carry angle

[rednichols]

Carry angle is a basic essential of holster choice, and the simple way to think about choosing is that carry angle actually dictates where along the beltline, you will be forced to carry the pistol if you want to conceal (printing, muzzling), or if you want to drive (the back of the carseat).

This one's a series that relates to carrying strong side, with the muzzle never forward of the rear sight. A different series would show 'muzzle forward' (of the rear sight, not forward as viewed by the wearer, which would change depending on strong side or weak side)(Jeff Cooper's terms).

Notice, that it takes a change of ten degrees to be noticeable to the eye; and in fact, to the wearer. 5 degrees in not noticeable; your belt can vary the carry angle of the holster, that much, depending on the size of your belly.

At this angle, this one will have to be forward of 3:00 or the butt end will print.

 

[rednichols]

25 degrees, which I've used all my designing life, is the angle at which both revolver, and auto, are at their narrowest width. At this angle the butt will not print at 4:00.

30 degrees was common in the earliest days of the FBI; now the rear sight will start to print on an auto (not on a DA).

What seems an insanely extreme angle, on a 1970-ish Seventrees, this is more than 50 degrees 'bench'. But with a little J frame one can do pretty much what one wants, because (a) its a revolver so the rear sight won't print (b) the grip is tiny (c) the barrel is almost non existent in holster terms.

The 'unseen' effect of the belt's angle, on the holster's angle. For this reason, all the other angles I've illustrated are called 'bench angle'; that is, on the designer's bench without taking into account any contribution from the beltline, or tilting by the wearer once it's on the belt, etc.

 

[Scorpion520AZ]

25 degrees, which I've used all my designing life, is the angle at which both revolver, and auto, are at their narrowest width. At this angle the butt will not print at 4:00.

My overall personal favorite, by far for CCW and more importantly "weapon retention", when going hands-on in a physical force, but non-deadly force confrontation, 25 Degrees at 4 O'Clock.

 

[rednichols]

My overall personal favorite, by far for CCW and more importantly "weapon retention", when going hands-on in a physical force, but non-deadly force confrontation, 25 Degrees at 4 O'Clock.

I agree that is a an ideal combination. The grip angle changes as the holster moves 'round the belt line and is one of the things that 'causes' a holster at 4:00 to have a 25 degree angle: the grip is presented to the hand ideally. Similarly, at 3:00 the 0 degree angle is considered ideal (see the Galco image on the belt)(which assumes that the centreline of the pistol aligns with the clocking).

Ultimately it's the combination, as you're noted.

Suggestion: post up a pic of your set (pistol in holster, holster on belt). I find that most users are estimating both the angle they carry at, and their belt clocking (for my own clocking images I use a belt that is marked; it's easy even with masking tape: put on the belt, and the 9:00 and 3:00 markings are ALWAYS right at the twin trousers seams; then 6:00 is exactly between, and the point at which the tongue of the buckle fits through the hole is 12:00). Loops on trousers and shorts vary the location of all the loops, including the rearmost one(s) greatly and so are not reliable for 'clocking'.

I have some very simple software that allows me to choose the true vertical carry line; then measure and indicate the angle as I rotate the image. Otherwise when we're communicating remotely we are guessing, really.

The 25 degree angle (I actually use a 24 degree bench angle) comes from this formula, which is instinctive (it's used on some hundred year old Brills, by coincidence, though they were also 30 degrees):

Both are . . .

. . . 22 degrees 'bench' measured.

As mentioned, a wearer cannot 'feel' the difference of two degrees.

Now: notice the rightmost line (in these images) use different reference points at the top; the auto the rear sight, the revolver the top of the grip frame. That's because the DA revolver, at least, has its rear sight mounted so far forward that it 'falls' out of the equation, to eliminate printing by the rear sight. Yet the angle, which is to present the pistol at its narrowest angle, is the same.

The comparison shows why it's so much easier for a holstered revolver to be concealed at the belt line, than a big auto: it's effectively much narrower. And the grip of a revolver can be pared away to a feather if one wanted, as with the Farrant style. I think no one has yet taken a belt sander to an auto and ground away everything they could from the outermost side of a 1911 butt including grip, magazine chute, magazine base, mainspring housing. It's the sort of thing I imagine that Q would have done if forced to issue Bond with a 1911 (the 1911 in Dr. No, being used by the badguy, turns into a Browning 32 auto when Bond gets his hands on it and plugs him).

 

[JayFramer]

I like about a +5 +10 but then again I don't try and conceal the giant service pistols.

 

[scout789]

Thank you for the education Mr. Nichols. Your discussion is very informative.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Red Nichols has shared some very good information in this post, obviously gathered over years of study and practice in the business. Just the mention of how carry angle can be affected by the angle of the belt on the user's body is very valuable in understanding how a carry rig can be expected to perform differently when used by different people.

Only thing I might add to the discussion is that different carry angles perform differently when used in different carry positions. What works very well at the 4:00 position can be expected to work much less well when moved forward or backward on the body. Some combinations can require far more rotation of the wrist than others, and the ability of the wrist to rotate is limited (more in some folks than in others). Simply put, the more we rotate our wrist the less grip strength we have, and a solid grip on the weapon is essential in rapidly addressing a threat without unnecessary fumbling with the weapon before it can be used.

Very good post!

 

[rednichols]

Lobo has drilled right down to the bedrock of carry angle; you can't wear just any angle just anywhere you like, and get the ideal or even acceptable result.

I had gone looking with a search called 'female paddle holster' and got darn few paddles but got a lot of 'omigod don't ever do that!' images.

So, in the vein of Lobo's comments, a pair of 4:00 holsters being worn at 2:00 and the resulting, very bad draw:





And in the theme of 'good blokes don't let their women carry stupid':

 

[Protected One]

A "little" off topic, but since I have TWO experts here - Red and Lobo, I have a question: I've heard it is not good to keep a handgun holstered in a leather holster for long periods of time.
Is there any truth to this? I keep a "house gun" hidden away in a galco leather holster.

 

[crazyphil]

I too have a holstered revolver hidden away in good quality leather.
It's been on duty about 10 years and I haven't noticed any problems.

 

[Mals9]

With all the variable noted above why are adjustable cant holsters, like a single point swivel, not more popular?

Mals

 

[rednichols]

With all the variable noted above why are adjustable cant holsters, like a single point swivel, not more popular?

Mals

To be fair, that's two questions.

To the first, why aren't there more adjustable angle holsters, I have run across many in Google searches. They generally compromise performance quite a lot; that balance of comfort, retention, draw, etc.

To the second, why aren't they more popular (why don't more people wear them) I would venture that it is bulk. Of course an adjustable angle holster can be made without oppressive bulk; but the typical holster designer/maker is more of a craftsman than an engineer.

Some of the things I've seen come out of Safariland, which does employ actual engineers, are so bulky they could be used as outriggers on watercraft. It's my view that they long ago stopped making holsters (a device that provides portability for a hand weapon for the express purpose of ready deployment of the weapon) and now make 'something else' (a device that provides portability for a hand weapon for the express purpose of retaining the weapon that excludes consideration of its ready deployment). Dunno what to call them; but they aren't holsters.

An advantage to us designer/makers of fixed angle holsters, is that it avoids one form of what's called 'customer abuse' of the product. For example, my own designs are made so that they MUST be worn at 4:00 -- so no one can 'adjust' them into a crotch-destroying position.

 

[rednichols]

A "little" off topic, but since I have TWO experts here - Red and Lobo, I have a question: I've heard it is not good to keep a handgun holstered in a leather holster for long periods of time.
Is there any truth to this? I keep a "house gun" hidden away in a galco leather holster.

It's a really good question with a really good answer -- that nevertheless is not inclusive of all situations: wet vegetable tanned leather absolutely HATES steel.

So: as long as neither the pistol nor the leather are wet (even from the atmosphere, or from sweat) leather is inert, and the steel has a protection against rust. But this is a big price to pay:

Steel on wet leather; not only has the metal been scarred by the chemical reaction, but the leather has actually 'burned' (got hard and black) from the same reaction.

Steel on dry leather; an indication that it has done some harm to the pistol.

So: your Glock frame won't mind but your Glock slide will mind. Stainless should be impervious. Aluminium -- I'm not so sure, it does oxidise rather readily; to combat this aluminium is often clear anodised (the old High Standard revolvers actually came in colours including pink).

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Leather is a porous material produced by the preservation of animal hides. All leather items have a tendency to attract and retain moisture, whether it be from precipitation, atmospheric moisture, perspiration from a wearer's body.

I always advise removing the handgun from the holster at the end of each day's use, wiping the handgun down, then storing the holster separately in a location which allows airflow to evaporate off any residual moisture.

The above applies to all leather holsters. In addition, some holsters feature linings of suede or other soft leathers. Such lining leathers are typically produced by a tanning process utilizing chemical salts (chrome tanning). Residue of those salts remain in the leather and can enter solution with moisture, and the result can be a corrosive action on steel, nickel-plating, and stainless steels. Storage of the holster separate from the handgun is especially recommended for those lined holsters.

 

[Protected One]

Leather is a porous material produced by the preservation of animal hides. All leather items have a tendency to attract and retain moisture, whether it be from precipitation, atmospheric moisture, perspiration from a wearer's body.

I always advise removing the handgun from the holster at the end of each day's use, wiping the handgun down, then storing the holster separately in a location which allows airflow to evaporate off any residual moisture.

The above applies to all leather holsters. In addition, some holsters feature linings of suede or other soft leathers. Such lining leathers are typically produced by a tanning process utilizing chemical salts (chrome tanning). Residue of those salts remain in the leather and can enter solution with moisture, and the result can be a corrosive action on steel, nickel-plating, and stainless steels. Storage of the holster separate from the handgun is especially recommended for those lined holsters.

So my best course of action would be to remove my glock 23 from the holster it resides in, and just leave it unholstered?
It's in a secret compartment of a table.