, and that includes what became known as the "Modern Technique".

He took elements and techniques he observed in others...Jack Weaver, for instance...combined them, honed them, and gave them a name. That's what Cooper is known for, not for "inventing" anything.

Make no mistake here, I respect you as a great holster designer and the driving force behind Bianchi during the company's glory days (my original #50 Chapman High Ride is one of my leather treasures). But how you can make these blanket statements such as Condition One "just wasn't done before the '70s" is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
For anyone I couldn't explain well enough for -- if you're carrying a Glock, nevertheless your holster's configuration is just a 1911 holster adapted to the Glock action, and doesn't safeguard you as it would the 1911...
That thought, that statement, simply leaves me speechless. I have no idea what to say or think about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
-- that's my failure. Ideally -- carry with the muzzle in a safe direction, your holster maker isn't paying attention to the risk you take otherwise :-). Not even the biggest ones (Safariland) nor the smallest (insert your favourite so-called 'custom' maker (they're standard products, not custom).
Well, if that's the case, I reckon I could just go on down to Cabela's and pick up a Galco or DeSantis holster off the rack instead of ponying up big bucks and waiting four to eight weeks for a Red Nichols "custom made" holster. Man, I bet Karla Van Horne would be really disappointed to find out she hasn't been doing real custom work all these years. Whew. Sure wouldn't want to be around her when she gets that news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Oh, I'm not wrong.
No offense, but you think that might be just a tiny bit arrogant on your part? If not, there isn't any point to anyone else (including me) offering different opinions, is there?

That's it from me on this subject.
__________________
I can't get no...satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #27  
Old 08-14-2017, 04:05 PM
TomkinsSP's Avatar
TomkinsSP TomkinsSP 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: May 2017
Location: E of America's Great Lake
Posts: 281
Likes: 39
Liked 198 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inusuit View Post
The movie distorted the facts.
Sorry if my post was recieved as off-topic. My intent was to say poor design is timeless.

To the rest, as Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains) exclaimed "I am SHOCKED! (Hollywood would distort facts).
__________________
Its better without the...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-14-2017, 06:29 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: 4,073
Likes: 10,910
Liked 4,038 Times in 1,390 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
Well, I guess you're talking to me, since I'm the one who brought up the "mythology" about the 1911 back up there in Post #9. I won't argue the point very far, but I'll say this: If the 1911 wasn't designed to be carried cocked and locked, why do you think John Browning designed the pistol with two mechanical safeties and the third "safety" being the trigger, itself, that had to be pulled to fire the pistol?
No, Browning originally designed the 1911 with only a single mechanical safety. The second safety was an afterthought redundancy imposed by the Army.

Quote:
And this whole thing about carrying cocked and locked being done only "rarely" before the 70s or the 60s is simply apocryphal. You offer no evidence or documentation to substantiate that statement, but seem to think I should accept it as gospel simply because you say so. That's not gonna happen.
In nearly every photo you'll find of 1911s carried on a person prior to the '60s-'70s, the gun is not cocked.
__________________
SWCA #2842
SWHF #448

Last edited by -db-; 08-14-2017 at 06:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #29  
Old 08-14-2017, 10:40 PM
AZretired's Avatar
AZretired AZretired 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: Jul 2006
Location: Arizona & Michigan
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 337
Liked 576 Times in 308 Posts
Default

Red, I get what you mean. Each person who buys a holster for a particular gun, needs to make sure it is safe for that gun. For example, back when my department decided to allow us to carry personally owned 1911s, I purchased a Bianchi Model 5BHL high ride duty holster for my Springfield 1911. At the end of my first day carrying it on duty, I un-holstered when I got home and found the safety dis-engaged,
Further inspection showed it was safe while holstered because in addition to the grip safety, the thumb break blocked the hammer. The problem was, the safety was pushed off when the thumb break was snapped.

Long story short it took some surgery to the holster to make it safe. It was actually a very simple fix that would have been noticed had Bianchi used a real gun when fitting the holster.
__________________
Support the NRA!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #30  
Old 08-14-2017, 11:31 PM
ExcitableBoy's Avatar
ExcitableBoy ExcitableBoy 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: Feb 2017
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 382
Likes: 681
Liked 622 Times in 235 Posts
Default

Wow... keeping tabs on this thread is as entertaining as observing a circular firing squad in action!

From all posts, I can condense everything to one sentence: When an individual purchases a holster, it is up to them to ensure proper fit and function.

TA DA!!!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-15-2017, 07:12 AM
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 AZretired View Post
...

Long story short it took some surgery to the holster to make it safe. It was actually a very simple fix that would have been noticed had Bianchi used a real gun when fitting the holster.
I thought he took it a step or two further than that. He was saying there are some modern pistol designs, striker fired generally and Glock specifically, where no safe holster design is possible.

Pretty sure he was advocating for pistol manufacturers to involve "holster scientists" early in the pistol design process to ensure a proper holster could be made for the pistol. Also think he was warning forum members if they owned a striker fired pistol, whatever holster they had, it wasn't safe.

That was my take.
__________________
Vegan by proxy.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #32  
Old 08-15-2017, 07:59 AM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 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: Feb 2015
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 591
Liked 2,968 Times in 952 Posts
Default

I think your take was a little over the top.

My take was:

1. It is the end user's responsibility to ensure that their holster is safe with their pistol, given how they carry it; and

2. If you carry a striker fired pistol without a manual safety, there are some extra considerations that you need to take into account because some holsters that cover the trigger, fail to fully protect the trigger from potential intrusion of objects into the trigger guard.

Now....you can argue the finer points of the "new paradigm" posed by striker fired pistols with all the safeties tied to the trigger or the "Big Bear paradigm" of 1911's being carried cocked and locked (and thus when most people started carrying the 1911 cocked and locked), but 1 and 2 above were accurately conveyed.

If I have any objection, it's that his examples of an object intruding into the holster are very low probability freakish occurrences. That may draw attention away from the higher frequency occurrence of NDs occurring while holstering a revolver or pistol. This is particularly a concern with striker fired pistols due to the shooter not understanding the pistol and holster as a system, and failing to fully understand the increased vulnerabilities involved with a pistol that has a short, light trigger pull with no manual safety.

-----

I've posted a time or two on holster considerations for shooters who want to conceal carry, covering what a good holster needs to do to protect the trigger, how the shooter needs to holster and re-holster different handguns and the special considerations for SA pistols DA/SA pistols, DA revolvers and striker fired pistols.

I also made the point that using a striker fired pistol with a duty holster that places the pistol out away from the body is significantly different than carrying one in an OWB holster.

Still, if you look around you'll see shooters with those incredibly stupid belt clips mounted to the slides and frames of their revolvers and pistols. It's bad enough with a 1911, or a DA revolver, but it is sheer idiocy with a Glock. It's proof that some we do indeed have some short bus shooters out there who just don't get it and truly believe that their booger hook is the only safety they need.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #33  
Old 08-17-2017, 08:33 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

I think that all posters in this thread have behaved wonderfully, and for that I thank you. Very impressive.

I've started a separate thread on the holstory that relates to the auto pistol Mea culpa, I thought it was well known when Condition One became part of our little world.

The difficulty with long posts -- mine -- is that one can easily lose track of all the points being made and instead focus in on one that we might not agree with.

To that end: I am not at all saying that it is the end users' responsibility to get it right. A big holster maker might make that claim, but it's baseless. In order: pistol maker, ammo maker, accessory maker (light attached to pistol), holster maker, issuing body (the p.d., for example), trainer, supervisor, user.

The bulk of the incidents I've seen reported involve striker fired pistols with lights attached, in uniformed situations. "What wins on Sunday (race day) sells on Monday" is as true with pistols and holsters and lights as it is with cars and motorcycles. So one forum thread I encountered (Pm me for it if you like) is all civilians carrying Glocks AIWB -- including with lights.

The lights introduce a gap near the trigger, because they have a substantially larger diameter than the trigger guard. But the guard LOOKS covered, so it is TREATED as if it is covered. But shooting it in the holster is child's play, quite literally: a little finger went onto the trigger, bang, officer down. WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITH A HOLSTERED 1911 IN CONDITION ONE EQUIPPED WITH A STRAP and still unlikely without a strap. IS possible with a striker fired pistol, because even a strap won't stop the firing cycle. In the US case I linked to, the fired case was still in the chamber because the pistol couldn't cycle AFTER the shot; but couldn't be stopped from FIRING the shot.

So: carrying a Glock type action in the ready to shoot configuration (who wouldn't) is NOT the same problem as carrying a 1911 in Condition One, or carrying a DA revolver hammer down.

And: we began covering trigger guards on the 1911 when Condition One became a pistol range standard, and added it to police holsters even for DA autos. Then to revolvers: because of assaults on the officers so that perhaps the pistol wouldn't be fired in the holster during the struggle. The straps then -- the thumb snap was brand new in the 1960s -- blocked the hammers of all. Even if one had an old Mauser broom handle!

But not on striker fired pistols.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-17-2017 at 08:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #34  
Old 08-17-2017, 08:40 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Should have added pics to my previous posts; can't add them.

Here is what a big deal assaults on officers became by 1970; an old Bianchi ad for their M27:

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-27-evolves-1-jpg

The adoption of the 27 caused us to do two things: create a smaller version that only fit the K frame, which we cleverly called the 27K; and fit a thumbsnap that went over the hammer. By mid-70s.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #35  
Old 08-17-2017, 10:14 PM
Practical Practical is offline
Member
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Liked 206 Times in 112 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
And a parallel revelation: it's very likely that the average person's holster never saw a real pistol, even in the design stage. A review of sites and forums shows that at least all the small makers rely entirely on 'blue guns' from design through production ("just got a 'banana' for the new Smith, now I can take orders"). That means they aren't ever confronted with moving controls like buttons and triggers, and slides that can move out of battery, for example. Or triggers that move enough to fire the pistol if something gets into the guard even after the pistol is holstered.

Additional EDIT added point, the fact that MANY 1911's have varying dimensions and safety eases or hardness to engage adds to the difficulty. 1911's are NOT all to a common standard. They vary.

Attachment 297718
That might be true for SMALL holster makers, but it is decidedly NOT true for any industrial sized holster maker. You regularly see every (5-10 years) used firearms and out of production models going for sale on auction sites. That is about the life cycle. Furthermore laser makers regularly buy guns and holsters to help define their designs. If you read their sales literature they solicit feedback from endusers who find their guns with the lasers do not fit in their holster. They want to know why.

I KNOW some guns are used by even smaller holster makers because I purchased a demo gun sent to the holster maker & FFL after he completed his 'design' phase.

I think the proliferation of SMALL production run holster makers and Kydex clowns fuels the idea that holsters are an after thought.

Last edited by Practical; 08-17-2017 at 10:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #36  
Old 08-18-2017, 03:15 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: 1,313
Likes: 891
Liked 1,589 Times in 693 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
The bulk of the incidents I've seen reported involve striker fired pistols with lights attached, in uniformed situations. "What wins on Sunday (race day) sells on Monday" is as true with pistols and holsters and lights as it is with cars and motorcycles. So one forum thread I encountered (Pm me for it if you like) is all civilians carrying Glocks AIWB -- including with lights.
Man, screw lights on guns. I pass over any holster that accommodates a light or other slide-rail accessory.

That's a toy for shieldbearing doorkickers--not CCW pistols.

Quote:
So: carrying a Glock type action in the ready to shoot configuration (who wouldn't) is NOT the same problem as carrying a 1911 in Condition One, or carrying a DA revolver hammer down.
But see--I'm comfortable with that, within the holsters I own. That's the drawback of the design, and given all the nice things that it does for me, I really can't complain (although I am learning to properly salivate over S&W DAO semis). To tell you the truth--I rather appreciate a pistol with so few external controls, and so few pieces of its mechanism exposed to the environment.

I see the same sort of "marketing bleed" on 1911-types that you see with accessory lights. Extended and ambidextrous safeties are found on all sorts of carry-marketed 1911s. Ditto for grip safeties--ever more aggressive and lightly-sprung beavertails are the norm.

My point is that I don't think that this is a problem unique to the striker-fired pistol. Everything on a 1911 and holster--the thumbstrap, the manual safety, grip safety, etc--is exposed to the environment, which we must treat as constantly conspiring to shoot us in the foot.

The only safety feature protected from the elements is the humble half-cock notch. And if we are treating all the other "safeties" as things we can't truly rely on, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the trigger must be properly covered.

But--over a large enough scale, somebody's going to manage to shoot themselves. The real question is if we've done enough to ensure we're not That Guy. Given the overwhelming number of striker-fired pistols in use by law enforcement and CCWers, the real headline should be that there are so few truly accidental discharges.

PS--The break-front holster was a slick piece of kit. All the leather holsters with various "anti-grab" designs of that era were pretty neat, and far more ingenious than some modern...umm, "efforts".


Last edited by Wise_A; 08-18-2017 at 03:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:05 AM
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: 7,597
Likes: 2,677
Liked 9,190 Times in 3,297 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
And a parallel revelation: it's very likely that the average person's holster never saw a real pistol, even in the design stage. A review of sites and forums shows that at least all the small makers rely entirely on 'blue guns' from design through production ("just got a 'banana' for the new Smith, now I can take orders"). That means they aren't ever confronted with moving controls like buttons and triggers, and slides that can move out of battery, for example. Or triggers that move enough to fire the pistol if something gets into the guard even after the pistol is holstered.

Attachment 297718
Well, all I know is that when this company first began, it was headquartered in Fenton, Missouri, just up the road from me.

Eagle Industries - Home

The founder, John Carver, had a walk in safe in his office as big as my living room. Climate controlled, fire suppressed, steel reinforced concrete, bank vault door. One each of every firearm he made a holster or gun bag for, from J Frame Smith & Wesson to Class III Heckler & Koch. All of his his holsters and bags saw a real firearm.

He wasn't a big manufacturer at the time, he was just trying to get a foot in the door, but he believed in quality and performance, so he used real guns. And then Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and every bolt of ballistic nylon in John's small sheet metal building turned sand colored. He made a fortune.

Sadly, he made the business attractive enough that it was bought by a parent company. Selection and quality immediately dove. John walked away quite well compensated . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Last edited by Muss Muggins; 08-18-2017 at 07:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-18-2017, 12:35 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: 11,677
Likes: 1,728
Liked 10,859 Times in 4,460 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
...whatever mythology has developed around the 1911 being 'designed' to be carried in Condition One, you should realise that it was rarely done until the 1960s and Jeff Cooper...
Indeed, but you must also realize that prior to Col Cooper, the revolver was still the gun of choice. In fact, the SAA was still quite popular until Col Cooper showed how the 1911 could be reliable. Most also thought it was faster to not use the sights until Jack Weaver started beating everyone by using the sights. That's a story for another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
...your holster maker isn't paying attention to the risk you take...
No, I don't agree with this at all. The risk is wholly on the user. If you buy a garbage holster, that's on you. Even so, I don't think there's a single holster maker in the world that is intentionally making unsafe holsters.

None of the holsters I own, and I have a bunch, are susceptible to the problem that happened in IL. Neither were any of them made with that particular problem in mind. It was a freak accident. We learn from it and move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
To that end: I am not at all saying that it is the end users' responsibility to get it right.
But you should be. Ultimately, the responsibility to be safe falls on the user. With the exception being a company that knowingly makes a faulty device. Even if that's the case, it's the end user that should realize the flaw and avoid the product.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols
the 21st century trend is belly carry (incorrectly called appendix carry)
You've said this a few times in this thread and you are the one who has it wrong. I'm not sure why you'd even make this statement, but it throws into question the veracity of everything you've said when you're so obviously wrong about this very simple point. Carrying your gun in front of your appendix is indeed appendix carry. Why even bring this up? I guess if we're talking about left hand shooters, it's not appendix carry. But now we're into the whole clip vs magazine argument and the point is moot.

I don't think carrying a gun there is wise. Maybe even foolish. It's certainly uncomfortable, but is a fast draw.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #39  
Old 08-18-2017, 04:47 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Rastoff makes some good points and misses my main point. But I won't belabour the matter.

Instead, a history lesson about 'appendix' carry. It was Cooper who got the ball of twine rolling on this one. In a very early book of his, at which point the clocking system along the belt hadn't been considered yet, Jeff used a very rough anatomical mapping system.

There were four positions on his 'clock': appendix, spleen, and both kidneys. Fast forward to Bruce Nelson's era, and what Bruce called 'forward of hip carry' and we today call 2:00, Jeff continued to call 'appendix'.

If one is familiar with Bruce's carry, it was not over his appendix. But as time went on, and Bruce being a revered character amongst some, any position from 2:00 to 10:00 (across the front) became 'appendix'. And 'authorised' because Bruce did it.

It took me awhike, and many pics in various forum threads, to realise we were all speaking of different things. This matters because I oppose belly carry including over the appendix because the muzzle is pointed unsafely when seated -- but I don't oppose how Bruce carried at 2:00 -- his was FBI tilt with muzzle to the rear. He was of an era where no pro was going to muzzle himself.

Hence my turn of phrase 'belly carry incorrectly called appendix carry'. The distinction matters. And he carried a Commander in Condition One, not a striker pistol.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-18-2017 at 04:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:38 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: 11,677
Likes: 1,728
Liked 10,859 Times in 4,460 Posts
Default

Well Red, in modern parlance, appendix carry is indeed carried over the appendix. Not just anywhere along the midsection. I would agree with you if you were speaking to someone who was carrying over their belly button and calling it appendix carry; that would be wrong. However, you phrasing doesn't state that. It simply says that anyone using the term appendix carry is wrong, period. When in fact, the term "belly carry" would be less accurate.

I may indeed have missed your point, but I'm trying to get it. The post seems to be saying that all holster makers everywhere, with potentially the sole exception of yourself, are making holsters without regard to the user. It's often that things get misinterpreted on the internet. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I'm reading and I just don't believe it.

Further, in the OP it seems as though you're blaming firearm manufacturers for failing to consider how the gun is handled when not being fired. I don't understand this either.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #41  
Old 08-18-2017, 10:24 PM
SG-688 SG-688 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 568
Likes: 97
Liked 775 Times in 227 Posts
Default

It's common to see everything up to and including the belly button position called appendix. I think A = appendage is a more apt.

Here's Bruce demonstrating muzzle rear 2:00 in 1980.
About 2:30 - maybe even quarter-to-three [the Sinatra position!] - works better for me.

Ironically, Cooper in the 1965 Complete Book of Shooting that proposed the anatomical holster positions ranked the OWB appendix, with the muzzle clear of the body, high for safety.

"The appendix position (forward of the hip on the strong side, with the muzzle raked about 15 forward) is both faster and safer than the kidney position ..."
Attached Thumbnails
The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-nelson-bruce-holster-forward-1980-jpg   The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-nelson-bruce-holster-forward-iwb-2-1980-jpg   The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-cooper-jeff-holsters-appendix-1965-jpg  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #42  
Old 08-18-2017, 11:01 PM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SG-688 View Post
It's common to see everything up to and including the belly button position called appendix. I think A = appendage is a more apt.

Here's Bruce demonstrating muzzle rear 2:00 in 1980.
About 2:30 - maybe even quarter-to-three [the Sinatra position!] - works better for me.

Ironically, Cooper in the 1965 Complete Book of Shooting that proposed the anatomical holster positions ranked the OWB appendix, with the muzzle clear of the body, high for safety.

"The appendix position (forward of the hip on the strong side, with the muzzle raked about 15 forward) is both faster and safer than the kidney position ..."
Excellent. I just wouldn't have wanted Uncle Jeff to sit with his pistol carried that way :-). And I doubt he ever did. But if I personally HAD to, I would not want it to be a striker pistol.

Ok, a challenge.

I will personally endorse, in writing, each and every holster maker who looks at the pic I've attached, and after comparing it with Bruce's picture (he wrote the article that appeared in, and called his method 'forward of hip carry'), agrees that it is a DIFFERENT/GREATER risk for you than Bruce's (see notes after):

The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.-aiwb-courtesy-defensivecarry-com_-jpg

IF he/she also makes no holsters either expressly for appendix carry, or that can be carried there.

Whilst I was out of the biz 2000-2010 (lived in Victoria where even blue guns are banned, now live in QLD where with a license I can and do get them) I did not know that with the turn of the century, appendix had moved round over the belly. When I found out I went on a mission to correct the obvious and -- got flamed by all especially Tony Kanaley.

What do I do about it -- I only offer holsters that are unsuited to carry between 3:00 and 9:00 across the belly: all my designs have 24 degrees grip forward carry with the very intent of preventing them from being carried within that clocking range (can't grasp the pistol suitably). Does that cost me money in lost sales? You betcha, it's a mighty popular carry.

What else? I pay an armourer in USA to test every prototype, and then EVERY production holster, with the pistol it was made for, before they are permitted to reach my buyers. Expensive? You bet. Worth it? You bet.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-18-2017 at 11:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #43  
Old 08-19-2017, 12:04 AM
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: 7,597
Likes: 2,677
Liked 9,190 Times in 3,297 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
This matters because I oppose belly carry including over the appendix because the muzzle is pointed unsafely when seated -- but I don't oppose how Bruce carried at 2:00 -- his was FBI tilt with muzzle to the rear. He was of an era where no pro was going to muzzle himself.

Hence my turn of phrase 'belly carry incorrectly called appendix carry'. The distinction matters. And he carried a Commander in Condition One, not a striker pistol.
Isn't any IWB holster ultimately pointing a muzzle at a body part, regardless of clock position? I see from your website that you make IWB holsters which when worn at 4 o'clock point the muzzle at the fleshy part of most people's sitting place. You also make horizontal shoulder holsters that point the muzzle of the pistol at the person behind you in line, arguably a more egregious safety violation. Please stop complaining. You really have no standing with this unless you don't make holsters that don't point at a body part or an innocent third party. All carry methods involve risk. It's how we manage the risk that makes us successful . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #44  
Old 08-19-2017, 12:15 AM
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: 7,597
Likes: 2,677
Liked 9,190 Times in 3,297 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
This matters because I oppose belly carry including over the appendix because the muzzle is pointed unsafely when seated
And yet you don't oppose horizontal carry shoulder holsters, pointed at the head of the child behind you in line . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-19-2017, 12:49 AM
rednichols's Avatar
rednichols rednichols 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: Jul 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 699
Likes: 480
Liked 1,690 Times in 535 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muss Muggins View Post
Isn't any IWB holster ultimately pointing a muzzle at a body part, regardless of clock position? I see from your website that you make IWB holsters which when worn at 4 o'clock point the muzzle at the fleshy part of most people's sitting place. You also make horizontal shoulder holsters that point the muzzle of the pistol at the person behind you in line, arguably a more egregious safety violation. Please stop complaining. You really have no standing with this unless you don't make holsters that don't point at a body part or an innocent third party. All carry methods involve risk. It's how we manage the risk that makes us successful . . .
It's not up to you :-). And raising awareness is not 'complaining'. Muss, I hope you don't make holsters, because if you do, then according to my challenge, you have intentionally earned a 'fail'.

No, safety is NOT about managing risk. Especially with firearms, it is about eliminating UNNECESSARY risks. I made that point very early on (OK, maybe in the other thread): some risks are absolutely necessary and cannot be 'managed'.

Back on point, this thread is about my view -- I've not seen any compelling evidence otherwise here -- that striker fired pistols represent a different, higher risk when holstered than condition 3 1911s; than DA revolvers; than SA revolvers. And therefore an unnecessary risk.

But I did let it drift onto other folks' agendas, and for that 'mea culpa'. Yours included. Thousands of views of the thread suggest that perhaps someone will 'get the point'.
__________________
Red Nichols
Holstorian (tm).

Last edited by rednichols; 08-19-2017 at 12:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-19-2017, 04:12 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: 1,313
Likes: 891
Liked 1,589 Times in 693 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Back on point, this thread is about my view -- I've not seen any compelling evidence otherwise here -- that striker fired pistols represent a different, higher risk when holstered than condition 3 1911s; than DA revolvers; than SA revolvers. And therefore an unnecessary risk.
They absolutely do not, unless you place unreasonable faith in entirely fallible things like thumbstraps and manual safeties.

If you don't like them, then don't carry them, and don't make holsters for them. That's your deal.

But thousands of people--private citizens, law enforcement officials, and military personnel--carry these pistols safely every day. So please--keep the holy crusade to yourself.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #47  
Old 08-19-2017, 11:19 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: 11,677
Likes: 1,728
Liked 10,859 Times in 4,460 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
Ok, a challenge.

I will personally endorse, in writing, each and every holster maker who looks at the pic I've attached, and after comparing it with Bruce's picture (he wrote the article that appeared in, and called his method 'forward of hip carry'), agrees that it is a DIFFERENT/GREATER risk for you than Bruce's (see notes after):

Attachment 298615
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?



Quote:
Originally Posted by rednichols View Post
IF he/she also makes no holsters either expressly for appendix carry, or that can be carried there.
This is an impossibility. Any holster made to be carried on the belt can be carried in the appendix position. They may be wrong for that position, but can be carried there.


I agree, appendix carry is dangerous and no one should carry there. I wouldn't even carry there in competition. I will state this to anyone who wants to talk about it. It is a risk that is undertaken by the carrier.

Also, I agree with Muss, where appendix carry is hazardous to the carrier, horizontal shoulder holsters are equally dangerous to the public at large. How can you endorse one while vilifying the other? In fact, I would say that horizontal shoulder carry is the more egregious offense. Appendix carry shows disregard for self while horizontal shoulder carry shows disregard for others.
__________________
Freedom isn't free.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #48  
Old 08-19-2017, 12:20 PM
AZretired's Avatar
AZretired AZretired 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: Jul 2006
Location: Arizona & Michigan
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 337
Liked 576 Times in 308 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
They absolutely do not, unless you place unreasonable faith in entirely fallible things like thumbstraps and manual safeties.

If you don't like them, then don't carry them, and don't make holsters for them. That's your deal.

But thousands of people--private citizens, law enforcement officials, and military personnel--carry these pistols safely every day. So please--keep the holy crusade to yourself.
I will go one step further with this. Many police officers and other LE types have no choice as to the weapon carried. Their departments issue a striker fired weapons ans may mandate it for uniform, plainclothes and off duty use, and also must carry with a round chambered. They may also be limited in the type or style of holster used. So they have to do their best to carry safely.
__________________
Support the NRA!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-19-2017, 04:41 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: 4,073
Likes: 10,910
Liked 4,038 Times in 1,390 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
SWCA #2842
SWHF #448

Last edited by -db-; 08-19-2017 at 04:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #50  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:22 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: 11,677
Likes: 1,728
Liked 10,859 Times in 4,460 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,...
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?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.
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 12:53 AM.


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