OLDSTER
Member
new paradigm
Whew !! My brain can't keep up with this thread !!

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


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.
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.
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.
Absolutely on point. Condition One (a system of conditions that Jeff is credited for inventing) just wasn't done before the '70s.
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).
Oh, I'm not wrong.
The movie distorted the facts.
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.
...
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.
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
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.
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 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
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....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...
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....your holster maker isn't paying attention to the risk you take...
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.To that end: I am not at all saying that it is the end users' responsibility to get it right.
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.rednichols said:the 21st century trend is belly carry (incorrectly called appendix carry)