The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.

[rednichols]

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.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Maybe in Indianapolis it was a Sig P320 and they banged the back of the pistol.

 

[ExcitableBoy]

HUH?!?!

 

[Moo Moo]

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

 

[TomkinsSP]

+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...

 

[Absalom]

Sorry if I sound too snarky, but is your somewhat disorienting dissertation saying anything other than: Holsters that cover the trigger are safer?

 

[Watchdog]

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."

...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?

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.

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.

 

[rednichols]

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:





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.

 

[Inusuit]

+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.

 

[rednichols]

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.

 

[Supreme]

I'm lost, was trying to follow your points, but nah it's not working

 

[rwsmith]

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.

 

[SG-688]

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.

 

[rednichols]

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).

 

[Ziggy2525]

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.

View 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.

 

[TxShooter]

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.

 

[rednichols]

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.

 

[rednichols]

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".

 

[Wise_A]

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.

 

[rednichols]

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.