Is having a hammer for Appendix carry worth changing platforms?

[NorthernHeat]

I have been going back and forth on my off duty carry.

On duty I have a Gen 4 G34 as a primary and carry a Gen 4 G26 in a pocket as a backup.

I have been very happy with this setup and have been trying to focus on having one main platform (Glock, M&P, HK) and focusing more on shooting and less on changing guns/equipment all the time.

At the same time, over the past couple years I have come to really love appendix carry for my off duty setup and with great holsters like 5Shot, JRC and JMCK it makes it easy to carry a mid to full size gun appendix.

I began carrying a Glock 19 off duty and was very happy with it.

However, more I read on PF.com about appendix carry, I guess I started to develop a "fear" you could say of carrying a gun appendix without it having a LEM or DAO type setup where you could trap the hammer down with your thumb.

This caused me to go out and buy a HK P30 in LEM.

I very much like this gun and shoot it well, but again, I would really like to consolidate my carry pistols to the same platform/sights/triggers.

Do you think that carrying the G19 off duty (being striker fired) is un safe enough that I should begin to buy holsters/mags/etc for the P30 off duty, even thought he P30 has different trigger, mag release, feel than the guns I am trying to focus and train around?

I guess what I am asking is, is the Glock carried appendix so unsafe that it is worth investing time/money/energy in 2 different platforms, just to have a hammer on my off duty carry?

[BaiHu]

Not if you get a "gadget".

[ToddG]

I doubt this answer will help you at all, but nonetheless:


Personally, I will never again carry a pistol appendix unless it has a positive means for me to prevent discharge of the pistol while holstering. This means either a part (such as the hammer) I can control or a positive action-blocking safety I can engage. Given that the pistol is pointed at my femoral artery, that extra redundant level of safety is, to me, critical.
Plenty of people on the forum (and elsewhere) have carried a striker fired gun in an appendix holster for many years without incident. They exercise high levels of safety and awareness while holstering -- at least we hope they do -- and are comfortable taking a risk that I am not.
All else being equal, I am a firm believer in having a single "operating system" for the guns that I carry to the extent possible.

In your place, my solution would be to ask for permission to carry the P30 on duty. :cool:

[NorthernHeat]

BaiHu- I wish it was that simple :)

Todd-The more I carried and trained with the Glock appendix, the more uncomfortable I became with the operation of re-holstering a striker fired gun into the appendix position. This makes me agree with you that the extra safety of having a manual safety or a hammer to control (even thought some people call it unnecessary) is a must have.

I read a lot of posts by a lot of shooters smarter than I that carry appendix a SF gun and say that they have had no problems with it, and even though I believe them, all I keep saying to myself is "it only takes one mistake"... and if there is any way I can keep from having that "one mistake" I would like to do so.

I guess I came to the conclusion of having the Glocks on duty because I like the magazine interchangeability between my backup and primary (this is a big reason I went with a subcompact Glock and a full size Glock for duty) especially when on duty.

I have considered the idea of committing to the P30 for off duty, a P30L for on duty with a WML, and a P2000sk as my backup on duty because if I remember correctly, the P2000sk accepts P30 mags and is almost the size of the g26 (correct me if I'm wrong on that size comparison).

I have gone between 1911s, M&Ps, Glocks and now to HK which is why I am very much looking to decide on a platform and stick with it and try and focus more on the software side of things when it comes to shooting more than the hardware side of things...

[ToddG]

BaiHu- I wish it was that simple :)

Me, too!


I guess I came to the conclusion of having the Glocks on duty because I like the magazine interchangeability between my backup and primary (this is a big reason I went with a subcompact Glock and a full size Glock for duty) especially when on duty.

Can anyone recall an instance where having mag compatibility between primary and secondary made a difference in a lethal encounter? I cannot. While I certainly see it as beneficial from a hypothetical standpoint, realistically it wouldn't be a powerful motivator for me. How many guys carry j-frames as backups?


I have considered the idea of committing to the P30 for off duty, a P30L for on duty with a WML, and a P2000sk as my backup on duty because if I remember correctly, the P2000sk accepts P30 mags and is almost the size of the g26 (correct me if I'm wrong on that size comparison).

Correct on both counts.

[Up1911Fan]

I wish there was some sort of device on the market to give me an extra margin of safety when reholstering my Glock's ;).

[NorthernHeat]

So Todd, would you say if the P30/P30L is committed to, would you recommend the J-frame or the P2000SK as the backup?

I agree that I have never heard of a instance that the sub-compact version of a primary gun using the full size mags has been deployed on duty, but it always makes ya warm and fuzzy inside knowing it's a possibility :cool:

I have heard (actually happened where I work) where a primary gun was taken by a bad guy and the officer was able to deploy his backup and put his backup (J-Frame) in the bad guys stomach and pull the trigger until the cylinder got caught up in the bad guys shirt (4 out of 5 shots) and the good guy went home at the end of the day... so that does show me that the J-Frame is still a very capable backup gun.

There is actually a lot more to the story I mentioned above..for one thing, a manual safety on that specific duty gun making it so the bad guy could not figure out how to use the officers own duty pistol against him. This caused the bad guy to use the gun (that he could not figure out how to use) as a club against the officer.

But that is a story for another day...

[ToddG]

NH -- Quite a few similar stories are why so many in-the-know guys actually like a positive manual safety on their pistols. Nonetheless, such safeties have for the most part become rejected by conventional wisdom and most LE agencies specifically reject them in acquisition specifications.

re: j-frame vs P2000SK, I'd take the SK simply for more power and more firepower as well as commonality of function. But the j does have its own benefits.

The only two guns I've ever carried as backups were a j and a LCR, and I've never been a cop. So my advice should probably not be taken as authoritative on the subject. :cool:

[DocGKR]

If you want a striker fired pistol with a safety, then the M&P9c/M&P9 is a good combination for duty use as well as off-duty CCW.

If you want a hammer fired pistol, then the HK's work fine.

If you want a proven easy to maintain striker fired pistol, then go with the Glock and exercise due diligence.

Things to consider are angling the holster AWAY from critical anatomic parts when re-holstering, as well as simply leaving the pistol in the holster when taking it on and off.

FWIW, I am currently qual'd on Glocks and M&P's and have no issue carrying either of them AIWB...

[NorthernHeat]

I guess another thing that pushes me toward Glocks is that our dept (like most others) is a dept that provides Glocks as duty weapons.

Even thought I do not use the provided Glock, (which is a stock G17 Gen 4) by me using a personally owned Glock means I can use the dept provided extra gear like holsters, mags, springs (and other small parts) that the dept provides. Also the range staff are Glock guys which means if I have a problem with a gun, it is easily fixed by on site staff who have the tools and knowledge to assist me if I cannot remedy the problem.

Reading what Doc wrote about his 19 being his "new J-Frame" really pushed me back into looking at the 19 as an off duty option also.

I had all but sworn off Glocks when dealing with the Gen 3's that I was NOT a fan of, but from when I was able to get my hands on Gen 4s (that work like Glocks should), I have been all too happy to go to the Gen 4s in whatever flavor is needed at the time, whenever possible.

[NorthernHeat]

FWIW, I am currently qual'd on Glocks and M&P's and have no issue carrying either of them AIWB...

Doc,

Did the fact that both those guns are striker fired ever make you reconsider carrying them appendix or switching to another gun to carry AIWB?

Was there ever a mental element you had to get over to be comfortable carrying these style guns in that position?

[Trooper224]

I'll be a dissenting voice and say I think you may be too wrapped up in appendix carry. IMHO, I see a lot of people getting far too wrapped around the axle regarding AIWB carry. I'm not claiming you're one of them as your question is perfectly reasonable, but I think a lot of folks think it's the only way the cool kids carry these days and gravitate towards it for that reason. Personally, I prefer to have my weapon in the same place whether on or off duty, so I've never given AIWB serious thought. One thing I wouldn't do is compromise on my weapon in order to meet a specific carry method. If anything I think it should be the other way around.

[JDM]

I'll be a dissenting voice and say I think you may be too wrapped up in appendix carry. IMHO, I see a lot of people getting far too wrapped around the axle regarding AIWB carry. I'm not claiming you're one of them as your question is perfectly reasonable, but I think a lot of folks think it's the only way the cool kids carry these days and gravitate towards it for that reason. Personally, I prefer to have my weapon in the same place whether on or off duty, so I've never given AIWB serious thought. One thing I wouldn't do is compromise on my weapon in order to meet a specific carry method. If anything I think it should be the other way around.

Good angle.

I carry appendix because traditional IWB would allow my pistol to be discovered relatively easily, and that would lead to some unpleasant consequences...consequences I don't need.

Were I not regularly in an environment that requires absolute concealment, I'm not sure I would carry AIWB.

[ToddG]

... but I think a lot of folks think it's the only way the cool kids carry these days and gravitate towards it for that reason.

Some may. Others certainly do it for reasons other than being cool. It's a method that has certain advantages and certain disadvantages just like any other option. It's possible that the popularity of AIWB has something to do with the benefits experienced shooters identify with that particular carry method and not just their desire to look cool. Folks are hopefully smart enough to compare and come to a rational decision based on their needs and preferences.

[DGI]

I'll be a dissenting voice and say I think you may be too wrapped up in appendix carry. IMHO, I see a lot of people getting far too wrapped around the axle regarding AIWB carry. I'm not claiming you're one of them as your question is perfectly reasonable, but I think a lot of folks think it's the only way the cool kids carry these days and gravitate towards it for that reason. Personally, I prefer to have my weapon in the same place whether on or off duty, so I've never given AIWB serious thought. One thing I wouldn't do is compromise on my weapon in order to meet a specific carry method. If anything I think it should be the other way around.

Agreed.

I mostly carry in the appendix position because my daily driver's seat bolsters pinch a bit too much to allow me to carry at the 3-4 o'clock position. When I drive my wife's truck, i bring out the VMIIs and such :)

FWIW: I carry a G19 and a 4" 1911 AIWB and have never been too worried about being "unsafe". When holstering the weapon, your either 110% dedicated to the moment, or you shouldnt be holstering. Otherwise, the gun can ride there all day without worry.

[Trooper224]

Some may. Others certainly do it for reasons other than being cool. It's a method that has certain advantages and certain disadvantages just like any other option. It's possible that the popularity of AIWB has something to do with the benefits experienced shooters identify with that particular carry method and not just their desire to look cool. Folks are hopefully smart enough to compare and come to a rational decision based on their needs and preferences.

I don't disagree with any of that, nor am I down on appendix carry. However, I'm offering an additional perspective because I see many people who seem overly determined to make AIWB carry work for them when there may be good reasons why it doesn't.

[El Cid]

FWIW: I carry a G19 and a 4" 1911 AIWB and have never been too worried about being "unsafe". When holstering the weapon, your either 110% dedicated to the moment, or you shouldnt be holstering. Otherwise, the gun can ride there all day without worry.

Precisely. If I'm understanding the concern folks have with AIWB, it's that something getting into the holster can activate the trigger and with Glock style weapons there's no mechanical device or technique that will overcome this right? I don't carry appendix but I've seen plenty of t-shirts work their way into hip mounted holsters.

I agree with DGI. If I'm reholstering my weapon it's because there is no longer a threat. In my mind that means I can take my time, look the gun in and ensure it's clear. If I carried appendix I might even incorporate a support hand sweep in advance of holstering as an extra precaution. Even if I need to go render aid to a fellow LEO or citizen... We are all better served by me taking the time to avoid shooting off my junk or destroying my femoral artery.

Some friends and I have seen some of our firearms instructors lately correct people for looking the gun into the holster on the premise that we must keep our eyes on the threat. We always point out that if there was still a threat we wouldn't be holstering.

[GJM]

Appendix carry has a high risk of a bad outcome, if there is a ND while drawing or holstering. That is regardless of platform.

As someone who carries striker and hammer pistols, there is interesting psychology at play. Many people who carry a hammer gun feel it safe for appendix carry, and a striker is not. The more they carry a hammer, the safer they feel, and the more they dislike a striker. Often striker folks feel unsafe initially, but progressively more safe as they carry a striker more.

Most folks carrying appendix are particularly concerned about reholstering. What I find interesting, is looking at ND reports from Front Sight, people routinely shoot themselves drawing and reholstering. They do this with striker, TDA and 1911 pistols. (I don't recall LEM accidents, but as a general rule the only people carrying LEM are on PF, and PF members wouldn't be caught dead at Front Sight.)

I personally try to minimize live fire practice from appendix with hammer and striker pistols. I do appendix drawing practice, dry fire. I minimize administrative handling of the pistol when carrying appendix. I strive to load or check the pistol, place it in my holster, then place the pistol and holster on my belt. When reholstering appendix, I tilt my body so the muzzle doesn't cover my anatomy. I also fire my first shot with a Glock, by not prepping the trigger during my extension, but instead pressing the whole trigger travel after extending the pistol.

I think appendix has many comfort and concealment benefits. Each person needs to figure out whether those benefits are worth the positional risk of appendix, and how they will manage that risk if they use appendix carry.

[hurley842002]

Things to consider are angling the holster AWAY from critical anatomic parts when re-holstering, as well as simply leaving the pistol in the holster when taking it on and off.


This is sound info. My holster IS my safety. Buy a holster that is easy on easy of, and you eliminate most AIWB "issues". This is what I use for example.....

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/05/d146a0273c6f03ffc849c1d30ebb442d.jpg

[LSP972]

I think a lot of folks think it's the only way the cool kids carry these days and gravitate towards it for that reason. .

Exactly.

.

[ToddG]

I don't disagree with any of that, nor am I down on appendix carry. However, I'm offering an additional perspective because I see many people who seem overly determined to make AIWB carry work for them when there may be good reasons why it doesn't.

No question. We see it at the monthly NRA KSTG match all the time.


As someone who carries striker and hammer pistols, there is interesting psychology at play. Many people who carry a hammer gun feel it safe for appendix carry, and a striker is not. The more they carry a hammer, the safer they feel, and the more they dislike a striker. Often striker folks feel unsafe initially, but progressively more safe as they carry a striker more.

I'm not sure it's such a complicated thing. In both cases, people become more confident in their choice as time goes on. As someone whose first aiwb carry gun was a SFA, however, I can tell you it was a big relief when I switched to a gun whose firing pin I could directly control when holstering.


What I find interesting, is looking at ND reports from Front Sight, people routinely shoot themselves drawing and reholstering.

Last I spoke to someone who'd been there, Front Sight wasn't teaching people to thumb the hammer while holstering. Garbage in, garbage out.


This is sound info. My holster IS my safety. Buy a holster that is easy on easy of, and you eliminate most AIWB "issues". This is what I use for example.....

How much weapons retention have you done with that holster? I'd be genuinely interested if it has survived many attempts to rip it off the belt.

[Hambo]

I wouldn't switch pistols just to accommodate AIWB. The reasons you listed for using Glocks at work are valid. That leaves a couple of options:

1) Be careful with the G19 AIWB and drive on. Even using a TDA in an IWB holster, I don't unholster/holster unless I need the pistol.
2) Switch to IWB and drive on. If access in a vehicle is a concern, carry a second gun that you can get to when belted in.

[JV_]

Even using a TDA in an IWB holster, I don't unholster/holster unless I need the pistol. You don't practice drawing from concealment/IWB, at the range?

[gtmtnbiker98]

I can relate to many of the observations presented in this thread. Although I favor the HK VP9 over the P30 V1, I still carry the P30 V1 as my off duty sidearm. Why? The hammer. I carry AIWB and am more comfortable with the P30 in this mode of carry than I am any other personally owned sidearm.

I had a huge mental barrier to overcome when I took Tom Givens class back in November. I used my VP9 in this class and during TD-1 I carried the VP9 at 3 O'Clock. On TD-2 I chose to carry the VP9 AIWB and after a few drills I grew more comfortable using the SFA pistol at my normal carry position, but I was sure to be much more deliberate during the re holster. The only time I missed not having a hammer was during the re holster.

[ssb]

While I like hammer-fired guns (and specifically, DA/SA) for their safety benefits, as has been discussed elsewhere on this forum/pistol-training.com, there are other benefits to those actions beyond safety when it comes to "street triggers," benefits which I am very much a fan of. Further, I don't think the DA/SA gun that I'm carrying is "compromising" anything -- quite the contrary, I've found that action type to be very shootable and better for me than the LEM and SFA. Finally, my P226 is very enjoyable to shoot, more so than my other plastic guns. The "fun" factor is something that I think gets lost amongst some of our more serious crowd at times, but I will say that "because I enjoy it" is probably a major contributor to what's kept me at the range at least once per week for the past three months, perhaps just as much as the desire to improve my shooting skills.

For similar reasons as others, I'm not a fan of SFA guns at the appendix position. The only exception for me is with a holster like a Vanguard II, which makes me take the holster out of my pants in order to reholster. At that point, the risk is removed, and I carried a G19 that way for two years. Today, the only SFA gun I'll carry appendix is a PPS, which has a little plastic thingy on the slide that starts moving as the trigger moves. While I can block the trigger from moving dry, I'm not entirely sure I trust that as much as a hammer to truly block the trigger's motion. It does give me a tactile indicator that something is wrong, however, which I view as a good thing.

[JustOneGun]

Mini rant here:
NH, as an officer have you ever tried to grab your pistol on the hip when it was off duty in the AIWB? I have. I had many officers tell me that didn't happen to them. Then I ran them through a qual: it promptly happened to a very large percentage of them them during the mild stress of an AZPOST qual. I didn't carry AIWB until retirement just for that reason. YMMV with that. Also as someone stated, having the same pistol on and off duty is a great advantage for similar reasons as having the same location of a holster.

Now as an old retiree I carry my stock Glock 19 AIWB. The reason is I draw faster, sit and move more comfortably and can wear the pistol all day without needing a chiropractor. I put it on when I wake up and take it off when I go to bed. I disagree with Todd about the striker fired weapon: I shoot the Glock because I am faster out of the holster to first shot, splits and everything in between than my old Sig and HK that I initially learned on. And I got to that level faster with the Glock than with the HK. If you find that is true for you then why would you want to switch?

Why would I hurt my performance during a gunfight when my life is on the line to make myself safer when nothing is going on? The extra training should be put into things that happen before and after the fight, not what happens during the fight. The fight should be made as easy/simple as possible. Put another way, after reading the AIWB sticky I came away with one question: why do so many people think it is okay to shoot themselves in the butt, hip or femur? There is nothing with AIWB that makes the gun go off more than any other holster.

You must train not to shoot yourself. I canted the pistol muzzle away from my body when I holstered on the hip with my HK as a rookie. I cant it away from my body when I holster my Glock AIWB. The reason is because shooting yourself in the artery or femur really sucks. Bullets do funny things, you can bleed out from that hip shot also. Yes I know, it usually ends up coming out your knee. What a relief. Okay, mini rant off.

We all decide for ourselves what we will do. I only rant that we have the wrong balance sometimes. I saw this in police work all the time. This out of context fear leads to holsters that even the officer can't draw properly during a gunfight (but no one else could take it from them), rifles locked in trunks instead of gun mounts in the cab because the public will see them or my all time police favorite, "I can draw and shoot just as fast as with the gun out so I think we should keep it in the holster until needed" (i.e. the public doesn't like seeing the militarized police running around with guns out.)

Okay I'm ranting again. I'll shut up, get some coffee and continue quietly reading. :)

[ScotchMan]

This is an interesting thread that reflects a lot of the internal debate I've had over the past year or two. I carried an LEM appendix, followed by a Walther PPS largely because the striker indicator lets you do the same thing a hammer-fired gun does when holstering.

I then went in the opposite direction and started carrying a Walther PPQ, which despite the advertised trigger pull weight, is much lighter than a Glock. Now I am comfortably appendix carrying a Glock 19 Gen4.

I wish that I was carrying AIWB just to be cool, because that would mean I could get away with carrying at the traditional 3:00-5:00. With some dress I can, and I carry OWB for the additional speed and comfort benefits. But when I need to be in concealment mode, IWB at that location just doesn't work for my 6'5" skinny frame. Using appendix through some advanced training involving shooting from very compromised positions, SHO and WHO, other benefits really began to emerge; having the gun, and the empty holster in the case of SHO/WHO reloads, right there in front of you really simplifies things. Plus its just faster. But I don't need to extol the virtues of AIWB to you guys.

For me, if the gun/holster combination isn't good for training, it isn't good for carrying. This was a big part of why the PPQ sits in my safe now. While I was comfortable carrying it day to day, I was not comfortable with the thought of holstering the chambered pistol hundreds/thousands of times a day in a class. I switched to the G19 for several reasons, but the catalyst was my desire to find something with just a little more margin of error, a tiny bit more pressure needed that maybe would throw up a red flag when holstering. I holster very carefully and pay a lot of attention. I would still feel better with a hammer or ability to block the striker like on the PPS, but it is a compromise I feel comfortable with and can live with.

Ultimately, the Gadget just needs to be released and solve a lot of these issues for a lot of people. Alternatively, more companies need to integrate devices like that in the PPS.

[Hambo]

You don't practice drawing from concealment/IWB, at the range?

Need would include, but not necessarily be limited to: fending off threats to life and limb, range time, clearing and cleaning. If I'm just taking the pistol off at the end of a regular day, I take off the holster with pistol in it and put it on my desk or nightstand. Clear enough?

[JV_]

Clear enough?

By your definition, I don't think many folks here un-holster without a "need".

I asked because a number of people that I know carry AIWB, but if they're on the range practicing for the day, where hundreds of draw strokes are racked up, they OWB. It's a trade off of getting in reps with your carry gear and mitigating risk.

[David S.]

K

I agree with DGI. If I'm reholstering my weapon it's because there is no longer a threat. In my mind that means I can take my time, look the gun in and ensure it's clear.

I'm not telling anybody what to do or think, but I'll add one consideration that your post doesn't seem to acknowledge. If I'm reholstering because there was a threat, then there was probably an adrenaline dump also that may dumb down my otherwise relaxed reholster routine. Having extra protections, such as a hammer or Gadget to ride during reholster, seems like a pretty good idea. I'm wont disparage anyone who has thoughtfully chosen to appendix carry a striker gun but you'll never see me do it.

[JustOneGun]

K

I'm not telling anybody what to do or think, but I'll add one consideration that your post doesn't seem to acknowledge. If I'm reholstering because there was a threat, then there was probably an adrenaline dump also that may dumb down my otherwise relaxed reholster routine. Having extra protections, such as a hammer or Gadget to ride during reholster, seems like a pretty good idea. I'm wont disparage anyone who has thoughtfully chosen to appendix carry a striker gun but you'll never see me do it.

That's fair enough but don't you think it would be necessary to take it one step further? Screwing up your holster can result in any gun going bang. Using your same logic can't I make any gun go bang while holstering? Fail to decock a TDA, fail to clear the garment, fail to put on the manual safety, whatever. Isn't this a training issue no matter what gun you have?

[psalms144.1]

Can anyone recall an instance where having mag compatibility between primary and secondary made a difference in a lethal encounter? I cannot. Todd - can't get too far into details as I'm not sure the final report is cleared for release yet, but I'm aware of at least one active shooter response where magazine compatibility between authorized ISSUED pistols was an issue for responders. Hopefully someday we'll get the OK to discuss in detail, but I know at least one fairly switched on dude who, after the incident, IMMEDIATELY turned in his issued single-stack pistol for a "standard" issue handgun.

There's a LOT more to the story, but, suffice it to say, the look in that guys eyes as he described trying to thumb loose rounds from his partner's magazine into his magazine during a "lull" in the action was impactful, to say the least.

Regards,

Kevin

[ToddG]

Isn't this a training issue no matter what gun you have?

Of course. That's why multiple redundant "safeties" are a benefit, which is what I think JollyGreen was trying to get across. It's like the Cardinal Rules. Breaking just one of them, which happens frequently with lots of shooters whether we want to admit it or not, usually doesn't result in anything more than embarrassment. Why? Because they're specifically designed to be more rules than you actually need.

We could just say the cardinal rule is "don't shoot anything accidentally." That's obviously a good rule. But it's not enough because under various circumstances, people screw certain parts of it up. Under that single rule, you can have your finger anywhere you want or point the gun anywhere you want as long as you keep it from going bang. But under stress or simply due to inattention, that single rule might not be enough and the gun will go bang when you didn't intend. That's why there are more specific, and redundant, rules you follow even if some of them seem unnecessary at certain times.

[psalms144.1]

I don't AIWB for a variety of reasons, most of them self-induced. First, it's not physically comfortable for me because I'm carrying too much weight. Second, trying AIWB even without the discomfort has had bad results because I don't want to invest the money in a dedicated AIWB holster, and, as many have correctly stated, "adapting" a standard IWB holster for AIWB isn't a great solution. Lastly, given my line of work and daily attire, AIWB isn't a realistic option for on-duty use, and I have personal experience of being in a situation where someone needed shooting, and I reached for a pistol on my hip that wasn't there (because I was screwing around with shoulder holsters at the time). By the time I got my pistol into play, my threat had disappeared, ne'er to be seen again.

I don't can't and won't dispute the advantages in draw/presentation and concealment with AIWB when a TRAINED shooter employs that method of carry with a good holster. And, for those who are dedicated AIWB carriers with SFA pistols, more power to you! But, I STRONGLY object to the idea that someone would change a proven, reliable, and effective carry platform JUST to be more comfortable with a certain holster. I really think that's putting the cart before the horse.

Regards,

Kevin

[JDB]

A big consideration for me with carrying AIWB is how much live fire I plan on doing. GJM touched on this some.

I'm okay with carrying a Glock 19 AIWB...but heavy live practice with it is another story. If you're doing a hundred draws in a live fire session, its just way to easy to get complacent about holstering procedures (and start speed holstering). Its just difficult to maintain the necessary mental discipline to slow down and do it right when the reps add up.

I'd much rather use my P30 for heavy AIWB live fire sessions...its just that much more forgiving, and the added safety benefit of a longer trigger stroke and a hammer that gets thumbed tips the balance for me enough to actually practice extensively.

I'm not saying my mental discipline is bad or unsafe, or that I speed holster....but I could see the potential to fail at some point in the course of the next however many decades I'll be carrying. And when/if that happens, much better to have that long trigger and hammer.

[THellURider]

This is an interesting thread.

I'm fairly new to AIWB carry but for me it's made all the difference. I've been able to go from carrying occasionally to carrying nearly 100% of the time when I can legally do so. It works with my body type and how I dress. To Kevin's comment above, I'm not sure it is cart before the horse, if a comfortable holster allows/drives you to carry when you normally wouldn't have then that's the horse before the cart.

That said, I carry Glocks. So reading all this concern about carrying a Glock this way is a bit disconcerting. Do we have documented cases of this being disastrous?

I don't normally holster my gun a whole lot. When the carry rig comes off the gun never leaves the holster. Only place I'm reholstering a lot is training, and there, controlling for loose clothes and the like, I don't feel like there's any more risk of a ND than with any other carry type. Of course, the results of an ND between AIWB and another carry type are rather different which I gather is the point some of you are trying to drive across.

[Mr_White]

We all are going to weigh the factors and make our choices, and that is all good. You can make appendix carry pretty safe through a combination of a number of different factors. Thumb-checking the hammer, Gadget, or safety is certainly a good one. I see a lot of anxiety expressed about carrying a SFA appendix due to the inability to thumb check. That doesn't bother me, because I lean heavily on a factor that I think gets underrepresented in these discussions, compared to the emphasis given to thumb-checking: don't let the gun point at your groin or thigh. This can be done though conscious action during holstering, and it can also be done through holster design.

I realize that isn't going to work for everyone. Bodies are shaped differently and people are going to use different holsters. But what's compelling for me, is that I think appendix carry done really well (to include controlling the muzzle) is actually safer than strong side IWB in terms of quantity of muzzle-body intersection.

If I couldn't control the muzzle that way, I'd probably be right there with people who are uncomfortable carrying a gun (particularly a SFA) in the appendix position.

[THellURider]

We all are going to weigh the factors and make our choices, and that is all good. You can make appendix carry pretty safe through a combination of a number of different factors. Thumb-checking the hammer, Gadget, or safety is certainly a good one. I see a lot of anxiety expressed about carrying a SFA appendix due to the inability to thumb check. That doesn't bother me, because I lean heavily on a factor that I think gets underrepresented in these discussions, compared to the emphasis given to thumb-checking: don't let the gun point at your groin or thigh. This can be done though conscious action during holstering, and it can also be done through holster design.

I realize that isn't going to work for everyone. Bodies are shaped differently and people are going to use different holsters. But what's compelling for me, is that I think appendix carry done really well (to include controlling the muzzle) is actually safer than strong side IWB in terms of quantity of muzzle-body intersection.

If I couldn't control the muzzle that way, I'd probably be right there with people who are uncomfortable carrying a gun (particularly a SFA) in the appendix position.

I've heard one brief description of a safe AIWB reholstering method - would you mine describing yours?

[Cookie Monster]

Wondering like ThellURider, is there any cases of proper AIWB carriers (AIWB specific holster) firing off a round on re-holstering?

Been to classes where guys are speed, slamming reholstering and it is just scary. I've done a bunch of dry practice with AIWB but never carried. I find though at 4 o'clock carry I re-holster by feel and with AIWB I get a clear view.

Maybe one day, I'll carry AIWB. I see the advantages, I documented the advantages in dry practice. I can't get over muzzling my crotch, it a psychological thing.

Cheers,
Cookie Monster

[Mr_White]

I've heard one brief description of a safe AIWB reholstering method - would you mine describing yours?

AIWB with a striker-fired pistol can be undertaken safely through various combinations of the factors that make it harder to fire the gun, harder to hit yourself with the bullet, and harder to hit yourself as seriously with the bullet. Further, some of these factors require you do something right, and others work passively and don't require you to do anything.

Things you can do that require you do something right when holstering:

A. Trigger finger discipline
B. Hard break before holstering
C. Holster slowly and carefully
D. Look the gun into the holster
E. Bow your pelvis forward when holstering (helps keep muzzle out of alignment with your body)
F. Thumb check a manual safety or hammer – not applicable to Glock
G. Thumb check a Gadget – not applicable unless you can find one

Things you can do that don't require you do something right when holstering:

H. Heavier trigger pull
I. Holster positioned between groin and leg
J. Big pads on the holster that prevent the muzzle from aligning with your body through flesh compression
K. Longer gun/holster will also make it harder for the muzzle to align with your body through flesh compression
L. Minimize clothing and gear near the holster so foreign matter is less available to get into the trigger guard

I lean hardest on A and J, but also on B, C, E, G, I, K, and L. I really prefer to have at least one factor from the second list, because those factors are not as subject to human error. I am a huge believer in trigger finger discipline and controlling muzzle direction with holster and body positioning and the big pads. My gun is pointed directly at my body very little of the time.

[ScotchMan]

A big consideration for me with carrying AIWB is how much live fire I plan on doing. GJM touched on this some.

I'm okay with carrying a Glock 19 AIWB...but heavy live practice with it is another story. If you're doing a hundred draws in a live fire session, its just way to easy to get complacent about holstering procedures (and start speed holstering). Its just difficult to maintain the necessary mental discipline to slow down and do it right when the reps add up.

I'd much rather use my P30 for heavy AIWB live fire sessions...its just that much more forgiving, and the added safety benefit of a longer trigger stroke and a hammer that gets thumbed tips the balance for me enough to actually practice extensively.

I'm not saying my mental discipline is bad or unsafe, or that I speed holster....but I could see the potential to fail at some point in the course of the next however many decades I'll be carrying. And when/if that happens, much better to have that long trigger and hammer.

This is a big concern for me as well. Due to the fact that I carry OWB at 3:00 fairly often in the colder months (ie now), I was thinking about the following idea for my next training class. Wear both holsters, the AIWB and the OWB at 3:00, and use one method for the first 1/4 to 1/2 of the day, and switch it up halfway through. This would be an experiment to see how much one is affected by muscle memory and carrying in multiple locations. For me, I've never gone for the "wrong gun" so to speak, but I think everyone is different, and this would be an interesting way to confirm the theory in a controlled environment.

[Mr_White]

Been to classes where guys are speed, slamming reholstering and it is just scary.

Agree. Without specific and persistent instruction to the contrary, people are very attracted to shoving a gun fast and hard into a kydex holster that makes a nice sound when you do it. I've seen experienced instructors who should know better do it. I put a stop to this immediately in any class I teach.


Maybe one day, I'll carry AIWB. I see the advantages, I documented the advantages in dry practice. I can't get over muzzling my crotch, it a psychological thing.

First, I acknowledge that our bodies and holsters are all different and what works for me may not work for you. That said, if I were you, the central problem I would try to solve would be how to carry appendix, but not muzzle my crotch.

[ScotchMan]

We all are going to weigh the factors and make our choices, and that is all good. You can make appendix carry pretty safe through a combination of a number of different factors. Thumb-checking the hammer, Gadget, or safety is certainly a good one. I see a lot of anxiety expressed about carrying a SFA appendix due to the inability to thumb check. That doesn't bother me, because I lean heavily on a factor that I think gets underrepresented in these discussions, compared to the emphasis given to thumb-checking: don't let the gun point at your groin or thigh. This can be done though conscious action during holstering, and it can also be done through holster design.

I realize that isn't going to work for everyone. Bodies are shaped differently and people are going to use different holsters. But what's compelling for me, is that I think appendix carry done really well (to include controlling the muzzle) is actually safer than strong side IWB in terms of quantity of muzzle-body intersection.

If I couldn't control the muzzle that way, I'd probably be right there with people who are uncomfortable carrying a gun (particularly a SFA) in the appendix position.

This is another great point I forgot to bring up. I find with my JMC AIWB with the "extra tuck" feature, the muzzle is actually canted away from my body for the majority of the draw/holster stroke. A typical, straight drop holster with no wedge or tuck feature would not have this. I do gain some additional peace of mind from that as well.

[ToddG]

Reminder of Yute's excellent photo array about safely holstering AIWB here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?120-AIWB-(Appendix-Carry)&p=87911&viewfull=1#post87911).

Some of my previously discussed thoughts:
AIWB Not for Everyone (http://pistol-training.com/archives/2998)
Appendix Controversy (http://pistol-training.com/archives/7768)

[JustOneGun]

Of course. That's why multiple redundant "safeties" are a benefit, which is what I think JollyGreen was trying to get across. It's like the Cardinal Rules. Breaking just one of them, which happens frequently with lots of shooters whether we want to admit it or not, usually doesn't result in anything more than embarrassment. Why? Because they're specifically designed to be more rules than you actually need.

We could just say the cardinal rule is "don't shoot anything accidentally." That's obviously a good rule. But it's not enough because under various circumstances, people screw certain parts of it up. Under that single rule, you can have your finger anywhere you want or point the gun anywhere you want as long as you keep it from going bang. But under stress or simply due to inattention, that single rule might not be enough and the gun will go bang when you didn't intend. That's why there are more specific, and redundant, rules you follow even if some of them seem unnecessary at certain times.

I hear what you are saying and believe that you are agree with me more than disagreeing. All of those redundant safety rules are based on training not equipment. If you take it to the extreme without looking at how a ND while holstering actually happens then only a DAO (No TDA to forget to decock, no LDA as we need the 12# as a safety) with a manual safety will work. And if you are still afraid of an ND then we can't do AIWB as it is usually safer to shoot yourself in the hip or butt. That is a form of a redundant safety too.

Of course using that logic we need a triple retention holster with WML for the gun grabs and redundant light. And three spare magazines for the rare occasion that a mumbai style attack occurs, and a BUG in case the primary goes down, etc, etc. At some point we will come to the valid conclusion that we should not carry a pistol. And I don't say that snidely. It can be the valid conclusion if we are talking extreme safety.

So there is a balance. I simply suggest that when we look at the range of motion that the pistol goes through when holstering even a TDA can fire if you obstruct the trigger. So it is not a safety in that circumstances, it just feels like one. So how the ND happens and how our training is short circuited is important to consider. What really is a redundant safety and what is just a feel good safety? Clearing the garment, looking the pistol into the holster, canting the muzzle outward are all redundant safety procedures just as putting your thumb on that hammer is. Training to not holster after a shooting is another, although it does slow down training. I believe that the same thing that will screw up my redundant system is the same thing that will make me screw up and not put my thumb on that Gadget or hammer. It's the same screw up mentally leading to not doing the safety system physically.

A better example of that balance are those that say they like the TDA because it gives them a margin of safety in case they improperly ID the target as a threat but because of the longer trigger pull they were able to stop and not fire. I usually ask them why they had more time to stop? They look stupid at me. I suggest they had more time because it takes longer to make the gun go bang than say a 1911 or Glock. And if that is so then the gun will go bang later in the gunfight if they properly ID'd the bad guy. They have traded some measure of ability to shoot the bad guy and save their life with the ability to not shoot a good guy if they screw up. If you consider that a valid trade off then we will have to agree to disagree.

I simply say that there is a training issue there and I use redundant safety measures to holster my Glock AIWB. I just try to use my training to give those redundant safeties as opposed to using more equipment or equipment that slows down my ability to save my own life during the gunfight. It's not that the safety sentiment is improper, just that there are other ways to deal with it redundantly without taking it to the extreme of hindering the gunfight.

I've had that conversation with students and other instructors many times. After that conversation I say they have to make an informed decision and wish them well without any ill will or ego. We all make our decisions and live with the outcome. The best all this talk can do is help us make an informed decision. I used to tell students that they had to make the decision because when they get into a gunfight I would be standing out there on the range with that stupid 5.11 uniform on. :cool:

[Vinh]

A perusal of skilled and unskilled AIWB practitioners on YouTube shows universally cavalier reholstering, and no one looks the gun into the holster. Yet, no one has shot themselves. Therefore, I recommend that the original poster stick with Glocks and have at it. He is unlikely to be the first. We can what-if all day, but it doesn't affect the outcome that much. If you want to take extra precautions, great, but if not, you'll still be okay anyway.

[JV_]

Yet, no one has shot themselves.
A former member of this forum shot himself, using a versa carry holster, while AIWB'ing. IIRC, it was on the draw.

[EVP]

I know JHC has said it a time or two and I agree with him everytime he says it, that the vg2 minimizes the hazards of AIWB carry do to having to take the unit off to" reholster"

Do I prefer the 5 shot SME or the JM, you bet! I know people don't really like the vg2 as a dedicated AIWB holster but it does mitigate some of the risks.

[JustOneGun]

A perusal of skilled and unskilled AIWB practitioners on YouTube shows universally cavalier reholstering, and no one looks the gun into the holster. Yet, no one has shot themselves. Therefore, I recommend that the original poster stick with Glocks and have at it. He is unlikely to be the first. We can what-if all day, but it doesn't affect the outcome that much. If you want to take extra precautions, great, but if not, you'll still be okay anyway.

Whether AIWB or somewhere else, I think it is a good idea to remember that, it can happen to any of us. Whatever method, place and safety procedures we use it is important to remember that none of us are immune to screwing up. It only takes one. We all can get complacent and for me remembering that fact helps keep me humble and watchful.

[psalms144.1]

I've been able to go from carrying occasionally to carrying nearly 100% of the time when I can legally do so. It works with my body type and how I dress. To Kevin's comment above, I'm not sure it is cart before the horse, if a comfortable holster allows/drives you to carry when you normally wouldn't have then that's the horse before the cart. In your case, I agree the cart/horse discussion doesn't work. The OP has other options that work, but was asking about a platform switch JUST to AIWB - hence my trip down cliche lane.

You do make a couple of points that are worth noting - that there is a SIGNIFICANT consequence difference between an ND with AIWB/other carry, and that you're able to CONTROL loose clothes and the like. I get that. I'm just concerned that, in the horror show of adrenalin induced weirdness after YOUR gunfight, will you be that cognizant of what's happening, and think about controlling loose clothes. I'm not saying you won't be or can't be, I'm sure you could ingrain a "muscle memory" program for reholstering that allows for that control, and train to it with enough work. But, I LOVED what Todd said when he started down the AIWB trail, every time he started to reholster, he stopped and mentally told himself "don't KITTENING kill yourself!"

Again, if you carry that way and it's the best solution for you, I'm NOT saying you should change to a different carry mode. I'd MUCH rather hear you're carrying a "real gun" (TM) all the time AIWB than a mouse gun in your pocket, or no gun at all some of the time.

Regards,

Kevin

[David S.]

It is a training issue first. But accidents can happen, as you say, to any of us.

I've done my risk assessment. I prefer the additional tactile safety measure. I would not carry AIWB without a hammer (or something similar) and I, personally, don't understand why anyone would. But that's me. Some very sharp people do carry without that particular protection. Some very smart people don't understand why I would risk carrying AIWB in the first place.

I combine all the safety measures that OragamiAK mentioned in post #40 with riding the hammer during reholster. That's my comfort level.

It sounds like you've made a risk assessment, and that's what really matters, so rock on with your bad ol' self. You'll get no hate from me.

Cheers,
David

[WDW]

I tried several guns with AIWB before settling on a P99 AS. It's the best of both worlds....a smooth, long DA first pull followed by one of the best SA triggers in polymer framed gun there is. Plus, it features a very prominent "cocked or not" indicator on the rear of the pistol...both visual & tactile. I definitely prefer something between me and the trigger when carrying AIWB.

[ToddG]

I hear what you are saying and believe that you are agree with me more than disagreeing.

I agree with your assessment that we're agreeing. You're correct that we could take the examples to extremes, but at the end of the day, as so many have said, it's a matter of how many and/or which safety precautions get you to your comfort level.


Whether AIWB or somewhere else, I think it is a good idea to remember that, it can happen to any of us. Whatever method, place and safety procedures we use it is important to remember that none of us are immune to screwing up. It only takes one. We all can get complacent and for me remembering that fact helps keep me humble and watchful.

I think that's a key point often missed by many. There are some pretty well known folks in the shooting community who've injured themselves ballistically while holstering a gun. If the guys who are handling guns every day for years (or decades) can have an off moment, any of us can.

And to the world at large, please note the difference between "any of us can" and "all of us will" before going on a rant about how you could never make such a mistake because you are a Safe Gun Handler (universal "you" not JustOneGun himself).


I would not carry AIWB without a hammer (or something similar) and I, personally, don't understand why anyone would. But that's me. Some very sharp people do carry without that particular protection. Some very smart people don't understand why I would risk carrying AIWB in the first place.

Good comments all. I, too, have reached a point where I won't carry aiwb without redundant control of the firing mechanism on top of "don't touch the trigger." But the guy who turned my personal circle of shooting buddies on to aiwb in the first place did so with a G19. At first, we were all amazed that he was crazy enough to carry aiwb at all and constantly made fun of him for being stupid. A few years later, just about all of us were carrying aiwb, and quite a few of us doing so with a SFA pistol.

[1slow]

I carried Glocks GL21,30,19,17 from 1990. IWB till about 2005. AIWB since then. Went to Rogers 4 times using AIWB.
About 2012 switched over to HK45, HK P 30 LEM 9mm still AIWB.
Either system can be reholstered safely.

In the cold snow and rain under closed cover + 1-2 outer layers I am more comfortable with thumb on hammer reholster. Add darkness or gloves and this is even more true.
I really thought about this in: Pat Rogers 3 Day Carbine class in SC 2014 that started in the snow, John Farnham's 3 day instructor class during the dark and carbine to pistol and back to carbine transitions.

[Leroy]

I don't have an issue with carrying a striker AIWB, but always carry it without a shirt behind the gun. From the ADs reholstering that I have seen and heard about typically 2 things compress the trigger; finger or article of clothing. I switched to a hammer gun for competition gun so I weny to a similar carry gun for carry. Being able to put the thumb on the hammer does give me a little piece of mind.

[23JAZ]

I agree with your assessment that we're agreeing. You're correct that we could take the examples to extremes, but at the end of the day, as so many have said, it's a matter of how many and/or which safety precautions get you to your comfort level.



I think that's a key point often missed by many. There are some pretty well known folks in the shooting community who've injured themselves ballistically while holstering a gun. If the guys who are handling guns every day for years (or decades) can have an off moment, any of us can.

And to the world at large, please note the difference between "any of us can" and "all of us will" before going on a rant about how you could never make such a mistake because you are a Safe Gun Handler (universal "you" not JustOneGun himself).



Good comments all. I, too, have reached a point where I won't carry aiwb without redundant control of the firing mechanism on top of "don't touch the trigger." But the guy who turned my personal circle of shooting buddies on to aiwb in the first place did so with a G19. At first, we were all amazed that he was crazy enough to carry aiwb at all and constantly made fun of him for being stupid. A few years later, just about all of us were carrying aiwb, and quite a few of us doing so with a SFA pistol.

When can we expect the gadget out. So us SF carriers can have a little more comfort?

[GJM]

What percentage of appendix NDs happen reholstering and what percentage happen drawing? Reading this thread, you would think NDs only happen reholstering.


Something I tried to point out with reference to the Front Sight data, is people shoot themselves all sorts of ways.

[JV_]

Reading this thread, you would think NDs only happen reholstering.Did you miss my previous post, #47?

[GJM]

Did you miss my previous post, #47?

I did miss that, on the road all week. My point still stands -- post after post in this thread discusses an ND while reholstering and the Front Signt data, as I recall, has about half the accidents drawing.

[JustOneGun]

It is a training issue first. But accidents can happen, as you say, to any of us.

I've done my risk assessment. I prefer the additional tactile safety measure. I would not carry AIWB without a hammer (or something similar) and I, personally, don't understand why anyone would. But that's me. Some very sharp people do carry without that particular protection. Some very smart people don't understand why I would risk carrying AIWB in the first place.

I combine all the safety measures that OragamiAK mentioned in post #40 with riding the hammer during reholster. That's my comfort level.

It sounds like you've made a risk assessment, and that's what really matters, so rock on with your bad ol' self. You'll get no hate from me.

Cheers,
David

Bold text above mine...

I understand what you are saying. As we have all agreed you must look out for yourself and make that decision. What much of the thread has concentrated on is trying to answer your bold statement above.

I don't think I explained myself very well and will try a different way. People who have valid safety measures while holstering sometimes shoot themselves. People with no safety measures while holstering sometimes shoot themselves. We can guess why the later would shoot themselves. But how would you or I do so? Usually it's because we start to holster as a learned process without thinking. We use the same mental processing to holster as we do to draw. We've all heard people say, "I didn't even know I had drawn the gun. It just happened." What I see from shooters, good and bad, is that they holster in the same way.

When I've seen safety problems on the range while holstering it is usually because that safety process we all are talking about was never started. Their safety loop was interrupted. With that in mind, adding a hammer to the looking, clearing obstacles and canting will not stop us from shooting ourselves. I have seen people put their thumb on the hammer of a cocked Sig and holster. They weren't thinking just doing. The only way in my opinion to stop it is to make holstering during thousand of reps a non-subconscious process. This would be the idea of telling yourself not to kill yourself right before you holster or saying to yourself out loud that you are done with dry fire and will load the pistol so no more pulling the trigger.

Now you can still say you will only use a hammered pistol and that is fine. I would humbly suggest that we all keep in mind how we can keep holstering from becoming an ingrained subconscious habit. Because when that happens you might not start the process. If there happens to be an obstruction of the holster at that time you might just shoot yourself hammer or no.

[Rich]

I have considered the idea of committing to the P30 for off duty, a P30L for on duty with a WML, .



The P30 or P30L

P30L is only .5 inches longer and has the same height as the P30. Both can mount lights/lasers

I appendix carry revolvers only. Mainly 3inch and under like GP100,M686.

I carry a P30S/TLR-1 IWB using a JM V3-L IWB holster at 3:00 and wearing a size larger Tshirt.

[DocGKR]

We have seen about an equal mix of ND/AD during the holstering and the draw. On holstering it is usually a FOD issue, while on drawing it is usually getting the finger on the trigger too early--often combined with a reflexive flexing of the finger...

[GJM]

We have seen about an equal mix of ND/AD during the holstering and the draw. On holstering it is usually a FOD issue, while on drawing it is usually getting the finger on the trigger too early--often combined with a reflexive flexing of the finger...

Thanks for this data point. It is consistent with my recollection of the Front Sight data. It also reinforces my belief that those focused on reholstering, and believing that a hammer somehow makes AIWB safe(r), and a striker unsafe AIWB, are missing half the picture.

[David S.]

post #60.

You are explaining yourself quite well, sir. While I disagree with you and the many other very intelligent people that choose to carry a hammerless gun I do appreciate the thought that you've put in it. Seriously. :cool:

I acknowledge that any or (God forbid) all of those overlapping layers may one day fail me in a high stress situation or a moment of careless complacency and no hammer will save me. I read you as saying that with so many other safety layers already in place, you (and many other intelligent people) don't feel that an additional layer is necessary. I think that's fair enough. But I want as many of my senses involved, in as many ways as possible, in the holstering process. The hammer or manual safety is the only way you can directly interact with the firing mechanism in a tactile way and therefore offers an huge opportunity to add an additional safety layer that your striker fired gun does not possess.

To respond more directly to the original post, In my situation, think having that additional tactile sense layer is worth changing platforms for. I don't have a duty weapon to consider. Based on the above assumptions, I guess if I were in your shoes, assuming that you are forced to carry Glock on duty, I'd stick with a Glock 19 in strong side carry until I could install a Gadget on my AIWB gun. Either way, best of luck with whatever you choose.

Cheers,
David

[DocGKR]

There were ND's with duty revolvers back in the day, also seen lots of folks have ND's with DA/SA pistols--especially after forgetting to decock...

[PeterBuehner]

I dont think that this has been mentioned but I might have missed it. One of the reasons that I carry a Ruger sr9C (if not my HK P30L) is because it has it's own "gadget" built into it. The striker extends out behind the rear of the slide enough that firm thumb pressure on it will stop the gun from firing. The motion is the same as blocking the hammer on my P30L. Anyone else employ this technique? I am sure that there are other guns with the same design.

[YVK]

Walther PPS and HK P7 both lend themselves to the same technique, but it requires to a be a lot more precise and forceful with applied pressure.

[JustOneGun]

You are explaining yourself quite well, sir. While I disagree with you and the many other very intelligent people that choose to carry a hammerless gun I do appreciate the thought that you've put in it. Seriously. :cool:

I acknowledge that any or (God forbid) all of those overlapping layers may one day fail me in a high stress situation or a moment of careless complacency and no hammer will save me. I read you as saying that with so many other safety layers already in place, you (and many other intelligent people) don't feel that an additional layer is necessary. I think that's fair enough. But I want as many of my senses involved, in as many ways as possible, in the holstering process. The hammer or manual safety is the only way you can directly interact with the firing mechanism in a tactile way and therefore offers an huge opportunity to add an additional safety layer that your striker fired gun does not possess.

To respond more directly to the original post, In my situation, think having that additional tactile sense layer is worth changing platforms for. I don't have a duty weapon to consider. Based on the above assumptions, I guess if I were in your shoes, assuming that you are forced to carry Glock on duty, I'd stick with a Glock 19 in strong side carry until I could install a Gadget on my AIWB gun. Either way, best of luck with whatever you choose.

Cheers,
David

No I'm not quite saying that. What I am saying is that I believe you will not just forget to look, clear and cant but will remember to put the thumb on the pistol and that saves you. I believe if you remember to do all of those things then the last one isn't needed. What I have seen isn't one being forgotten but the entire safety sequence that we use being forgotten. Students will glance but not look at the holster and just cram it in. Meaning you didn't do any of them and crammed the gun into your holster just like the guy who never even thought of safety at all. With that said, for me I found the hammered pistols to degrade my actual shooting performance. If you don't believe that then it is not much of a problem at all either way.

As to the OP having two different platforms I agree with you, in my opinion it is more dangerous than any other issue. Even if the OP agrees with me about safety I would think it better to use the same platform but abandon AIWB and keep the same location as his duty pistol. Two different draws and/or two different pistol platforms is a complication that can be disastrous.

[ToddG]

Thanks for this data point. It is consistent with my recollection of the Front Sight data. It also reinforces my belief that those focused on reholstering, and believing that a hammer somehow makes AIWB safe(r), and a striker unsafe AIWB, are missing half the picture.

I'd rather reduce my risk by 50% than 0%.

[Haraise]

Thanks for this data point. It is consistent with my recollection of the Front Sight data. It also reinforces my belief that those focused on reholstering, and believing that a hammer somehow makes AIWB safe(r), and a striker unsafe AIWB, are missing half the picture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

[JustOneGun]

Thanks for this data point. It is consistent with my recollection of the Front Sight data. It also reinforces my belief that those focused on reholstering, and believing that a hammer somehow makes AIWB safe(r), and a striker unsafe AIWB, are missing half the picture.


I'd rather reduce my risk by 50% than 0%.

Wouldn't this be two different problems, caused by two different things and solved with two different solutions?

[GJM]

I'd rather reduce my risk by 50% than 0%.

Agreed.

And I would rather reduce my odds approaching 100 percent, given the consequences.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

This may be above my pay grade -- please elaborate?

[BobLoblaw]

Regardless of the gun you choose, keep your booger hook indexed (drawing and holstering) and make sure you can always reholster safely or you could die. Verifying that holster mouth is unobstructed (I pull my shirt up higher than girls gone wild) bypasses additional safety layers. Discipline is more important than hardware safety mechanisms. However, if the extra time and $ puts your mind at ease I think it's worth it. I've carried both SFA and LEM but prefer LEM for that reason.

[David S.]

No I'm not quite saying that. What I am saying is that I believe you will not just forget to look, clear and cant but will remember to put the thumb on the pistol and that saves you. I believe if you remember to do all of those things then the last one isn't needed. What I have seen isn't one being forgotten but the entire safety sequence that we use being forgotten. Students will glance but not look at the holster and just cram it in. Meaning you didn't do any of them and crammed the gun into your holster just like the guy who never even thought of safety at all. With that said, for me I found the hammered pistols to degrade my actual shooting performance. If you don't believe that then it is not much of a problem at all either way.

As to the OP having two different platforms I agree with you, in my opinion it is more dangerous than any other issue. Even if the OP agrees with me about safety I would think it better to use the same platform but abandon AIWB and keep the same location as his duty pistol. Two different draws and/or two different pistol platforms is a complication that can be disastrous.

We've made our points. :cool:

Cheers,
D

[JustOneGun]

We've made our points. :cool:

Cheers,
D

Are you saying we've beat this dead horse too much??? :)

[David S.]

Are you saying we've beat this dead horse too much??? :)

Maybe.... :)

[hurley842002]

How much weapons retention have you done with that holster? I'd be genuinely interested if it has survived many attempts to rip it off the belt.

None, I don't exactly have the wife and 2 year old lining up to practice weapon retention drills. At work it's Safariland level III only. I will say this in regards to your statement, the belt clip is nearing the end of its life, from the daily on/off, and adjusting, so I get what you are saying. I've since ordered a better built option from the manufacturer of my holster.

[ToddG]

None, I don't exactly have the wife and 2 year old lining up to practice weapon retention drills.

I bet the 2yo would with a little training. :cool:


I've since ordered a better built option from the manufacturer of my holster.

Good call IMHO.

[hurley842002]

I bet the 2yo would with a little training. :cool:


Good call IMHO.

Lol, he already has his toy guns and knows if you point and shoot (make gunshot noises), the person is "hurt" lol.


The holster is an excellent made one, but that clip was somewhat of a crutch.

[Totem Polar]

I know JHC has said it a time or two and I agree with him everytime he says it, that the vg2 minimizes the hazards of AIWB carry do to having to take the unit off to" reholster"

Do I prefer the 5 shot SME or the JM, you bet! I know people don't really like the vg2 as a dedicated AIWB holster but it does mitigate some of the risks.
I've been lurking on this thread, as opposed to contributing, because I'm no expert. I do have a question though: aside from the one pic posted of a holster back on page 2 (and the comments directly above), and this comment, not much has been said about holsters specifically designed to mitigate reholstering risk, eg. vanguard and various trigger guard setups. I realize right up front that these rigs become less and less practical as the size of the gun increases, and they give up some degree of retention--and, one-handed re-holstering is off the table--but I've come to the conclusion that I like them for very small guns, eg. J-frames or a G42. I'd be interested in hearing quick pro/con thoughts from the SMEs here on this. TIA.

ETA: I'm not trying to drag this out; rather, I'm interested in knowing if there is validity to trading retention capability for an extra margin of safety, all other things equal (which, again, I believe to be the case only with smaller guns).

[Rich]

There were ND's with duty revolvers back in the day, also seen lots of folks have ND's with DA/SA pistols--especially after forgetting to decock...

Holsters that didn't cover the trigger guard (revolvers)

I forgot to decock once and holster my DA/SA pistol. Also had a ND when shooting M37 12GA. I racked it while pressing the trigger.



BTW' Ive heard some say if the tigger guard is covered on a DA/SA Pistol it wouldn't matter if the hammer is up?

[j.d.allen]

I carried a Ruger P95 AIWB quite comfortably for years and had no problem with it. Of course it had like a 12 lb. first DA trigger pull. My current carry piece is a CZ 75B SA. That I do NOT feel comfortable carrying that way because even though it has a manual safety I feel like by moving around the safety might somehow inadvertently get disengaged and the thought of that hammer being back with no safety engaged is not a pleasant thought. I'm transitioning to a M&P9 FS now, and also wouldn't carry that AWIB even if it had a manual safety because of that 6.5 LB. "action and a half" trigger. I guess my point is that the only way I would be comfortable carrying that way again would be with a DA/SA pistol that had a good heavy DA pull...just me.

[ToddG]

FWIW, IMHO, a proper holster for a cocked & locked pistol should be specifically designed to prevent the safety from coming off while holstered, and ideally should force the safety into the SAFE position as it's holstered if, for some reason, the user failed to do so himself.

[Rich]

FWIW, IMHO, a proper holster for a cocked & locked pistol should be specifically designed to prevent the safety from coming off while holstered, and ideally should force the safety into the SAFE position as it's holstered if, for some reason, the user failed to do so himself.

The KYDEX holster Tony made me for my P30S/TLR-1 will do that . (V3 IWB-Light)

However I now carry the pistol with safety off and hammer down , and shoot it like a DA. The second V3IWB-Light Tony made (P30S / GEN2 APL) me excepts my pistol with safety off or on.

Now the Colt 1911 and Officers ACP , mustang were my very first pistols. And my leather holsters didn't lock on the safety. I also would only use OWB & IWB with thumb straps.

[ToddG]

When SLG and I were working on his idea for an appendix holster with John Ralston of 5 Shot Leather (http://www.5shotleather.com), the 1911 model was specifically designed to make sure the safety was on when holstered.

I'm having another 1911 leather aiwb holster crafted by another maker and he confirmed his 1911 holsters do the same thing (force the pistol to be on SAFE as they are holstered).

And as you said, that's the way Tony at JMCK (http://www.jmcustomkydex.com) does his holsters, as well.

[JAD]

Not that it comes up a lot in these circles, but it's a really good reason not to use Andy Aratoonian, ever. His leather craft is first rate -- and I mean literally the best I own, and I own many many -- but he insists on molding the safety in the down position. A Horseshoe Leather holster will literally force your safety off as you holster. I'll save the epithets, but it's a darn shame.

[kobudo]

Has anyone heard of any instances of clothing such as shirt,boxers,etc... causing the trigger to pull when reholstering aiwb? That is probably one of my biggest concerns as someone who carries a Glock aiwb and why I always look at what I'm doing when I reholster. That can be hard to do however, with limited lighting.

[breakingtime91]

Has anyone heard of any instances of clothing such as shirt,boxers,etc... causing the trigger to pull when reholstering aiwb? That is probably one of my biggest concerns as someone who carries a Glock aiwb and why I always look at what I'm doing when I reholster. That can be hard to do however, with limited lighting.

While I think it could happen, I would be more worried about drawing during a drill for time. There are a lot of ways to mitigate the risk (even if you are carrying a gun with a safety or hammer) by body position in relation to your holster. I like to have the muzzle pushed out (either by extra tuck or foam) which, even if I screw up, would just put a hole into my pants (hopefully :confused:). There is a risk for everything and while I think a hammer is safer, I think the only true platform that gets the benefit of it is either a dao or lem. I much rather put a striker fire back into a aiwb holster then a DA/SA that I forgot to decock in the heat of the moment (nyeti commented he once had to talk someone through decocking after a shooting).

[KeithH]

FWIW, IMHO, a proper holster for a cocked & locked pistol should be specifically designed to prevent the safety from coming off while holstered, and ideally should force the safety into the SAFE position as it's holstered if, for some reason, the user failed to do so himself.

First time I have heard of that idea and I LOVE it. I carry appendix with safety ON.

I work a swing shift and I have seen how I perform after having been up all day with no sleep. I want the extra layer.

[JTQ]

FWIW, IMHO, a proper holster for a cocked & locked pistol should be specifically designed to prevent the safety from coming off while holstered, and ideally should force the safety into the SAFE position as it's holstered if, for some reason, the user failed to do so himself.

(force the pistol to be on SAFE as they are holstered).
I see lots of guys on forums claiming a need for a proper sweat shield divot to ensure their safety stays locked in place. I don't know how a holster maker could possibly account for all the crazy thumb safety shapes and designs available, especially when you add the low mount variety into the mix.

While my own experience is limited, I can place my 1911 in either of my two very closely molded holsters with sweat shields, one kydex and the other leather, with the safety either off or on, and the gun and thumb safety will simply push the sweat shield out of the way. I can wear that gun in either of those holsters all day long and the thumb safety will not move. My feeling is if your thumb safety is getting switched on or off while the gun is holstered, by something other than your thumb, it is more likely a problem with your thumb safety rather than your holster.

If you notice most of the (what are now) old school holster makers, Sparks, Del Fatti, Rosen, Alessi, Kramer, etc., that really probably made their name as 1911 holster makers, they either don't offer a sweat shield or the ones they do offer, are fairly short.

I would be intrigued to see a holster in operation that is designed to switch a thumb safety on. While I am skeptical, there certainly is value to the concept.

[JTQ]

Not that it comes up a lot in these circles, but it's a really good reason not to use Andy Aratoonian, ever. His leather craft is first rate -- and I mean literally the best I own, and I own many many -- but he insists on molding the safety in the down position. A Horseshoe Leather holster will literally force your safety off as you holster. I'll save the epithets, but it's a darn shame.
I've seen the "safety off" on Horseshoe Leather holsters comments on 1911 forums going back many years. Your's is the first comment I've read from any of the owners of his holsters that said the sweat shield divot actually forced their safety to move. My memories of the subject is that universally, the owners of his holsters, love them, carry Condition 1, and have no problems.

[JTQ]

When SLG and I were working on his idea for an appendix holster with John Ralston of 5 Shot Leather (http://www.5shotleather.com), the 1911 model was specifically designed to make sure the safety was on when holstered.

I am intrigued by the subject. Which makes me think of Jason Burton's pictured 1911 in post #114 in this thread http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?14089-What-Handgun-Do-You-Carry-Daily/page12

I wonder if Mr. Ralston's holster would have any affect on the safety of Mr. Burton's 1911?

[Vinh]

No effect, the safety would simply push the shield aside.

[JTQ]

As would I suspect, though I often see others seem to disagree.

[JAD]

I've seen the "safety off" on Horseshoe Leather holsters comments on 1911 forums going back many years. Your's is the first comment I've read from any of the owners of his holsters that said the sweat shield divot actually forced their safety to move. My memories of the subject is that universally, the owners of his holsters, love them, carry Condition 1, and have no problems.

I thought it would work that way too. I would be happy to dig my example out and do a video demo if that would help.

[JAD]

As would I suspect, though I often see others seem to disagree.

My aratoonian deactivates even a GI safety. I'll have to try my GI gun in my SME; it's pretty robust, and I wonder whether it would keep the pistol from seating.

JTQ, do you own an SME or an Aratoonian?

[JTQ]

I own neither.

I have a RCS Phantom that my 1911 simply pushes the sweat shield out of the way. I also have a High Noon Slide Guard, though I don't really feel that is a worthwhile challenge for my thumb safety since it is just a piece of leather. The thumb safety easily pushes that out of the way.

The owner of M1911.org is possibly the worlds biggest Horseshoe Leather fan, and I believe they are personal friends. This subject occasionally comes up on his forum and others, and it is often commented, Horseshoes design, and website comments are "lawyerisms" and they understand most users will in fact use those holsters for Condition 1 carry, and as I said before, you are the first I've heard that had a problem. I'm not saying it isn't happening to you, or even to others, just that I haven't seen it commented on before, and I haven't run into the issue with my gun or holsters.

[JTQ]

Horseshoe, by the way, sells holsters without sweat shields if that is problem.

[LowSpeedHighDrag]

I tried several guns with AIWB before settling on a P99 AS. It's the best of both worlds....a smooth, long DA first pull followed by one of the best SA triggers in polymer framed gun there is. Plus, it features a very prominent "cocked or not" indicator on the rear of the pistol...both visual & tactile. I definitely prefer something between me and the trigger when carrying AIWB.

Ditto.

I have carried the PPQ, VP9, Glock 19, FNS-9 etc and tried AIWB with them.

The first thing is I did was grind-off the sweat-guard from the kydex holsters.

A de-cocked P99 allows an extra margin of safety and is my primary EDC. The other guns are carried 5 o-clock IWB, the Walther is sometimes carried AIWB.

[Artemas]

Has anyone heard of any instances of clothing such as shirt,boxers,etc... causing the trigger to pull when reholstering aiwb? That is probably one of my biggest concerns as someone who carries a Glock aiwb and why I always look at what I'm doing when I reholster. That can be hard to do however, with limited lighting.

I won't say that it can't happen, but I have deliberately tried with a training glock to do it and never was able to "fire" it. I stuffed clothing into the guard and tried to re-holster, and with my finger applying pressure on the trigger and nothing (except a hurt finger).

[JAD]

Horseshoe, by the way, sells holsters without sweat shields if that is problem.
That would be the exact opposite of a solution. We were speaking of holsters that force the thumb safety on, and how that is a good thing (and for me, a mandatory thing). Aratoonian doesn't know how to make practical holsters, and I wouldn't expect anyone from this site to look to him for one. I brought this up to save people on this forum, who are interested in practical self defense gear that makes sense, to avoid him.

[JTQ]

Fair enough.

Thumb safety movement hasn't been a problem for me. As primarily a 1911 user, I've found sweat shields, in general, to be in the way of a a "full firing grip", so I prefer no sweat shield on my holsters, if I have the option.

Good thing there are so many holster makers offing so many different designs to keep all of us happy.

[Wendell]

Not that it comes up a lot in these circles, but it's a really good reason not to use Andy Aratoonian, ever. His leather craft is first rate -- and I mean literally the best I own, and I own many many -- but he insists on molding the safety in the down position. A Horseshoe Leather holster will literally force your safety off as you holster. I'll save the epithets, but it's a darn shame.

Is it done strictly out of principle, or is it just because that is the way the Red Gun he uses was molded? Did you ask him that?

It doesn't make any sense.

[1slow]

Mr. Aratoonian used to be located in Sharrow, England if I remember correctly. Being in England probably makes testing holster designs very hard.