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 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) 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, 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 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 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 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.