There is nothing ninja-like about smoothly re-holstering back into concealment without looking at your holster. I'm not talking about speed re-holstering; just getting the gun back secured without losing situational awareness.Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
Yes, there are differences between most LE and civilian encounters; until there isn't.
.
Fair enough.
.
1. If you train to not look down, you won't look down. But is that wise for a civilian who has likely never been in a criminal attack before, and is now in an adrenaline-soaked situation, with maybe a disheveled cover garment? What's to keep clothing from getting caught on the trigger?
2. I think the root problem is not "looking vs not looking." IMO the real root problem is the decision to reholster too soon, in close proximity of something that was threatening enough to warrant a draw. Looking or not looking, I'm simply not going to reholster that hastily. So I think we see the problem differently.
To return to topic, there was a German government study to the effect that a certain percentage of people WILL engage the trigger involuntarily as an instinctual stress reaction.
As I recall they used Sig Sauer pistols with sensors to record German LEOs whilst training and on duty. All of the LEOs who were shown to have touched the trigger didn't recall doing so.
That study has potent implications for high volume instructors. Assuming their data is accurate , it means a firearms instructor WILL inevitably encounter a negligent discharge situation if they train enough people.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I'm just not buying your line of reasoning.
If I am justified in drawing my gun it's because I think there's a potentially lethal threat that I can't (or shouldn't due to circumstances) safely retreat from. I'm not putting my gun away until the threat is g-o-n-e.
I can holster without looking at my holster. There's not enough justification to do it most of the time. We can go round and round and you can say well it's not important until it is, but one can use that line of reasoning about anything.
It not important to know how to do anything until it's time to do that thing. Come on now.
Valid point… and yet another of my personal reasons for not liking striker-fired pistols for nimrods in general and concealed carry in particular. But I realize I'm in the minority opinion on that one, so… no argument from me.
FWIW, I didn't begin every-day IWB carry until I retired. When in plain clothes while still on the job, I carried my pistol (G19 at first, then a USPc .45 until retirement) in close-fitting OWB leather. There was a period in plain clothes when I carried a G26 mexican, under a tucked-in polo shirt, and let me assure you that I was nervous as hell doing it. I have been using HK hammer pistols ever since retirement, with a brief foray back to a G19 every now and then. And I'm extra-careful when holstering when I do tote the Glock.
While I didn't intend to spin off in this direction, you make valid points, and your #2 is probably the trump card in most cases. Trouble with that is, I have been in situations when getting the iron back into the holster ASAP was necessary to defuse a situation. And that can go double for a civilian encounter.
Anyway… we can "what if?" this till the cows come home. My experience has taught me that looking to re-holster can be bad juju. Not everybody agrees with that.
.
I covered why in the third paragraph of post #126.
If you're still not buying, okay.
.
My final word:
Holstering without looking isn't hard to do - it's just not smart.
Almost anyone can do it. But should they? What's the reason? What's the risk?
I get why LEOs can justify it.
Okay, that's all.
Looking vs. not looking.
When I started carrying a gun everyday in the mid 90's, it was IWB from the beginning. I never needed to look at my holster, and in fact, probably couldn't have very well, given its 3:30 or 4:00 position. I've carried Glocks, Sigs, 1911's and maybe a few random others that way. When I switched to AIWB, it was a Glock at first, and then a Sig. I looked at the holster with the Glock, not so with the Sig. When I switched back to Glocks a few years later, I resumed looking at the holster. With 1911's, I don't need to look, but I prefer to.
I mostly agree with LSP972, but I will say that I mitigate the downsides of looking at the holster by getting everything 90% of the way there without looking, and then just glance down for a split second. Not perfect, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. I have needed to reholster my aiwb weapon pdq a few times, and have not found it to be an issue. No question that a tac rig or duty rig is a better option for that. When I'm reholstering aiwb, at NO point does the muzzle cover any part of my body. Once it's in the holster, all bets are off.
So what percentage of folks have a large foam pad on their appendix holster to push the muzzle away from their body? Without the foam wedge and tilting your pelvis, I don't see how you reholster without muzzling yourself.
Agreed on once it is in the holster, all bets are off, and I assume modern pistols that are seated in a quality holster won't fire. When I lost my pistol out of the appendix holster in flight last week, my issue was I couldn't figure out how to reholster without massively muzzling myself, and I was unwilling to do that with a striker pistol in turbulence.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
Reply With Quote
