Red 1 Shivworks holster

[TOTS]

BLUF: I really like this holster. Does a great job as a AIWB holster for G17/19. Great value for the money I paid for it. Recommended enthusiastically.

Ok, this wont really be a review, just a discussion of the Red 1 Shivworks Glock holster. Also, while I will include comparisons with my JMCK holster, it will not be a “vs” or meant to be a head-to-head comparison. The Wing Claw 2.5 is included as it’s the only other kydex holster I have or have used. Also, JMCK seems to be a reference point for PF and many will be more familiar with their products than other brands.

From the website:
- Ride height is adjustable and belt loops will accommodate 1.75″, 1.5″, or 1.25″ belt widths.
- Trijicon SRO compatible
- Glock 9/40 fits: 17/19/19x/22/23/26/27/45 – Gen3, Gen4, Gen5 models.
- BioThane belt loops
- Concealment wing
- Multi-axis muzzle pad
- Adjustable retention
- Open muzzle design
- Adjustable ride height

Some differences with the WC 2.5 I have noticed:
- The retention is non-adjustable. The WC does via a screw and rubber washer. I had no issues with retention as the trigger guard snaps in securely. No concerns with fitment although rocks slightly when compared to the WC.
- Uses the exact same “wing’ and “claw” as the WC. Includes a tall and short “claw”. Both made in USA.
- Comes only with high sweat guard.
- Soft loops look to be very good quality. Screwed on rather than snaps. Actually print less than snaps for me.
- Hardware included is good quality Chicago screws. Compatible with other hardware commonly used.
- Optic cut is standard; information specifically states an SRO (and thus, smaller optics) will fit.
- Sight channel is easily large enough for suppressor height sights to fit with no issues.
- WC is kydex. Red 1 holsters are a ‘thermoplastic’. I’m not sure what the difference is, but, both seem to be the same thickness and stiffness. Molding is crisper on the Red 1 with more detail in the WC.

Overall, this seems to be a very well made product. I find it a good value with many features standard that would increase the price when compared to similarly spec’d products from other companies. The price is significantly lower. However, they were able to do this by obvious design differences (fixed loops vs PTD,etc) and minimizing options. I see no evidence of cost-cutting via shortcuts in finishing, materials, or anything affecting quality.

I have ran this for a little over a month using a Gen 5 G19 although the same holster is listed for the 26-17 sizes. Ive had the WC 2.5 for several years and is for a P229. Although not apparent when looking at the numbers, both guns carry the same with the weight increase of the 229 not apparent when worn in the WC 2.5.

Although I purchased the WC 2.5 without the extra tuck, I made a trapezoidal 3/4 in foam wedge and carry it with it velcro’d on. The printing of the R1/19 is less than the WC/229 with no wedge but slightly more than the WC/229 with my foam wedge. The more you increase the tuck (by adding a small foam wedge on top of the molded in wedge) the more the rear sight becomes what prints vice the grip. Interestingly, the front PTD loop on the WC is what prints. I’m looking at a DCC clip setup to minimize this for me. For right now, I am carrying it fine with just the rear loop.

Finally, thanks to both companies for making easily recommendable products and for (both) offering military/ le discounts. I never expect a discount, but try to support companies that support us.

[TOTS]

Follow-on pictures