The "new paradigm" -- since 1985.

[OLDSTER]

new paradigm

Whew !! My brain can't keep up with this thread !!

 

[Wise_A]

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?

 

[Rpg]

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).

 

[Watchdog]

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.

 

[Muss Muggins]

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 . . .

 

[Watchdog]

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.

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.

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.

-- 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.

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.

 

[TomkinsSP]

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).

 

[-db-]

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.

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.

 

[AZretired]

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.

 

[ExcitableBoy]

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!!!

 

[Ziggy2525]

...

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.

 

[BB57]

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.

 

[rednichols]

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.

 

[rednichols]

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 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.

 

[Practical]

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.

View 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.

 

[Wise_A]

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.

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".

 

[Muss Muggins]

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

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 . . .

 

[Rastoff]

...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.

...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.

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.

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.

 

[rednichols]

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.

 

[Rastoff]

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.