The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.

[SG-688]

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 ..."

 

[rednichols]

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):



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.

 

[Muss Muggins]

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 . . .

 

[Muss Muggins]

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 . . .

 

[rednichols]

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'.

 

[Wise_A]

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.

 

[Rastoff]

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):

View 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?

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.

 

[AZretired]

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.

 

[-db-]

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.

 

[Rastoff]

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?

 

[-db-]

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

 

[SG-688]

No, I would not agree that this is any better or worse than the picture you posted of Bruce. The tiny difference is insignificant. Both are in front of the appendix and both cover the leg with the muzzle. But I am curious, why do you think one is worse than the other?

My picture.

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

An AD is still bad, but significantly less bad.

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

 

[Rastoff]

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

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

 

[Rastoff]

My picture.

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

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

 

[Ziggy2525]

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

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

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

 

[-db-]

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

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

 

[Wise_A]

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

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

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

I know exactly who he is.

 

[Watchdog]

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

I know exactly who he is.

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

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

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

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

 

[Muss Muggins]

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

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

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

 

[rednichols]

My picture.

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

An AD is still bad, but significantly less bad.

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

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