Belts trending away from 1.75" options.

[Cory]

I'd like to discuss 1.75" belts. Specifically I'm wondering why these belts have lost favor recently in the firearms and concealed carry industry. I'd also like to know how this has impacted gear choices for those who are using a 1.75" belt for whatever reason. Having myself already invested with 1.75" gear, I won't be making a change to 1.5" belt options.

Lastly, I'm curious who is using a 1.75" belt and which ones are considered among the best for concealed carry strong side and appendix.

-
Personally, I'm using a 1.75" belt because it's what I've always worn. I wore a cheap box store 1.75" leather belt as a kid and wore a 1.75" nylon web belt when in the service. While in the service I of course wanted to emulate the cool kids and purchased a ridiculous BlackHawk Rigger Belt (https://blackhawk.com/products/apparel/accessories/belts/tactical/cqb-rigger-s-belt) to wear in uniform, despite the fact I never had a need to rappel. Later, I picked up a super cheap Tru-Spec belt (like this (https://www.amazon.com/Tru-Spec-BDU-Belt-Olive-4113007/dp/B003LQ44OS/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1546544542&sr=8-16&keywords=Tru+Spec+Belt)) in black because my childhood belt no longer fit, and my BlackHawk belt (which was fine for strong side carry) was ruining T shirts when worn every day. As I gained more knowledge about carry and shooting, I have gravitated toward the thin, highly adjustable, cheaply constructed, Tru-Spec for carrying appendix position. I purchased a JMCK holster (G17), AIWB mag pouch (G17), and later a Keepers (LTT). All with 1.75" attachments for the belt.

While I don't chase every fad that comes out, there has been so much craze over the Graith USA Specialist Belt (https://www.graithusa.com/shop/specialist), that I found myself wondering what the hype was about. I soon discovered I wouldn't be learning because it is only offered in a 1.5" height. I had already realized that the 1.5" was becoming the norm when I bought my Keeper and had to order it direct because LTT only stocks 1.5" loop Keepers. I didn't realize how big that trend seems to be getting. I was looking at Volund Gear Works (http://store.volundgearworks.com/) belts because they were an option I had considered buying into some time ago. I was surprised to see that the majority of their new belts seem to all be in 1.5" size with no real innovation in the 1.75" variety. Though they still offer one type of 1.75" belt for those interested. All of the pants I wear still have belt loops that accommodate 1.75" belts without issue (a couple wranglers, a couple Blue Mountain TSC pants) and major brands like Carhart, Duluth, Kuhl, Rustler, Levi all seem to still offer 1.75" loops. It isn't a change in compatibility with pants that is driving the change to 1.5" popularity, so what is?

Wasn't the Wilderness 5 Stitch Instructor Belt (https://www.thewilderness.com/belts/original-instructor-belt/) in 1.75" once considered the industry standard for gun belts? What has caused the shift away from 1.75" options? Craig Douglas in a recent video here on concealed carry emphasized having a band of tension of several inches at the top of the pants when selecting fit. Wouldn't a 1.75" belt be one more way to help with that? I do understand that with the rise of AIWB's popularity that some more rotational flex is often desired in a belt. Are there no quality 1.75" belts that offer vertical rigidity and horizontal give?

Belts tie together most people's carry options. They highly influence utility, and to an extent overall ability and performance. I think that's been mostly ignored in the gun gear industry. Other than spitting out the line "get a real gun belt" most pay little mind to belts or how they need to tie together fitness, body shape, gear, concealment, comfort, clothing style, activity level, ease of use, and ease of carry. I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts on this, the best 1.75" options, and ways that carry belts might change in the future.

-Cory

[JV_]

Specifically I'm wondering why these belts have lost favor recently in the firearms and concealed carry industry.I'd guess because it limits you clothing options. 1.5" will fit all of my pants, 1.75" will not.

[GNRPowdeR]

To me, the "need" for a 1.75" belt was for the extra little bit of strength and support without going to a thicker 1.5"... With the innovative materials and hardware now on the market, the 1.5" belts are more than capable of running the gear we EDC, plus are able to be worn with every style of pants / shorts currently on the market.

It isn't a style change, but a materials change...

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[Trukinjp13]

To me, the "need" for a 1.75" belt was for the extra little bit of strength and support without going to a thicker 1.5"... With the innovative materials and hardware now on the market, the 1.5" belts are more than capable of running the gear we EDC, plus are able to be worn with every style of pants / shorts currently on the market.

It isn't a style change, but a materials change...

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

I agree with this. Belts have evolved so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mack]

On our end of things the major reason is that the current demand for 1.75" belts is very low. Many webbing products, to include scuba webbing, are not available in 1.75" from reputable US based mills producing high quality webbing products. For us, we could custom order material but this requires high minimums and as mentioned there is not enough demand for 1.75" belts for us to justify it. Since we released the Specialist we have only had a handful of requests for a 1.75" belt, if we were to make a 1.75" version it would require a custom webbing order that would make over 2000 belts per colorway to meet the minimums for a custom order.

In regard to performance with modern webbing and construction methods both 1.5" and 1.75" belts will perform equally.

[Duke]

I need a 1.75” belt for daily wear the way I need to be able to repell off of things in my edc belt...

So yea. The ultra rigid polymer reinforced whatever’s were never really that good imo. But I never carried owb

[Wondering Beard]

Specifically I'm wondering why these belts have lost favor recently in the firearms and concealed carry industry.

Recently?

What is your definition of 'recently'?

I'm not being snarky, it's a genuine question because, at least since the late 90s, I've seen 1.5" CCW belts dominate over 1.75" ones. Before webbing belts made it big, leather gun belts for CCW that could be worn with both work pants or a suit were 1.5", which is why, I imagine, 1.5" won over 1.75".

Or, maybe my memory is off but I've never used a 1.75" gun belt since the mid 90s.

[ranger]

I used 1.75 belts when I was in uniform - now I use the 1.5 to better fit non-uniform pants. I carried a lot more stuff when I was in uniform - now it is just a holster and 1 extra mag.

[Cypher]

I don't know of anyone who makes non uniform pants that will take a 1.75 belt. I have a 1.75 Wilderness Tactical but I only use it at work

[Doc_Glock]

Wasn't the Wilderness 5 Stitch Instructor Belt (https://www.thewilderness.com/belts/original-instructor-belt/) in 1.75" once considered the industry standard for gun belts? What has caused the shift away from 1.75" options? Craig Douglas in a recent video here on concealed carry emphasized having a band of tension of several inches at the top of the pants when selecting fit. Wouldn't a 1.75" belt be one more way to help with that? I do understand that with the rise of AIWB's popularity that some more rotational flex is often desired in a belt. Are there no quality 1.75" belts that offer vertical rigidity and horizontal give?

Belts tie together most people's carry options. They highly influence utility, and to an extent overall ability and performance. I think that's been mostly ignored in the gun gear industry. Other than spitting out the line "get a real gun belt" most pay little mind to belts or how they need to tie together fitness, body shape, gear, concealment, comfort, clothing style, activity level, ease of use, and ease of carry. I'm curious to hear peoples thoughts on this, the best 1.75" options, and ways that carry belts might change in the future.

-Cory

I still run old school with a 5 stitch 1.75" Frequent Flyer. Have tried the more flimsy 1.5" Graith stuff, always went back. I only find it annoying if I try to wear a backback belt on top of the Wilderness belt in which case my muffin top gets pinched.

[Cory]

Recently?

What is your definition of 'recently'?

I'm not being snarky, it's a genuine question because, at least since the late 90s, I've seen 1.5" CCW belts dominate over 1.75" ones. Before webbing belts made it big, leather gun belts for CCW that could be worn with both work pants or a suit were 1.5", which is why, I imagine, 1.5" won over 1.75".

Or, maybe my memory is off but I've never used a 1.75" gun belt since the mid 90s.

I'm fairly young at 27. My idea of recently is the last 5-6 years or so. When I first starting paying attention to defensive firearm related stuff outside of the military was around 2013 or so. Around that time, all I really saw was 1.75" belts. That could have been a byproduct of my always wearing one growing up, and while in the service. It could have been based on my knowledge level at the time as well. Around that time frame I was mimicking the typical gun guy lines and incorrect idioms, espousing "Hybrid Holsters" and not knowing any better. I seriously regret some of the things that I thought and said regarding defensive firearms during my first year or so of carrying.


I need a 1.75” belt for daily wear the way I need to be able to repell off of things in my edc belt...

So yea. The ultra rigid polymer reinforced whatever’s were never really that good imo. But I never carried owb

Yeah, the Blackhawk belt was pretty stupid. I was a 19 year old Specialist in the National Guard on deployment when I bought it. It was handy for carrying an M9, magazines, and multitool OWB, but the rappelling hookup was useless and in the way. I did use it in my personal life later when I started carrying strong side IWB, but didn't care for the obnoxious buckles.


All of my pants and shorts (save dress pants that are worn sparingly) accommodate a 1.75" without issue. Maybe I seriously underestimated the amount that others wear dress pants. I truly haven't experienced any pants fit related issues with 1.75" belts. I was always under the impression that 1.5" and 1.75" belts were both equally standard. Perhaps that was never the case, and it was just my total misunderstanding.


On our end of things the major reason is that the current demand for 1.75" belts is very low. Many webbing products, to include scuba webbing, are not available in 1.75" from reputable US based mills producing high quality webbing products. For us, we could custom order material but this requires high minimums and as mentioned there is not enough demand for 1.75" belts for us to justify it. Since we released the Specialist we have only had a handful of requests for a 1.75" belt, if we were to make a 1.75" version it would require a custom webbing order that would make over 2000 belts per colorway to meet the minimums for a custom order.

In regard to performance with modern webbing and construction methods both 1.5" and 1.75" belts will perform equally.

The low demand would suggest I was just completely mistaken that 1.75" and 1.5" were ever equal standards. I just always thought they were, but perhaps I just grew up managing to never really get exposed to 1.5" belts.

I didn't know that it was so difficult to source webbing for 1.75" stuff. Seems like this is material availability driving what's offered, at the same time customer demand drives what material is available. Either way, the fact you're making quality belts is pretty obvious.

-Cory

[Wondering Beard]

I'm fairly young at 27. My idea of recently is the last 5-6 years or so. When I first starting paying attention to defensive firearm related stuff outside of the military was around 2013 or so. Around that time, all I really saw was 1.75" belts. That could have been a byproduct of my always wearing one growing up, and while in the service. It could have been based on my knowledge level at the time as well. Around that time frame I was mimicking the typical gun guy lines and incorrect idioms, espousing "Hybrid Holsters" and not knowing any better.

Having never been in the military, or LEO, I've never really had much exposure to what gets used while in uniform and I'm sure that explains the discrepancy.


I seriously regret some of the things that I thought and said regarding defensive firearms during my first year or so of carrying.
-Cory

You and I both. Even though mine were made while you were a toddler, I'm pretty sure we both said and did just about the same things :-)

[peterb]

I don't know of anyone who makes non uniform pants that will take a 1.75 belt. I have a 1.75 Wilderness Tactical but I only use it at work

My everyday-wear basic Dickies work pants — probably sold by the gazillion — will only take a 1.5” belt.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Recently?

What is your definition of 'recently'?

I'm not being snarky, it's a genuine question because, at least since the late 90s, I've seen 1.5" CCW belts dominate over 1.75" ones. Before webbing belts made it big, leather gun belts for CCW that could be worn with both work pants or a suit were 1.5", which is why, I imagine, 1.5" won over 1.75".

Or, maybe my memory is off but I've never used a 1.75" gun belt since the mid 90s.


I'm fairly young at 27. My idea of recently is the last 5-6 years or so. When I first starting paying attention to defensive firearm related stuff outside of the military was around 2013 or so. Around that time, all I really saw was 1.75" belts. That could have been a byproduct of my always wearing one growing up, and while in the service. It could have been based on my knowledge level at the time as well. Around that time frame I was mimicking the typical gun guy lines and incorrect idioms, espousing "Hybrid Holsters" and not knowing any better. I seriously regret some of the things that I thought and said regarding defensive firearms during my first year or so of carrying.

I purchased my Sam Andrews rig, to include 1.5" suede-lined gun belt, in 2003. That belt gave over 10 years worth of daily carry service.

[ragnar_d]

I'd guess because it limits you clothing options. 1.5" will fit all of my pants, 1.75" will not.
This is the big one for me. All my pants can take 1.5" belts (though some pants don't like my thicker leather belts), many of them will not take 1.75" belts after I traded most of my cargo pants for Dockers and IZOD.

[FNFAN]

I'm in business professional dress usually 4 out of 5 workdays unless we're doing warrant sweeps or some other field work. I've grown to enjoy the 5.11 neoprene belts as they lock everything in place and there's no shifting of gear and holster like you'd get with a 1.5" leather belt. it makes a decent underbelt if you're doing something where you need all the gear on the heavier duty rig. Son gave me the black one for Christmas last year and I bought the brown one soon after.

[RevolverRob]

I think the question isn't why there are fewer 1.75" options, it's why there are still 1.25" options even available. :eek:

I bought my first "gun belt" 12 years ago, a Wildness Instructors, 5-stitch, CSM, in 1.5". I've since worn out one Instructor's and one Frequent Flier and was on Frequent Flier #2 in 1.5", 5-stitch, CSM, when I discovered the Graith Specialist. I'm not sure there ever was a trend towards a 1.75" belt, I certainly have never owned one.

And the reason for the Specialist love is less the width (though 1.5" fits all of my pants and shorts) and more the fact that it is a superior belt to everything else I've ever worn. The belt is so thin, yet strong. No problem holding up a full size all steel Government Model and spare mag and a Clinch Pick, while simultaneously holding up my pants, with all the requisite crap I carry. Seriously, get you one and you'll forget all about the 1.75" belts in existence.

[fatdog]

I'd guess because it limits you clothing options. 1.5" will fit all of my pants, 1.75" will not.

this, I don't have a single pair of dress slacks or even my most casual "business casual" slacks that will accomodate a 1.75" belt, all will accomodate a 1.5" belt, 5.11's and jeans are not a wardrobe option for me except weekends....

[krax]

I think the question isn't why there are fewer 1.75" options, it's why there are still 1.25" options even available.

I still prefer 1.25" options for suits, although I can wear most holsters/accessories made for 1.5" belts without any issues.

Many double belts (i.e. outer gun belt/velcro inner belt) are 1.75" wide and I make the sad face when I can't use certain gear (i.e. Perun) on those.

My daily go-to is a Graith, but my professional use of belts has me as an outlier on both sides of the 1.5" standard.

[olstyn]

I'd guess because it limits you clothing options. 1.5" will fit all of my pants, 1.75" will not.


I don't know of anyone who makes non uniform pants that will take a 1.75 belt. I have a 1.75 Wilderness Tactical but I only use it at work


This is the big one for me. All my pants can take 1.5" belts (though some pants don't like my thicker leather belts), many of them will not take 1.75" belts after I traded most of my cargo pants for Dockers and IZOD.

Interesting. I don't think I own a pair of pants or shorts that won't take a 1.75" belt, and it's not like I've specifically shopped for that. I just buy whatever pants I buy, and I've never had a problem getting my 1.75" Saddleback Leather Tow belt through the loops, and at 3 layers of leather, it's fairly thick in addition to being 1.75" tall. Levi's jeans, pants from Columbia, every pair of cargo pants I own...all of them fit that belt without issue. Maybe the pants of the suit I haven't worn in forever might not work, but eh...? I don't think it would be a problem for me to switch to a 1.5" belt, but belt loop size wouldn't be the reason I'd do it.

[Hambo]

I'm fairly young at 27.

Hey, kid, no skinny jeans and no skinny belts! I wear 1.75" belts because I can dress any way I want to, every single day. And because I'm cool. :cool:

[Cory]

Hey, kid, no skinny jeans and no skinny belts! I wear 1.75" belts because I can dress any way I want to, every single day. And because I'm cool. :cool:

I'm not the skinny jeans type. I think they look girly. I don't have anything against 1.5" belts I just dont have or need any.

But, my 2 year old says I'm cool. So I got that going for me I guess. :cool:

-Cory

[Cypher]

I know this is a little off topic but this is one of my pet peeves

https://i.postimg.cc/2yF7n13W/20190104-142509.jpg (https://postimg.cc/ZvnNSK8Y)

If you're making pants that are set up for a 1.75 belt wouldn't you think that you'd make the belt loops out of a little bit wider material so you can make the seam where they're sewn into the pants a little bit stronger?

[JTQ]

As folks have mentioned, the 1.5 has been the default for a long time. Check holster makers (OK, kydex and Safariland duty type stuff doesn't count), and you'll find the 1.5" is their default loop, and has been for quite some time.

Of course you are fairly young, been in the military, and I'll guess you spend some time in 'tactical pants", so your viewpoint may be a little different.

[Cory]

As folks have mentioned, the 1.5 has been the default for a long time. Check holster makers (OK, kydex and Safariland duty type stuff doesn't count), and you'll find the 1.5" is their default loop, and has been for quite some time.

Of course you are fairly young, been in the military, and I'll guess you spend some time in 'tactical pants", so your viewpoint may be a little different.

Not unless jeans and cheap shorts are "tactical".

-Cory

[Maple Syrup Actual]

The only pants I own, of any sort, that won't take a 1.75" belt are my suits.

For years I wore a 2" leather belt in all of my jeans. It was a tool belt around 1/4" thick and had two rows of holes with a double-pronged buckle. Like this, but two layers of leather:

https://www.amazon.ca/Mens-Heavy-Duty-Black-Leather/dp/B01M9BXBEA

That was the only belt I ever had to consciously choose pants to fit. And even then most jeans took it fine, from cheap Wranglers to fancy Naked&Famous. All my work clothes fit it. My motorcycle jeans fit it. My leathers fit it. And it was way, way bigger than a 1.75 gun belt.

I have a Volund in 1.75 and a Gear Dynamics in 1.5. The only reason I specifically went with the 1.5 was that GD had a big sale on their last few in 1.5 grey so I bought one. I'm not anti-1.5 or anything, I have just never had an issue with a larger belt and I'm a big guy so a bigger belt doesn't look out of place on me, and I have lots of stuff with 1.75 loops.

Personally I suspect this whole shift towards 1.5" belts has a lot to do with the number of gun carriers who dress in "office casual". I could be totally off-base with that but like the OP I rarely encounter pants that won't take a wider belt. I think if I worked in an office environment I would have a pretty different baseline for pants, and I also suspect that the gunternet is dominated by people with constant access to a computer at work. These factors taken together, I think, affect the larger trends we see in gun culture. Again this is just an idea that I have; not intended to be a knock on anything but the thoughts in the OP have often struck me also and I have always found it strange that I never seem to encounter pants that won't fit a larger belt, even though clearly tons of people must require a narrower one.

[TGS]

1.5" works in all of my pants, as well as working as an inner/outer belt system, as well as working as the belt in my HSGI setup.

1.75" doesn't.

1.75" doesn't do anything that 1.5" doesn't.

Thus, no reason to buy 1.75". It's superfluous and complicates matching holsters with belts with pants.

There's more important things to focus on in life.

[Wendell]

...I've never used a 1.75" gun belt since the mid 90s.

Me too. I remember using a particular 1.75" belt, this is back in the nineties, between '95 and '98. As I recall it, it was a PAIN to thread through the belt loops of most of the trousers that would fit it, and not all of my trousers fit; that too was a pain. In '98 I started shooting IPSC, and - when buying new (more-competitive) gear for the sport (i.e.: belt, holster, and pouches) - I was faced with the major decision of choosing either 1.5" vs. 1.75". I went with 1.5", and I'm glad that I did; it was the right decision. Nowadays, I tell everyone (who asks) to just buy everything in 1.5".

[LtDave]

Had 1.75" belts back in the '70's. Fit all my pants fine since I didn't wear dress clothes too much. By the mid '80's I was using 1.5" or 1.25" belts exclusively. Haven't purchased a 1.75" belt in a looooong time.

[vcdgrips]

FWIW- Random Belt Musings. Full disclosure, I own a 1.5 inch tapered to 1.25 2 ply leather gunbelt, 2 1.5 inch Ligers, 2 reinforced 1.5 inch 5 stitch Wilderness Frequent Flyers, 1 5 stitch 1.5 inch Wilderness Instructor and 1 1.75 5 stitch reinforced Wilderness Instructor's Belt.

1.75 leather and most nylon will not fit in the vast majority of suit/slacks loops and has not done so since at least the late 80's/early 90s when I started shooting. It fits serious brand jeans and work pants all day long.

1.5 leather tapered to 1.25 is a most elegant solution for those who have to wear a suit/ sports coat most days and was/is a go to set up for me along with a 1.5 Liger belt.

1.75 leather/nylon was the go to solution in the 80s's onward as modern semi automatic pistol craft was being developed at Gunsite et al. The gun recommended pistol was a heavy, all steel 1911 with two 7/8 round mags outboard. The payload only went up from there is you added a flashlight and/or cuffs. Ergo a 1.75 purpose designed 2 ply leather or 1.75 inch 5 stitch reinforced nylon belt was the gold standard. it is no accident that Wilderness was the first leader in the nylon belt industry given its location in AZ, proximity to Gunsite, quality, functionality etc. IIRC they sewed ( and may still) for Galco nylon offerings as well who are also AZ based.

If i was going to only own 1 belt today, it would be a 1.5 inch Liger.

If I was only going to own 2 belts, it would be the Liger and a 5 stitch type (or functional equiv.) nylon belt from any number of makers. I would only consider reinforced models if I was carrying a non polymer, full sized gun.

I would only be thinking about a 1.75 inch gun now if my default set up was a heavy non polymer gun with two mags, and other stuff that was on the belt line and I did not have to dress up and I ever thought I would have to rappel with the belt on.

Thank you for indulging this rambling post

YMMV Greatly

[rob_s]

I’ve been carrying for 23+ years, worked in a gun shop in the 90s, and even wrote for a few magazines and got a fair number of freebies.
I don’t recall 1.75” ever being any sort of standard once they started selling 1.5” Wilderness belts.

[JSGlock34]

My first real gun belts were Galco SB3 and Widerness Instructor Belts in 1.5". I've always had a requirement for suit carry, so 1.75" was never a consideration. 1.5" is very versatile - it works for dress, casual, or 'tactical' attire.

[karmapolice]

For concealed carry I don't believe the 1.75 was ever as popular an option. However for two belt set ups I still prefer the 1.75" sometimes more than the 2" options, defiantly prefer the two sizes to the 2.25" a lot of traditional duty belts out there. Many belt makers still make a two belt system with a 1.5" inner and a 1.75" outer belt such as Raptor Tactical, Blue Alpha Gear, HSGI, Jones Tactical, etc.