A friend forwarded this story to me. Terrifying, really.
Worn Leather Holsters SAFETY WARNING: Accidental Discharges
Slàinte,
Bob
Worn Leather Holsters SAFETY WARNING: Accidental Discharges
Slàinte,
Bob
Scary AD: the soft holster did it!
- Thread starter two-bit cowboy
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
"I can’t say I didn’t know the crease had been formed in the holster."
Bingo. Operator error. Sorry..I don't believe in "Accidental" discharges. They are always negligent discharges. If you knowingly use an item that has a potential safety issue...and "It" happens..you have only yourself to blame.
If you drive on a bald tire and crash..it's not the fault of the equipment..
Bingo. Operator error. Sorry..I don't believe in "Accidental" discharges. They are always negligent discharges. If you knowingly use an item that has a potential safety issue...and "It" happens..you have only yourself to blame.
If you drive on a bald tire and crash..it's not the fault of the equipment..
bigwheelzip
Absent Comrade
Seems Galco discontinued that holster.
Good thing he didn't appendix carry.
Good thing he didn't appendix carry.
05CarbonDRZ
Member
Shoulda bought a better quality holster to start with.
Galco is pretty decent mass produced Leather,That Holster should have been trashed long ago especially when carrying a Gun with no external safety.
rednichols
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,745
- Reaction score
- 8,484
Agreed
. And the OP has done us all a service by reminding us (surely we've ALL seen that link before) that bullets don't care whose "fault" it is when the muzzle is pointed at the wearer or anyone else.Under the laws of torts, holster makers absolutely are expected, like every manufacturer of goods sold to the public, to anticipate the result of wear on what we make and sell. It's called a 'duty' and we breach it at our peril because we can be the ones found negligent (which word also has a specific meaning in law).
Triggernosis
Member
This story was first posted on the Internet at least 5 years ago. But it's a good reminder to beware of our equipment.....and not carry Glocks.
Six years old. Facts unverified. More terrifying that you're sharing it now . . .
Yes, if I remember correctly from back then some online sleuthing revealed some credible evidence this incident may not have happened at all. In any case, it is a good reminder about safety, if perhaps the writer had other purposes for the story. I never did like any of those tiny belt-slide type holsters and that particular one, worn between the belt and pants, looks like the worst design of them all.
Last edited:
pittpa
Member
Well, that's it for me. Going to a 1911 in the holster and a revolver in the pocket. Both 9mm.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
RV4driver
US Veteran
But, wait! Glock Safe Action Pistol! There are frame mounted safeties, slide mounted safeties, drop safeties, and mag safeties...but there ain't no "trigger safety" that requires only, oh I don't know, pulling the trigger to overcome! I have three Glocks, but I know that thing in the trigger isn't a safety.
My opinion only, of course.
My opinion only, of course.
The "Yaqui Slide" holster predates the Glock type action by many years. Col Cooper can be seen in many photos with a 1911 "cocked and locked" in just such a rig. I refuse to bash any "firearm system" but I will admit here, in public that I am not "expert" enough to carry a "single action, striker fired, 5lb trigger" on a day to day basis. "Civilian casual carry" is very different from the LE duty belt. Just like my revolver of olde, I get great comfort putting my thumb on the bobbed hammer of my 6906 whenever I handle it because if'n it stays down there's no "earth shattering kaboom." Joe
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,527
- Reaction score
- 6,190
I had this conversation on another thread recently when I acquired my first striker-fired pistol, a Shield with the thumb safety. While my 642 has neither a safety nor a hammer to hold, for some reason, I didn't have the same concern when reholstering it. My Remington RM380 goes in the holster with my thumb on the hammer, whether or not the holster is in my pocket. I too, do not buy the trigger as a safety, no matter how many sections it has.
Bottom line: know your equipment, including your holster, and its limitations. Replace magazines, springs, holsters or the firearm itself when it becomes worn, not when it fails.
bagga
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2012
- Messages
- 317
- Reaction score
- 511
it looks to me like it's a left handed holster but the pictures show the guy was wearing it on the right side. if it was worn as a cross draw wouldn't the bullet path be toward the rear of the car rather than towards the front of the car?
It's a right hand holster that he wore inside the belt.
The same is true with an IWB holster where the belt clip or belt loops are on the outside of the holster.
It sounds like you are trying to discredit the holster, along with the dude above who claims the facts are "unverified". DO so if you want, but avoid the lesson involved at your own peril.
----
I've posted in the past on this forum and others about the need to ensure the holster fully protects the trigger when carrying the firearm and when inserting the pistol into the holster. That's doubly important with a design that rides inside the belt or inside the waistband, where there is greater potential for a foreign object to intrude into the trigger guard. Double that importance again when you are carrying a pistol with all the safeties tied to the trigger.
With an IWB holster the intruding object can be a wad of shirt, a cord lock from a jacket draw string, or some other similar item.
In the article the OP posted, the slide holster, when worn inside the belt, is bent inwards which tends to fold over the inside edge of the holster. With an IWB holster the same thing can occur as a thin leather holster conforms to the curve of your hip.
I like carrying IWB, but you'll find each of my IWB holsters incorporate 3 essential features:
1) they fully protect both sides of the trigger guard (i.e you won't find any of those stupid Versa Carry holsters, and none of those infinitely dumber clips that attach to the slide or frame of a pistol, and leave the trigger totally unprotected.
2) they have a mouth formed from double thickness leather with either a steel or polymer reinforcement sandwiched between the two layers of leather. That approach ensures the mouth stays open, even inside the waistband, and ensures the edge won't pinch or roll over into the trigger guard.
3) they incorporate a belt clip that enables the holster to be a easily removed to re-holster the pistol.
This one has a boat load of wear on it, and the mouth still holds it's shape inside the waist band.
This single thickness IWB holster is bad news, notice the mouth is already in contact with the trigger and it's not even in the waist band. If you use something like this, be sure to re-holster the pistol or recover, while you are holding the holster out in front of you where you can verify the trigger is unobstructed.
This single thickness suede holster is much worse (this one is a left hand holster). Note that you *might* get away with it if this situation with a PPK where the DA trigger pull is both long and about 12 pounds, but you're not likely to get away with it with a Glock 42 with a 5 pound trigger. If you have something like this get something better. Until then, if you use it, be sure to insert the pistol into it with it held out in front of you where you can observe the process and verify the trigger is unobstructed.
This is an original Versa Carry they sent me for evaluation. I didn't have anything positive to say about it. I wasn't comfortable carrying it even with a PPK/S with a long, heavy DA trigger as there was no protection at all to the trigger when inserting it in the waistband. If a shooter uses of these with a striker fired pistol like a Glock, where all the safeties are tied to the trigger he or she is not just ignorant, bit also an idiot as the threat it poses is very obvious. The Versa Carry II was partially responsive to the criticism they received (I suspect from a lot more people than just me) in that it provided protection to one side of the trigger, but it's still not adequate in my opinion. If a shooter uses one of these with a Glock, he or she is in my opinion still an idiot.
----
I never make exceptions to number 1 above, but I do make exceptions to number 2 or number 3 above (never both) in the following cases:
Here is a pocket holster. The single thickness leather is acceptable because I insert the pistol into the holster with the holster out in front of me where I can observe the process and confirm that nothing is inside the trigger guard. It's also a DA pistol, where the trigger pull is long and heavy, allowing much more margin for error than, for example, a Glock 42 that might be carried this way.
In the holster on top, I have an IWB holster with belt loops that make is less convenient to re-holster the pistol by removing the holster - but the pistol is a 1911 - with a) a manual safety that is applied prior to holstering, b) a grip safety that is not de-activated if you holster properly, and c) a hammer that can be blocked by the thumb. All three will prevent the handgun from firing if an incursion in the trigger guard occurs. And, it has a double thickness reinforced mouth that won't collapse or fold in on the trigger, a major source of trigger guard incursion is not present, and the "flab tab" also tends to keep the shirt out of the way.
-----
Carry whatever you want in whatever you want, but if you've read this far you've been warned, and you should know enough to be able to make a better informed decision.
Last edited:
I fired my first shot in 1958, was gifted my first gun in 1961, and have fired, handled and examined a lot of different kinds of guns since then.
I still am unable to muster any confidence in a firearms system with its safety on the trigger ! Agreed, holster choice is important, but to have it guided by what I see as an egregious design flaw just makes no sense to me at all. Veracity of the above anecdote notwithstanding, ya gotta feel for a guy who shoots himself in the butt, but maybe he'll rethink his EDC.
Larry
I still am unable to muster any confidence in a firearms system with its safety on the trigger ! Agreed, holster choice is important, but to have it guided by what I see as an egregious design flaw just makes no sense to me at all. Veracity of the above anecdote notwithstanding, ya gotta feel for a guy who shoots himself in the butt, but maybe he'll rethink his EDC.
Larry
rednichols
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,745
- Reaction score
- 8,484
A very, very competent US LEO I know, explained to me the purpose of the gadget in the centre of the trigger on Glocks, etc: it's there to keep the trigger from moving if the pistol is dropped, because it is trigger movement that overpowers the Glock's internal safety. I had no idea until it was explained thusly to me.
I was just wondering why people are questioning the truthfulness of the account of the ND/AD related at the link posted by the OP?
Do people believe that someone dummied up the photos - including the hole in the car - not to mention the hole in the guy's butt - and the holster tucked into the trigger guard? Why would someone do that?
Is because the story specifically indicts a leather holster and this cautionary tale is posted on a site that sells nylon goods? Is that the reason for the skepticism? Or is there something else I'm missing about this story?
Or is the theory that there really was a ND/AD and someone isn't fessing up to the real cause the reason for the doubts?
Just curious....
Do people believe that someone dummied up the photos - including the hole in the car - not to mention the hole in the guy's butt - and the holster tucked into the trigger guard? Why would someone do that?
Is because the story specifically indicts a leather holster and this cautionary tale is posted on a site that sells nylon goods? Is that the reason for the skepticism? Or is there something else I'm missing about this story?
Or is the theory that there really was a ND/AD and someone isn't fessing up to the real cause the reason for the doubts?
Just curious....
Last edited:
Over the last ten years there have been 7 nd's in our training facility cleaning room (which is partitioned off with reinforced dividers) fortunately no serious injuries.
Six by LEO and one by a civilian, all involving Glocks.
I am sure they are great firearms but nothing in their lineup I will ever own.
Six by LEO and one by a civilian, all involving Glocks.
I am sure they are great firearms but nothing in their lineup I will ever own.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Expired/Withdrawn
WTS: Colt Woodsman Holsters-Heiser & El Paso Saddlery
