The question has been asked . . .

[Rastoff]

I figured someone would say that; it's not. The comparison is apt and appropriate. They are indeed similar and if we're talking about a Series 80 1911, exactly the same.

 

[Wise_A]

Seriously, if you're not comfortable with them, that's fine. But a lot of us are, and have been successfully not shooting ourselves for years. Get off the crusade. I think the .380 is dumb, but you don't see me writing threads about it.

And c'mon, m8...if you really think that a single-action 1911 trigger is even remotely like an average striker-fired trigger, there is something horribly wrong with your 1911.

 

[STCM(SW)]

I figured someone would say that; it's not. The comparison is apt and appropriate. They are indeed similar and if we're talking about a Series 80 1911, exactly the same.

And that's the reason my Springfield XD 45 ACP is in a draw and not been fired in years....

 

[Rastoff]

What exactly makes you afraid of the XD? Why haven't you sold it off if it's so worrisome?

 

[rednichols]

Seriously, if you're not comfortable with them, that's fine. But a lot of us are, and have been successfully not shooting ourselves for years. Get off the crusade. I think the .380 is dumb, but you don't see me writing threads about it.

And c'mon, m8...if you really think that a single-action 1911 trigger is even remotely like an average striker-fired trigger, there is something horribly wrong with your 1911.

It's easy to lose track of an OP's post, when replies begin to address off-thread leanings. The situation: thinking that covering the guard makes a Glock equally safe as a 1911.

Case in point. Ok, several. El Paso Saddlery sells their copy of John Bianchi's old Model 2, erroneously referred to as a Threepersons; here's a pic.



The image, of a Colt 1911 in Condition One with a safety strap blocking the hammer (at least nominally; might try dropping the hammer to see if it doesn't instead get pushed off the back of the slide by the falling hammer).

It's accompanied by this language:

"Exposed trigger guard (certain semi-automatics will have covered trigger, ie. Glocks and Sigs)"

This shows us, that holster makers believe, that covering the guard of a Glock makes it as safe as a 1911 in Condition One with an uncovered guard. Ipso facto.

It's what my thread(s) are about. Not if someone is 'comfortable' or 'did it 30 years and not dead' (the dead aren't posting, by definition). These threads are about holster makers believing that they can add back the safety (I mean the concept, not the gadget itself), that the pistol maker left out. And that 'safety', was on all pistols made, including striker pistols, before the Glock.

And by extension, users believing that a covered guard on a striker pistol, replaces the 'feedback' that all other pistols give during holstering: hammer moves on them, not on a striker pistol.

Regarding the pistol in Wise A's post, we realise by now (it has come up several times already) that the little 'blade' in the trigger is not a safety, right? It keeps the trigger from shifting when the pistol is dropped (one reason why SIG is in so much strife for lack of this blade), but it's not there to keep the trigger from being pulled.

 

[Wise_A]

It also prevents the trigger from moving from pressure exerted on the side. In other words, in order to deactivate a trigger safety, you have to get something either threaded through the trigger guard (what are you doing??), or have a stiff object wedge itself in between the gun and trigger, and around the front face of the trigger.

That's why you're taught to "look" a gun into the holster, and to holster slowly. By the by, if you're jamming your 1911 or DAO pistol into the holster and thinking that your thumb is going to stop a discharge, you're mistaken.

If all you've got is "guns without an exposed hammer or manual safety are bad", then it's no different than the thousand other posts I've read on the subject.

The only "new paradigm" is the incessant playground behavior of each design's fanboys wailing "my gun is safer than your gun".

Safety isn't a thing that magically happens on your gun, it's a condition that arises because you act a certain way and do certain things. Gun Rules 101.

...

Oh, and Sig is in trouble because they (A) didn't include a trigger safety on a gun they designed for carry, (B) used a trigger that was clearly too heavy for the pull, and (C) failed to properly safety test their pistol. You can, ironically, encounter the same condition on a 1911 with insufficient sear spring tension and too heavy a trigger/bow assembly.

 

[rednichols]

Wise A, I can appreciate that ypur expertise with real gunfighting should far exceed my own. And your posts are always expressed very well. But my posts are not about gunfighting, and they are not even necessarily about pistols. In the three threads I put up recently, they are about holstered pistols, and their equivalencies or laack thereof.

My armourer, a real gunfighter, has the very latest Glock and absolutely loves it. For real gunfighters, draw-point-bang is everything. No safeties to forget under stress, etc. Nor does he carry muzzling himself: he uses my avenger styles or his various pistols.

But again, unlike a 1911, or all revolvers, or a DA auto, holsters cannot ADD a level of safety to compensate: covering the guard only adds danger. Yet we cant fail to cover the trigger because Glock actions dont have separate safeties. Sophies Choice, and I simply wanted to make you all aware of the conundrum.

 

[Muss Muggins]

But again, unlike a 1911, or all revolvers, or a DA auto, holsters cannot ADD a level of safety to compensate: covering the guard only adds danger.

That's a right nice picture on your website of a Glock in an IWB holster you designed for DeSantis, covered trigger guard and all . . .

 

[Scorpion520AZ]

The test of time & success has proven undeniably, Glock cannot be "killed", and the 1911 will never "die".

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I thought I was done with replying to this thread and then I stumbled upon this and I said to myself, "Self, rednichols is gonna love this!!"

(c) Gun Digest 2017

Six Classic Must-Have Centerfire Semi-Auto Pistol Designs | Gun Digest

My jaw dropped when I read this paragraph! It fits right into parts of this discussion!

The P38's DA/SA trigger gave it a leg up on many of its contemporaries. Generally, pistols such as the M1911 were supposed to be carried in condition 3 (hammer down, chamber empty), meaning the slide must be racked to get it into action. On the other hand, the P38 only took a squeeze of the trigger to send a round down range.

Then the writer added this, and it fits into this discussion as well (emphasis added):

On top of that, it had a unique aspect when it came to DA/SA pistols — it could be carried in condition 1. Going "cocked and locked" appealed to many (once again, think competitors) and is a rare feature on this style of pistol.

 

[Wise_A]

But again, unlike a 1911, or all revolvers, or a DA auto, holsters cannot ADD a level of safety to compensate: covering the guard only adds danger. Yet we cant fail to cover the trigger because Glock actions dont have separate safeties. Sophies Choice, and I simply wanted to make you all aware of the conundrum.

But see, that's fine. I don't think about adding risk when I think about picking guns for this and that (I'm just a single-action revolver short of hitting Bingo). I only think about what I'm doing with it, because all that I care about is achieving "safe", not "most safe".

"Most safe" would be an empty chamber, or some other manner of foolishness. But that's planning for failure*. You may as well just admit you're not competent to carry.

When it comes to holstering the Glockalikes, I'm coming from that "practical application" place. Other designs might have some added features (I really hate calling anything "more safe" or even calling something a "safety feature")--but they have drawbacks. A DAO S&W is a great example of this. It'll do almost everything a Glock will do. And it'll give you an exposed hammer. But a DAO Smith can be short-stroked into a failure to fire, and the only way to clear it is to rack the slide unless you're lucky enough to have a TDA variant.

So weighing the lack of an external "fire control" feature against a "bang-click-oh-hell"--I would much rather have to exercise care when holstering in a controlled environment, than to risk having a single-shot 9mm in the face of a deadly threat. I mean, if I'm shooting somebody, it's because I think they're about to kill me and there's no other way to stop them.

Ditto for reholstering after the fact. I can control the risk, but I can't control the threat I'm trying to stop.

Ironically, I really, really like DAO Smiths. There's just something magic about them--I can't help but shoot well.

I don't necessarily think that a 1911 or revolver either needs or must not have a covered trigger. I know a few zealots (including one true fool) who do, but it all depends on what we're using it for, and where we're using it. And when it comes to range holsters--I own all kinds.

*If you wanted to pick nits, then you could say carrying a gun at all is planning for a failure of situational awareness, but I think that's ignorant of the fact that you can't control or avoid every threat you detect, or detect every threat that's out there.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

That's a right nice picture on your website of a Glock in an IWB holster you designed for DeSantis, covered trigger guard and all . . .

I've got one! Cozy Partner.

I don't think ya could find a holster that fits much better/tighter around the trigger guard.

 

[sigp220.45]

I just want to say I am enjoying this family of threads immensely. It's like when I sit down to a David Lynch movie - I'm not entirely sure what is going on, but its fun to watch. (Think "Eraserhead" or "Inland Empire", not "A Straight Story", which was perfectly sensible.)


Also, though I think I vaguely disagree with Mr Nichols I am definitely going to buy one of his holsters.


Carry on!

 

[rednichols]

That's a right nice picture on your website of a Glock in an IWB holster you designed for DeSantis, covered trigger guard and all . . .

Yes, I was late to this new understanding WHICH WAS THE POINT OF MY POST. Very late; for my clients 1985-2000 I created many, many designs for the Glock because I didn't realise. Then when I started up Red Nichols Holsters, I still didn't understand; but now I do.

NOW. When another holster maker tells me they 'get it' now that it's been raised, then we can move forward. I for one discontinued Glock and similar holsters when I worked it out. On my own. With active argument against, by holster makers, I will add.

This case reminds what we makers are all up against:

CHAVEZ v. GLOCK INC | FindLaw

Please read it, Muss. It's timely, and it's a "case on all fours" as it's known in law. Regular people have been affected by this belief, that all pistols are equally safe, and that holster makers have a responsibility to them (those people involved).

Mentioning this is not about lawsuits. Little makers don't have any money and don't need much to worry about lawsuits. Glock has high visibility and deep pockets and 'maybe' has products insurance; so they get sued. It's about how regular people's expectations have been violated, and that makes them v unhappy.

 

[rednichols]

Handsomely reasoned and worded, Wise A. These are from my armourer:

"Striker fired guns require no input from the user, but (also) do not offer any feedback if the trigger is obstructed. In *most* cases you can look at your holster and see it's clear and then keep your fingers out of the trigger guard. Sometimes in the real world you have to transition from lethal to non-lethal quickly and without looking away from your target, though."

Note the comment about "looking" one's pistol back into the holster. Now, he's proven under fire, but most of us will be mighty shaky from fear and adrenalin if we're holstering after a shootout, and might even be under pressure to put our pistol away before the LEOs respond. So we just might not 'look' it into the holster and so ordinary people run the risk of being careless with their finger or their clothing, thereby getting caught in the covered guard.

Again: society says we can't uncover the guard, so we makers must cover it. But then we introduce a new danger. I had to 'solve' it by ceasing production, until Glock fixes this. Ruger did, on their SAAs, and prospered.

 

[The Big D]

These THREADS...

...are giving me a headache.

That said, I was a big city LEO who wore an OPEN trigger guard holster with ONLY a snap strap whilst rocking a Model 10, 4 inch, heavy barrel. That was for about ten (10) years before transitioning to an auto loader.

Never shot myself or had someone take my gun.

As an aside, have never, ever considered appendix carry for any mode of carry/any gun.

Be safe.

 

[Wise_A]

Handsomely reasoned and worded, Wise A. These are from my armourer:

"Striker fired guns require no input from the user, but (also) do not offer any feedback if the trigger is obstructed. In *most* cases you can look at your holster and see it's clear and then keep your fingers out of the trigger guard. Sometimes in the real world you have to transition from lethal to non-lethal quickly and without looking away from your target, though."

Note the comment about "looking" one's pistol back into the holster. Now, he's proven under fire, but most of us will be mighty shaky from fear and adrenalin if we're holstering after a shootout, and might even be under pressure to put our pistol away before the LEOs respond. So we just might not 'look' it into the holster and so ordinary people run the risk of being careless with their finger or their clothing, thereby getting caught in the covered guard.

That's a bridge I'll burn when I get to it--you have to win, first. On my particular holster, it's pretty easy to get the "mouth" of the holster clear. It's easy to practice, but there are definite steps.

Operative word being practice, practice, practice. It's not about being able to do it well, it's about not being incapable of doing it badly.

That, I think, is half the reason why you see so many of these incidents related to Everybody's Favorite Brand. Not only are there so many in circulation, but they're popular with LEO's. Cops don't get the best training forced on them, because it costs money and the department is accountable to the taxpayer. Training time costs a stupendous amount of money.

But you can have the same issue with any pistol design. Each one has its own set of must-not-do's (that's why I think that the particular set of issues you get with a no-thumb-safety-striker make them any different). I've seen some absolutely terrifying re-holstery with just about every pistol make out there--first-hand. Including the use of some holsters I think I could have comfortably used as socks.

 

[Muss Muggins]

It's not exactly on all fours, since I don't see resolved anywhere within where the pistol was when the three year old pulled the trigger. Lots of "coulda been." If you're threatened or intimidated by a pistol's design, don't make a holster for it . . .

Yes, I was late to this new understanding WHICH WAS THE POINT OF MY POST. Very late; for my clients 1985-2000 I created many, many designs for the Glock because I didn't realise. Then when I started up Red Nichols Holsters, I still didn't understand; but now I do.

NOW. When another holster maker tells me they 'get it' now that it's been raised, then we can move forward. I for one discontinued Glock and similar holsters when I worked it out. On my own. With active argument against, by holster makers, I will add.

This case reminds what we makers are all up against:

CHAVEZ v. GLOCK INC | FindLaw

Please read it, Muss. It's timely, and it's a "case on all fours" as it's known in law. Regular people have been affected by this belief, that all pistols are equally safe, and that holster makers have a responsibility to them (those people involved).

Mentioning this is not about lawsuits. Little makers don't have any money and don't need much to worry about lawsuits. Glock has high visibility and deep pockets and 'maybe' has products insurance; so they get sued. It's about how regular people's expectations have been violated, and that makes them v unhappy.

 

[Old cop]

The only ND I ever had was w/a 1911 style pistol, my fault and not the gun. A friend recently shot off his left index finger w/his 1911, again his fault and not the gun. I no longer own a 1911 and the only thing that comes close is a Glock 17 which is used for LEOSA certification. The 1911 is an expert's weapon and by that I mean someone who has trained & shot it long enough to establish very good muscle memory. My muscle memory was established w/a Model 10 and its operation comes as second nature. Glocks and other modern auto loaders make sense for law enforcement & the military, but my comfort level remains w/my J frame. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone who carries an auto loader, that's a personal choice and I assume those folks are competent. My daily orbits are pretty tame and if my "cops eyes" continue to serve me well the J should be enough.

 

[crazyphil]

Red I have followed your discussion with great interest because, when
I think I might really need a gun, my choice is Glock Model 22 .40 Caliber.
Just wondered if you could give a quick critique of the following holster
choices (Left to Right)
For OWB Galco Cop
For driving vehicle Ross
For IWB Galco NSA
For OWB concealed EPS #88, or
Aker Yaqui slide
I agree with what you said about your armorer. When you need your
gun you need grab it, pull it, point it, and shoot QUICK!
What holster does he use? Is that what you recommend if someone
chooses to carry the Glock?
Thank you.