To holster or not to holster. That is the question.

[Raccoon]

"Across his experience, he says he has seen “only one bad guy on the street with a holster.” An NYPD detective, who was especially skilled at detecting hidden weapons with observational techniques, reportedly found only about 100 holsters with some 1,200 recovered guns."

In an interesting piece the other day, I read that most bad guys that carry, do not have a holster. I have always used a holster, because it keeps you from "checking" all the time to see if your weapon is still concealed or in the right place at the right angle. Checking is a way that I use to determine if someone is carrying when I am out in the restaurants and in public.

Do you carry in a holster or do you simply tuck your firearm in your waistband?

[Stubob]

I prefer to carry a holster on my 1911's, 357s but for my 22's like the North American Arms derringer with the folding pistol grip it is better to just clip in the pocket. I just got the Bond Arms Texas Defender 410 or .45 longcolt derringer. It is a great small gun with lots of nock down power and can fit in a baggy pocket.

A shoulder rig is my favorite for the 1911 as it keeps it off my belt. 8)

I never thought I would take longer to dress than my wife when we go out as I have to match the gun with my wardrobe..grin.

[VegasGeorge]

I've done both. I find the bare gun to be uncomfortable in my waistband, especially if it's directly against my skin. A good compromise, however, is a simple neoprene sleeve type holster. They come with a belt clip, which I promptly remove. I just put the pistol in the sleeve, and tuck the whole thing into my waist band. The neoprene is so thin and squishy that I can't even tell there's any added thickness to the gun. The rubbery neoprene stays in place nicely, so it really minimizes the need to "check" the weapon's position. And, the gun comes out quickly and cleanly, leaving the neoprene in place. The only down side would be replacing the gun. You pretty much have to take the neoprene out, put the gun in, and replace the entire thing in your waistband.

[DAN]

My personal opinion is, if you carry everyday, all the time and you depend on your firearm for your life then you want several things:
You want to be comfortable.
You want to keep your firearm clean and dry
You want your firearm in the same place and same position everytime.
You need retention
This can be an inside the pants lightweight holster like Vegas George described or a 911 shoulder rig or inside the pocket like Stubob mentioned.

If you don't carry everyday and just occasionally tuck it in your waistband to run to the store or to get some gas then the above probably do not apply.

From my experience, training determines if a person uses a holster, keeps the weapon clean and stays proficient. This is not a priority for bad guys, 3rd world countries and anyone else who just doesn't know any different.

I would suggest to everyone that no matter how you carry, always carry the same way with the same type of firearm. This will make the difference, when the chips are down, if you are to die or live to see your family again.
DAN

[EddieMossberg]

I recommend buying the best holster you can for any pistol, CCW or OWB. Holstering your weapon with a high qaulity holster will completely cover the trigger guard thus preventing any foriegn objects from causing the trigger to be pulled. A good holster also keeps your gun in place like cement. This allows for good weapon retention and a quicker draw than a loose fitting holster. It's just much safer to carry a gun with a decent holster. That's my opinion.

[nodaywithout]

which do you think is better for CCW a holster that has no retaining strap or one with a retaining strap?

[Raccoon]

IMHO, One with a retaining strap, but you have to practice your draw with an EMPTY weapon. Practice practice practice. Dont ever practice loaded. --Unless on a range. I *almost* shot into a wall once because I was new to this, and had been practicing drawing, and had just been issued ammo.

o.k. I told on myself. . . . but I was much younger and inexperienced.

[VegasGeorge]

I'm probably wrong about this, but I've always thought that retaining straps were for one or two reasons: (1) to keep the gun from falling out of the holster when running, jumping, climbing over obstacles, rolling, etc., or; (2) to make it more difficult for someone else to snatch the gun out of your holster. Since I can't see myself running, jumping, climbing, or rolling, I don't think number one applies to me. That sounds more like a LEO concern to me. And, since I carry concealed, I don't think the danger of my gun being snatched away is too great. So, my holsters are open with no thumb break or strap.

[Raccoon]

My only concern is for when you lay down, or go to a public restroom. I wouldnt want the pistol to just fall out of the holster onto the floor when you are doing business. I normally use a kydex IWB holster that has a tensioner on the part that goes around the trigger guard. It snaps in and you can set the amount of force needed to remove the pistol form the holster. I think was the Pro Undercover holster. With the normal clip attachment that does not require you to take off the belt to get it on and off.

[VegasGeorge]

Raccoon brings up an interesting, if awkward point. If you have your gun in a belt holster, either inside or out, what do you do in a public restroom when your pants are down around your ankles? Me, I always take the gun out of the holster and put it somewhere else. Some restrooms are easy, and have a shelf in the stall you can use. In others, you have to get a lot more creative.

[nodaywithout]

I think that is a situation where a coat is very nice. in my mind that would leave you with a few options, either put your weapon in you pant pocket or put it in your lap (if you have no coat) option 2, seems as though it would be a real bad idea.

I recently began looking into the nra shopping store and they have a pair of jeans that had pockets on the inside as well as the outside, for your gun and a pair of handcuffs, Or majic tricks :lol:

[Raccoon]

Shoulder holsters help with this aspect, but you have to keep your jacket on when you go anywhere. I get hot easily, so I stopped wearing a shoulder holster. I would think that I was not going into a building and would be out in the cold, like at a park or something, and inevitably, I would end up going into a building, and sweating bad. I would have people ask if I wanted to take my coat off, and I would have to say, "oh no, I'm fine" with sweat running down my face.

What I began to do was wear a photog vest, and still conceal the pistol under my shirt in the waistband. Then when I took off the vest, people were looking for a gun, but they didnt see one, and they would relax. I guess I'm just doomed to a IWB holster the rest of my life.

[nodaywithout]

This just looks like an interesting holster

http://www.desantisholster.com/032.html

[HardChrome]

For over 20 years, I have carried either my Browning HiPower or my Ruger Sp-101 inside my waistband, without a holster, crossdraw style. I'm right handed and carry them at the 8:00 position. Never a problem with losing my weapon. It is a little more difficult to get to while walking but easy while driving.

[chainshaw]

In Georgia, a holster is the law. Clip draws and hip grips are legal, but you have to have something.

I am of the opinion that you should never carry a gun with the trigger not covered. I would never dream of carrying a Glock "Mexican". Even my J-frame gets an Uncle Mikes pocket holster. Safety is first priority. Just because you haven't shot your nuts off doesn't mean that you should tempt fate.

[VegasGeorge]

Chainsaw - OK I give up. What is a "hip grip?"

Thanks! :lol:

[chainshaw]

You know what it is, but you just don't know the name. It's the oldest grip in the world for a small revolver. It allows you to carry in the waistband without a holster.

http://www.baramihipgrip.com/images/web_cover_graphic.gif

[VegasGeorge]

Actually, you give me too much credit. I didn't know about these grips. I see from the picture that the top of the grip acts as a belt or waist band clip. Very clever. It reminds me of the spring clips available for Kel-Tecs and other small semi autos.

Thanks for educating me! :lol:

[larryarnold]

Me, I always take the gun out of the holster and put it somewhere else. Some restrooms are easy, and have a shelf in the stall you can use. In others, you have to get a lot more creative.

I'd recommend against putting your gun on a shelf. It's too easy to forget and leave it there.

Techniques that solve the problem: Leave your gun in your holster. Spread your lower legs to keep your trousers up around your knees, instead of down around your ankles. Place your handgun in the crotch of your trousers between your legs. Replace it in your holster as you pull your trousers back up.

[larryarnold]

Down here in Texas we have nine month summers, so opportunities with coats are rare.

I have an IWB holster I wear most of the time. I made it snug to my gun, and my belt keeps it tight enough so I don't need a strap. Penney's sells sport shirts with a web waistband, designed to be worn out, that do well for concealment. Mexican wedding shirts are similar, and work as well.

When I have to tuck in I use Kramerleather.com's Confidant shirt under a dress shirt. It has a Velcro strap I trimmed so there's about a half inch of contact. It keeps things secure when I bend over, but it's easy to release as I reach in the front of my shirt.

Either way, I carry a Glock 30 (.45 ACP) and a spare 10-round magazine.

I also wear my holster empty the few places I can't legally carry. If something happens, I want to be able to say, "I told you so."

[CA CCWInstructor]

A holster does two things, it keeps it in place so you know where it is. The second reason is the most important. The holster protects the trigger. Lots of guns have gone off because the trigger has been moved.

[ColtM1911A1]

Simply stated: If you carry, carry in a holster of some type that retains the weapon...

[larryarnold]

In an interesting piece the other day, I read that most bad guys that carry, do not have a holster.

Of course bad guys don't carry without a holster because it's cool. They do it so after they ditch their piece the cop can't say, "But you're the one wearing a holster."

[Bill of Rights]

In an interesting piece the other day, I read that most bad guys that carry, do not have a holster.

Of course bad guys don't carry without a holster because it's cool. They do it so after they ditch their piece the cop can't say, "But you're the one wearing a holster."

I have to wonder if that same line would be the police reasoning on who is in the right at a scene, given a question as to who was the person lawfully carrying.

Blessings,
M

[45Fan]

I have to wonder if that same line would be the police reasoning on who is in the right at a scene, given a question as to who was the person lawfully carrying.

The thug with no CCW permit will get the free ride and orange jump suit. :wink:

[Bill of Rights]

The thug with no CCW permit will get the free ride and orange jump suit. :wink:

I actually meant in a situation where perhaps one was OC'ing in a hip holster or some such and the other "Mexican carrying" but visibly, in a state where unlicensed OC is permissible, but yes, you're right, the thug gets the ride and the jumpsuit, and personally, I wonder why it is that they get free anything?! Make the b@$t@rd$ PAY for it! Make them pay restitution to those they've harmed, and if their crime makes that impossible, like murder or rape, they get off easy, because they only have to work long enough to earn the cost of a couple of JHPs with which they'll be executed.

Blessings,
M

[45Fan]

and personally, I wonder why it is that they get free anything?! Make the b@$t@rd$ PAY for it! Make them pay restitution to those they've harmed, and if their crime makes that impossible, like murder or rape, they get off easy, because they only have to work long enough to earn the cost of a couple of JHPs with which they'll be executed.


WOW! You and I are going to get along great! Well spoken! The only thing I would change is I would use a rope not a JHP. JHP have more value and a rope can be used over and over again. :twisted:

[Bill of Rights]

WOW! You and I are going to get along great! Well spoken! The only thing I would change is I would use a rope not a JHP. JHP have more value and a rope can be used over and over again. :twisted:

True, but y'know... Call me old-fashioned, but I think they should at least do SOME honest work in their lives! http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd198/St-Michael/thumb.gif

Jacketed Hollow Points: When you care enough to send the very best.

Blessings,
M

[45Fan]

Touché!

[Bill of Rights]

Touché!

Hey, that'd work, too! Fencing foil through the heart!

Reach out and touché someone! :lol:

[45Fan]

As long as its dull and rusty, I am good with it.

[Bill of Rights]

When I was fencing (what feels like a million years ago), I'd never have let a blade get that way.

In this case, I'll defer to your thought. I'd get back into the sport but I think my whites shrunk a fair measure since college... They don't fit around my middle anymore. :lol:

Yeah, that's it, that's the ticket!

Blessings,
M

[HairyEyeball]

In many cases, until the 'right' or 'wrong' is established, you'll probably both be the beneficiaries of that 'free ride' and at least some 'hospitality' courtesy of the local constabulary. If you both survive the 'incident'. (If the gremlin does, you screwed up.) You may well still be a guest of the county and face criminal charges, you will almost certainly face civil charges filed by the gremlin's survivors.

[Bill of Rights]

In many cases, until the 'right' or 'wrong' is established, you'll probably both be the beneficiaries of that 'free ride' and at least some 'hospitality' courtesy of the local constabulary. If you both survive the 'incident'. (If the gremlin does, you screwed up.) You may well still be a guest of the county and face criminal charges, you will almost certainly face civil charges filed by the gremlin's survivors.

Perhaps in some places, this is true, HairyEyeball. I can't speak for anywhere else, but our law is quite friendly to the subject of self-defense. To wit:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property Sec. 2. (a)
A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary....

Cogito, ergo porto.

Blessings,
M

[HairyEyeball]

Theory and practice may differ substantially, my friend. Regardless of what the law may say, you will be dealing with the minions of the law - and their 'understanding' of it may differ from yours. They may not initially be convinced that your explanation is the 'pure, unvarnished truth', and until such time as they are convinced, you may well expect to be their 'guest'.

Additionally, the legal fiction of 'innocent until proven guilty may exist, but prosecuting attorneys being political animals may well choose to bring you to trial. If you are found guilty, if a jury can be convinced that you had 'reasonable alternatives' to deadly force, then the law as written will not cover your actions. Even if you do escape criminal prosecution - the odds being even, at best, this law does not protect you from a civil suit filed by the family or 'estate' of the deceased.

Should you have the ill fortune to be put in a situation of 'terminal pest control', consider that you will be questioned on such 'irrelevancies' as the 'killer bullets' you use (I use the same ammunition issued to the police and sheriff's departments), who your CCW instructor was (beware the one who brags on the gun fights he won - the prosecutor will 'show' that you were 'looking to kill someone'), even how often you practice, and what type of targets you use ('what other reason to use a silhouette than to practice shooting people?).

I'm not saying don't do the right thing when and if you have to, only that part of the 'preparation' - as much as insuring your firearm is clean and functional, as much as knowing you can put rounds on target under stress - includes as full a knowledge and understanding of the possible consequences of that action. My advice to anyone who chooses to own a firearm is that should the unthinkable occur and you are forced to take a life, you stand the chance of being treated as the felon unless and until facts prove otherwise. You will be disarmed, you will be questioned, you will be doubted. The police weren't there when it occurred, they have only your word and a corpse. Say nothing beyond "I was in fear for my life." It is the answer to any and every question. Do not even ask for a lawyer: "It's an admission of guilt." Wait until they ask if you want one, and say nothing - just nod.

The law may well protect you - but it is up to you to prove that your actions were in full compliance with it. Merely believing that it somehow invokes itself because your heart is pure, and responding officers will take you at your word is naive, at best.

[Bill of Rights]

Theory and practice may differ substantially, my friend. Regardless of what the law may say, you will be dealing with the minions of the law - and their 'understanding' of it may differ from yours. They may not initially be convinced that your explanation is the 'pure, unvarnished truth', and until such time as they are convinced, you may well expect to be their 'guest'.

Additionally, the legal fiction of 'innocent until proven guilty may exist, but prosecuting attorneys being political animals may well choose to bring you to trial. If you are found guilty, if a jury can be convinced that you had 'reasonable alternatives' to deadly force, then the law as written will not cover your actions. Even if you do escape criminal prosecution - the odds being even, at best, this law does not protect you from a civil suit filed by the family or 'estate' of the deceased.

Should you have the ill fortune to be put in a situation of 'terminal pest control', consider that you will be questioned on such 'irrelevancies' as the 'killer bullets' you use (I use the same ammunition issued to the police and sheriff's departments), who your CCW instructor was (beware the one who brags on the gun fights he won - the prosecutor will 'show' that you were 'looking to kill someone'), even how often you practice, and what type of targets you use ('what other reason to use a silhouette than to practice shooting people?).

I'm not saying don't do the right thing when and if you have to, only that part of the 'preparation' - as much as insuring your firearm is clean and functional, as much as knowing you can put rounds on target under stress - includes as full a knowledge and understanding of the possible consequences of that action. My advice to anyone who chooses to own a firearm is that should the unthinkable occur and you are forced to take a life, you stand the chance of being treated as the felon unless and until facts prove otherwise. You will be disarmed, you will be questioned, you will be doubted. The police weren't there when it occurred, they have only your word and a corpse. Say nothing beyond "I was in fear for my life." It is the answer to any and every question. Do not even ask for a lawyer: "It's an admission of guilt." Wait until they ask if you want one, and say nothing - just nod.

The law may well protect you - but it is up to you to prove that your actions were in full compliance with it. Merely believing that it somehow invokes itself because your heart is pure, and responding officers will take you at your word is naive, at best.

Your advice will not harm anyone, for the most part. I understand and agree that they'll be taking my pistol into evidence and further, that they'll be investigating my story. To advise "say nothing beyond 'I was in fear for my life'" is sound advice. I differ on your point about not asking for a lawyer- I'll be calling one before they arrive. If asking for a lawyer is an admission of guilt, then so is saying nothing beyond "I was in fear for my life." and not otherwise answering any question they ask. These are our rights and to surrender them because of what someone, even a LEO or prosecutor may think, is, IMHO, bad advice. It matters not what they think, it only matters what they can prove.
Additionally, re-read the quoted statute, if you would, please.
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property Sec. 2. (a)
A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person: (1) is justified in using deadly force; and (2) does not have a duty to retreat; if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary....
Once it is proven that I was defending myself or another person and doing so reasonably, there will be no civil prosecution. If I've not proven that, I've got much bigger worries than a civil suit. In the event that the corpse is found with a firearm or has disparity of force, or has entered my home uninvited in the middle of the night, the reasonable, prudent person would not expect that they'd come calling for a cup of coffee and a danish.
The full statute above reads:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

This is where your advice about "I was in fear for my life." is most applicable. Referencing Sec. 2, (b) and (c), reasonable belief that my life or that of another person is in jeopardy would clearly justify the use of force, up to and including deadly force.

In sum, I am not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. I do thank you for your advice and suggestions. I respect each for what it is. Caution should be our watchword. That said, my advice to EVERYONE is "Know your local laws and follow them." (it also never hurts to know your local police on friendly terms.)
God forbid we ever have to resort to deadly force, knowing the law is truly our only defense.

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

Additionally, the legal fiction of 'innocent until proven guilty may exist, but prosecuting attorneys being political animals may well choose to bring you to trial.

Hopefully, many of these "political animals" learned a lesson or two from Mike Nifong's mistakes. And hopefully, the people learned a lesson as well, and that is, there is safety in numbers. Citizens who value their RKBA should support anyone who is unjustly prosecuted for shooting in self-defense.

[HairyEyeball]

Good suggestions all, and wise.

No matter how punctiliously you observe the letter of the law, though, there will always be an element of "hope for the best but expect the worst". The cops called to the scene are going to be the victims of their own prejudices, the prosecutors are going to have their own political agenda, the judge, should it get that far, may have his own 'interpretation' of the law or the Constitution. As you've both pointed out, your 'reputation in the community' will go a long way toward influencing how both you and the 'incident' are viewed.

[VegasGeorge]

I have a jaundiced view of the police. Not that I dislike them, I do, in fact like them a lot. It's just that I think I understand their job better for having practiced criminal law for many years.

Some folks have this naive, simplistic notion that the police are their friends. They all remember that wonderful, warm Norman Rockwell cover on the Saturday Evening Post depicting the cop buying the little, run away boy an ice cream cone. In real life, it doesn't work that way. If you need friendly help, call the Salvation Army, not the police.

When the police show up, they are looking at everyone as a suspect. They are looking at everything as potential evidence of a crime. They do not make legal determinations of any ultimate nature. They may make an arrest at the scene based on something they see of hear, or write up a report that will result in an arrest later on. Basically, they are only looking for incriminating evidence. Whether or not certain evidence is exculpatory is a determination they usually leave to the prosecutors. They generally don't try to weigh the evidence when deciding whether or not to make an arrest. They simply make the arrest based on a worst case interpretation of what they see or hear.

So, one has to be respectfully guarded when dealing with the police. And, in any kind of serous situation, the best thing to do is to say nothing and call your lawyer.

[CA CCWInstructor]

1. I didn't do anything wrong.
2. I don't wish to answer any questions.
3. I'd like my attorney present.

As a Reserve officer, my job is to gather evidence to submit to the DA's office. DON"T give me any evidence.

[junglebob]

VagasGeorge, I like your comment "One has to be respectfully guarded when dealing with police". I thought there were some other good comments as well. I'm not anti-cop, my older son used to be one.

On another forum I had a discussion about "fanny pack transport" in Illinois. I admitted it was legal, but you might still get arrested. I've said I never heard of a conviction for Unlawful Use of Weapons for someone carrying an unloaded and encased firearm, along with a loaded magazine and asked for anyone to give an instance of it. One guy from Cook county invited me to go to Chicago and walk down the street with my handgun legally "transported" in my fanny pack and stop and tell a police officer about it. He said he'd pay for my gas there and back (300+miles) if I'm not arrested. I told him I had no desire to become a "poster child" for "fanny pack transport" (more ofter termed fanny pack carry) in Illinois, at my age. I said I've no desire to be a "poster grandfather" either. Even though I've heard that a black fanny pack screams "GUN" I have yet to have a LEO question me about it after a couple years of "transporting".

[tattedupboy]

which do you think is better for CCW a holster that has no retaining strap or one with a retaining strap?

A retention strap is necessary only if you're carrying openly. If you're carrying concealed and not printing, no retention device is necessary, because all it will do is slow down your draw. Remember, when choosing a holster, you must find the best combination of retention and speed of draw; retention is more of a concern for open carry than it is for concealed carry, so no fancy schmancy retention devices are a necessity for concealed carry. After all, the bad guys aren't going to try to grab for something that they don't know is there, now are they?

[HairyEyeball]

'Better' is a subjective term - as such, everyone has an opinion. More to the point is what are you comfortable with.

Anyone who's carried for any length of time has a drawer full of holsters that were 'perfect' - until actual use proved they weren't. Consider also whether you'll be carrying IWB, SOB, strong side, weak side, or in a shoulder rig; whether your daily routine is an 'active', motion-filled one or a more 'passive', desk-bound one.

The speed of deployment is a non-issue: You'll be 'fastest on the draw' using the setup you wear and regularly practice with. Serious pistoleros can clear leather and put rounds on target from flapped or strapped holsters before less experienced (or less dedicated) individuals have the sidearm halfway out.

The only way to decide what's 'better' for you and your particular circumstances is to experiment. Borrow 'discards' from friends, ask (as you have) people you know and whose opinions you trust, and don't 'settle' for anything that doesn't fall into your 'comfort level' - physically and mentally.

That said, my 1911 carry piece rides in a friction retention holster, in 'Condition One', either strong side or shoulder rig. In uniform, I'm required by the agency to have it strapped in, but the thumb-break leather I use - and practice regularly with - is just as fast as the 'off duty' belt rig.

It would be 'nice' to get a definitive answer to questions like this from those with 'serious experience', but they can only tell you what works for them. YMMV.

[Raccoon]

Am a cop myself, I would say that you should not make any statements, other than for identification purposes. IF you are marandized, you are being offered a lawyer. That is the time to use it.

Years ago, I worked at a company that caught some of their employees dealing drugs and shippng drugs. It was a fortune 500 company. I was brought in in the investigation because someone said I had an opportunity to steal from the company because I moved computer parts from one facility to another.

I was raked over the coals for 5 hours. I was told that my inverview was one of the shortest ones. I was told that we were just talking, but I could have a lawyer if I wanted one. I did not take one. 5 hours. . . one of the other guys said, yes! I will have my lawyer talk to you. He got to go home and was back at work the next day with a gag order. I was sent home until the investigation was over. 4 days later, I was called and told to report back to work, and that I was only 1 of 2 people that my boss knew of that got to come back. They were looking for any admission of guilt so they could let us go enstead of lay us off and have to pay unemployment. I learned alot from that encounter. When offered a lawyer, take it. An excited utterance is one that you make without being asked a question, before being Marandized that can be used against you. For example, If I pull up in a police car and ask if you are mr. Smith, and you say, "Yes, is she oing to live?" No Marada is needed for that statement and we can use it court.

Tell them who you are, make no other statements and ask for a lawyer. You could say that you were in fear for your life, but I would refrain from making any other statements. This is just my humble opinion. YMMV.
This is not legal advice. Just my opinion.

Good citizens around here are treated better than the bad guy, at least by me. I like to use a thing that manyk people no longer use, and it is called Common Sense.

[Bill of Rights]

Sounds like you use another thing that may not see much use anymore, Raccoon... It's called Common Courtesy.
Good job.

+1

Blessings,
B

[Lady Di]

Sounds like you use another thing that may not see much use anymore, Raccoon... It's called Common Courtesy.
Good job.

+1

Blessings,
B

I agree BOR. It's refreshing to see this type of attitude from a police officer. :D

[Raccoon]

I am always happy to give advice for those who are law abiding citizens. My problem is that I am concerned that the tactics we use to get really bad guys will not work because they read this.

[Onree]

Not to get back on topic, but..... :)

Let me start off by saying; I'm a "more to love" sorta guy. That being said, the belt holsters don't work real well for me. I'm also required to wear a polo (tucked in) and jeans/pants by my employer. That doesn't allow for a belt holster. Weekends I'm in shorts and a t-shirt. Being over my ideal weight (as my doctor likes to put it), makes it harder to conceal a holster in a t-shirt, too.

My solution is a Keltec .380 in a Uncle Mike's Sidekick size 4 "wallet holster" that fits in the pocket of my jeans or shorts. Because I don't have to worry about the penetration power needed to get through several layers of clothes or a heavy winter jacket, this is a gun I can carry year round.

I generally don't carry my gun loose in my pocket as it tends to pickup lint and such.

[Danb]

This is how I carry most of the time. inside my belt with the barrel resting in my watch pcket, very secure and comfortable. my belly keeps the gun fro riding up and out, no problems with bending or sitting. it works for me. Danb



<a>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/dbrnp33/Picture061Medium.jpg</a>

[VegasGeorge]

Just when I thought I'd seen it all! :lol:

That's a great idea, Danb, and I'm going to get up and try it myself right now! Did you think that up, or did you see someone else carrying that way?

[Danb]

Just when I thought I'd seen it all! :lol:

That's a great idea, Danb, and I'm going to get up and try it myself right now! Did you think that up, or did you see someone else carrying that way?

I may have seen it before. cannot remember. It does not work for everyone. Dan

[Novel idea]

:shock: What on earth?
God forbid you're targeted by a pick pocket.

[Danb]

God forbid you're targeted by a pick pocket.[/quote]


Same as carrying in pocket. I have been carrying this way for years off and on. It works for me, and it is very secure. Danb

[junglebob]

I normally carry my handgun in a Uncle Mikes "fanny pack", their instructions say not to have a round in the chamber. In other words their suggesting "Israeli carry" , maybe the reason for that is that the trigger is not covered like in a holster, also the handgun is in the pack in a horizontal position, rather than the barrel pointed down. Since Illinois doesn't have concealed carry and doesn't allow me to "transport" with either a magazine in the handgun or round in the chamber it isn't an issue unless I go out-of-state.

Any opinions on their suggestion. I suppose it is a CYA suggestion for them to avoid a lawsuit.

[VegasGeorge]

I carry cocked and locked in a fanny pack all the time. I suppose it's remotely possible that the thumb safety could be pushed down, the grip safety depressed, and the trigger pulled all at the same time while in the bag. But, the chances of that seem so remote that I worry more about being struck by lightning.

[larryarnold]

I carry cocked and locked in a fanny pack all the time. I suppose it's remotely possible that the thumb safety could be pushed down, the grip safety depressed, and the trigger pulled all at the same time while in the bag. But, the chances of that seem so remote that I worry more about being struck by lightning.

I tried a fanny pack with my Detonics 1911 clone. It would invariably wipe the thumb safety off, and the Detonics had no grip safety.

I solved the problem by making a leather holster that had a support for the thumb safety.

Personally. any method that isn't safe with a round in the chamber is unacceptable. When I pull my gun and squeeze the trigger I want it to go bang.

[VegasGeorge]

It would invariably wipe the thumb safety off, and the Detonics had no grip safety.

Yes, that would be unacceptable. I keep my gun in a lightweight holster sleeve while it's in the bag. That covers the thumb safety, and largely prevents that problem. But, I do find that my thumb safety has been moved to "off" every so often. Probably about once a month. I have developed the strict habit of checking the position of the thumb safety as I first touch the gun each time I handle it. I've done that so long now, that it is absolutely automatic. Every time I reach for the gun, the very first thing I do is check the safety by placing my thumb on it, and giving it a shove up toward the safe position. I'm invariably startled if I feel it move and hear a "click." That scares me. And, I think it's healthy to stay just a little bit scared.

[junglebob]

VagasGeorge, I'd feel more comfortable with a round in the chamber if my gun had a grip safety.

You use a fanny pack, didn't anyone ever tell you that it screams "gun", especially if black like mine. Funny thing is the only person to ever ask what was in the pack was a 10 year old. I told him emergency stuff like a cell phone and pepper spray, which was correct, didn't mention my 9mm.

[VegasGeorge]

You use a fanny pack, didn't anyone ever tell you that it screams "gun", especially if black like mine.

Well, yes, actually, I think it was me! :lol:

http://carryconcealed.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=178