That holster couldn't have pinched in a worse spot.... Bad design, bad holstering practice, who knows.... He didn't catch on until too late....
Appendix Carry and Belly Bands
- Thread starter bowhunter1023
- Start date
- 39,148
- 274
While the operator shares the blame as he's the only animate object the holster and pistol are not blameless as they both contributed to the negligent discharge.
1. The holster should have been of quality leather of a thickness to where it would NEVER even come close to collapsing inward into the trigger guard. This is why even your soft holsters have a lip rim that fortified. Leather holsters typically either have thick leather that doesn't bent that tight or a rolled edge essentially doubling the leather up.
The gun is a glock, likely a 17 or 22 that has zero manual safeties. There's on on the trigger itself but those are largely useless and simply give gun manufactures an added defense in gun lawsuits. In the real world anything that pulls a trigger will pull a trigger safety. Do we honestly believe that something will only catch that tiny sliver of trigger left or right of the safety thus allowing thay safety to prevent an AD. Nah. So what we have is a pistol that can only be carried condition zero. (Mag in, Round chambered, no safety) or condition three (mag in, no round chambered, no safety) it's the difference between walking around carrying a grenade still in its wooden crate. Or walking around with a grenade in your pocket with the pin pulled. There's no in between. Then we act shocked when some goof shoots himself. I agree. He's 100% to blame, for carrying a shit pistol in a shit holster.
For most of the 20th century condition 3 carry even amongst military and police forces worldwide was the standard. The original 1911 did not come with a safety as it was intended to be carried chamber empty. Upon recognition of a threat the slide was racked loading the chamber and cocking the hammer taking the pistol to condition zero. Later a safety was added as a temporary measure so that the pistol could be in condition one while the threat may still be present or until the weapon could be returned to condition 3. Israeli Defense Forces carry Glock pistols in condition 3. Outside of an active threat situation or active combat nobody carries condition zero. It wasn't until safeties begin to become prevalent on Pistols that people started to carry in condition 1 (mag in, Round chambered, safety on) this was the natural flow of things has technology developed. Along comes glock with their trigger safety only. People assume that they are carrying safely in condition one. The reality is they're carrying condition zero in a pistol that should be carried condition 3. Now they will come up with a million excuses of why condition three is a bad idea, most every one of them can be overcame with propper training, so really they're nothing but excuses for lack of training. Don't want to carry condition three. Fine. Get a pistol with an actual safety and carry condition 1. Problem solved. Now this does get convoluted when you introduce back strap safeties in combo with trigger safety and such as the pistols safety system almost all but requires a grip on the gun and a finger on the trigger. A safety sequence in that regard is really a manual safety that's disengaged naturally what gripping the pistol. But as for nothing more than a trigger safety on a hot pistol it's lunacy.
1. The holster should have been of quality leather of a thickness to where it would NEVER even come close to collapsing inward into the trigger guard. This is why even your soft holsters have a lip rim that fortified. Leather holsters typically either have thick leather that doesn't bent that tight or a rolled edge essentially doubling the leather up.
The gun is a glock, likely a 17 or 22 that has zero manual safeties. There's on on the trigger itself but those are largely useless and simply give gun manufactures an added defense in gun lawsuits. In the real world anything that pulls a trigger will pull a trigger safety. Do we honestly believe that something will only catch that tiny sliver of trigger left or right of the safety thus allowing thay safety to prevent an AD. Nah. So what we have is a pistol that can only be carried condition zero. (Mag in, Round chambered, no safety) or condition three (mag in, no round chambered, no safety) it's the difference between walking around carrying a grenade still in its wooden crate. Or walking around with a grenade in your pocket with the pin pulled. There's no in between. Then we act shocked when some goof shoots himself. I agree. He's 100% to blame, for carrying a shit pistol in a shit holster.
For most of the 20th century condition 3 carry even amongst military and police forces worldwide was the standard. The original 1911 did not come with a safety as it was intended to be carried chamber empty. Upon recognition of a threat the slide was racked loading the chamber and cocking the hammer taking the pistol to condition zero. Later a safety was added as a temporary measure so that the pistol could be in condition one while the threat may still be present or until the weapon could be returned to condition 3. Israeli Defense Forces carry Glock pistols in condition 3. Outside of an active threat situation or active combat nobody carries condition zero. It wasn't until safeties begin to become prevalent on Pistols that people started to carry in condition 1 (mag in, Round chambered, safety on) this was the natural flow of things has technology developed. Along comes glock with their trigger safety only. People assume that they are carrying safely in condition one. The reality is they're carrying condition zero in a pistol that should be carried condition 3. Now they will come up with a million excuses of why condition three is a bad idea, most every one of them can be overcame with propper training, so really they're nothing but excuses for lack of training. Don't want to carry condition three. Fine. Get a pistol with an actual safety and carry condition 1. Problem solved. Now this does get convoluted when you introduce back strap safeties in combo with trigger safety and such as the pistols safety system almost all but requires a grip on the gun and a finger on the trigger. A safety sequence in that regard is really a manual safety that's disengaged naturally what gripping the pistol. But as for nothing more than a trigger safety on a hot pistol it's lunacy.
Curious- do you believe it is foolish for any of us on TOO to carry a Glock with a round chambered?
- 39,148
- 274
A glock that has only a trigger disconnect safety, yes it's foolish for anyone to carry in such a manner. Some law enforcement do however carry Glock in condition 0. They also carry them in level 3 or level 4 retention holsters. A level three has three retention methods. 1 is the friction of the holster itself, 2 and 3 can be any combo of a thumb release snap, pressure release, twist release, trigger finger button, etc. Basically three things are needed to release the firearm. For example pushing down on the gun flips the back strap cover forward, twisting away from the body at the same time releases the firearm, then pulling it out with a force greater than the friction retention holding it in. That's a level three retention holster. These safety mechanisms in and of themselves could be considered an external safety of the firearm that is technically in condition zero. Carrying a glock like above in condition zero in a level 1 retention holster like above is beyond foolish, irresponsible at best, and most certanly downright negligent.
- 39,148
- 274
They make them with external safeties. Really really small hard to actuate safeties. Lol
Wrong holster for the gun. The Glock went off because the trigger was pulled just like is supposed to do.
The 1911 was designed with a thumb safety and the grip safety was added later by the request of the army. Quite a few 1911 shooters will pin the grip safety as it is not needed and carry condition one with a round in the chamber and the thumb safety on.
I carry my Glock with a round in the chamber and have done so for five years without incident. I would never consider carrying it without a round in the chamber. If the guy would have had a decent holster this would not have happened. Get something with kydex
Not the guns fault, at all. A POS holster being used by a lazy idiot.
Glock, the most carried handgun by far, like galaxies ahead, is as safe is the person carrying it.
Too lazy to stand up to reholster? Then don't carry.
The gun stays in the holster unless needed, it's not a toy. If he had to take it out because he was going into a no carry situation (.gov building) then holster while standing especially if you are using a shitty Guide Gear holster.
Safeties on carry guns are dumb. When it comes down to it most will jumble EVERYTHING in a high stress situation. Especially a small ass safety that you will forget to disengage under stress.
Unless you have thousands of draws under some sort of stress factor (time, training, physical) safeties make even less sense.
Glock, the most carried handgun by far, like galaxies ahead, is as safe is the person carrying it.
Too lazy to stand up to reholster? Then don't carry.
The gun stays in the holster unless needed, it's not a toy. If he had to take it out because he was going into a no carry situation (.gov building) then holster while standing especially if you are using a shitty Guide Gear holster.
Safeties on carry guns are dumb. When it comes down to it most will jumble EVERYTHING in a high stress situation. Especially a small ass safety that you will forget to disengage under stress.
Unless you have thousands of draws under some sort of stress factor (time, training, physical) safeties make even less sense.
- 39,148
- 274
My statement was misleading I should have said 1911 perdicessors. The 1911 model aptly named for the year Colt won the US Army contract did in fact have a thumb safety. This however wasn't the first 1911 "style" pistol by Colt but an evolution of earlier designs to meet the request.
Here is a Colt 1902. No safety.
- 39,148
- 274
I don't disagree that it's the most carried. Many models also have external safeties. If yiu remove those and remove local and foreign law enforcement and foreign militaries that carry either condition 3 with no round in the chamber, or in class 2+ retention holsters and that figure drops massively. Remove the glock fan boys and ultra paranoid "condition 0 is the only method" guys and it drops substantially more.
Lack of training and practice hardly makes a good argument for pro condition 0 carry. If anything those are the last people you want carrying at the lowest condition.
It doesn't take high stress training to effectively operate a safety under stress. It just takes training to develop muscle memory. Just as it does not take high stress training for you to waffle stomp the shit out of your brake pedal if someone pulls out in front of you. Your foot without even seeing it, and before you even think about it, knows exactly where that dang pedal it needs to stomp is. If a person can manage to develop enough muscle memory so that their index finger can instinctively find a trigger without fumbling, then their thumb can find a safety just as easily.
Going back to my earlier example it's like carrying a hand grenade in a special pouch with the pin pulled. Condition zero hand grenade if you will. And then when the dang thing goes off we blame the pouch. Or we try to justify it by saying in a high-stress situation you won't have the dexterity to pull the pin so let's carry it with the pin already pulled. Or a grenade manufacturer making grenades that don't have afety pins and then trying to say they're totally safe as long as you don't let go of the spoon, if you do that's your fault not the fault of the grenade It's lunacy.
cspot
Member
I agree. During the time from the holster to a shooting position there is no issue in taking off the safety.
Dude, so much wrong in here and I don't have the time. The grenade analogy is above your level of thinking.
It seems that the training that effected you most (military) is dug in pretty deep. That line of thinking is not used in law enforcement or ANY citizen carry courses.
Retention in law enforcement is there so baddies don't steal their guns. It has other benefits (in LEO) but that is the main purpose.
I know of no department that doesn't carry loaded, ready to rock. Now you can throw all kinds of foreign agencies in, but they do pertain to the true discussion.
Wanna utilize a safety? Go for it but you better be trained up.
I'd say there are many foolish, irresponsible, and negligent CCW holders out there. I'd hardly consider myself a Glock "fanboy". My XDS has no manual safety, nor did the Kahr I had, nor does the 642. I think we will just have to disagree here. I do agree there are many who should NOT carry this way. Then again, I believe there are many who should never carry.
X999 (hehe)
ETA
Let me build upon what Beener is saying. I don't know of a single reputable high end concealed carry instructor that would advocate what you are saying Joe. This includes men with significant .mil credentials such as Larry Vickers, Pat Macnamara, etc.
Between the Glock, and the SW M&P series, Kahr, etc you easily can suggest that its the majority of the CCW market share when it comes to pistols currently. With the addition of the Sig P250 and P320, Ruger LCP, and double action revolvers that market share goes even higher. If carrying in that condition was that unsafe it would be known.
Plain and simple it was a cheap POS holster that malfunctioned and poor training on the individuals part to not make sure the gun goes safely into the holster via watching or some other technique. Holstering while sitting down is more challenging and generally not recommended.
Back to the thread topic of appendix carry. Ugh never found it comfortable. I carry in my pocket, or at 4-430ish either IWB or OWB.
Last edited: