Clip draw on the new Glock 42

[AK103K]

Then again, I would not carry a loaded Glock in my pants without the trigger covered on a bet.

Basing that on what?

Any more then I would stand under the tallest tree in the area during a lightening storm.

Id choose the loaded Glock over that, and take the bet, any day.

Also, on the cost issue, if you are willing to spend several hundred dollars on a gun, then why go cheap on a holster?

No argument from me there, but just look at all the people who figure a $10 nylon holster with a spare mag pocket attached and a simple metal clip, is a good choice.

 

[rcmodel]

Basing that on what?

Based on my Spydey sense after carrying every kind of handgun there is for 50 years in my pants sometimes.

Stuffing a loaded Glock in my pants makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

There are just too many unforeseen ways a gun without a safety or a long heavy trigger pull and be fired accidently.

BTW: Did you hear the one about Plaxico Burress?

rc

 

[420Stainless]

I like the idea of the clip draw except for the open trigger issue. Having said that, I was unaware of the pop-out trigger block and trigger holsters shown by others in this thread. Might not be such a bad idea with one of those.

 

[AK103K]

BTW: Did you hear the one about Plaxico Burress?

Who hasnt? Its the one case everyone runs out, when this comes up.

His mistake was grabbing for the falling gun. It could easily have easily happened with anything.

It would be interesting to see the stats on some of the others over the years before and since the Glocks came along. Ive seen enough people have issues with 1911's, and DA guns being reholstered before being decocked. Lots of things can happen with anything, if youre not paying attention.

As I said before, if youre "reasonable" in you handling, I dont believe its an issue.

But, by all means, if youre uncomfortable in doing so, dont do it.

 

[AK103K]

I like the idea of the clip draw except for the open trigger issue. Having said that, I was unaware of the pop-out trigger block and trigger holsters shown by others in this thread. Might not be such a bad idea with one of those.

Id go with something like the Vanguard, before I went with the trigger block. Less to go wrong there.

 

[kokapelli]

Why would anyone bother with gadgets like a trigger block or the trigger cover when it would be just as easy just to use a proven pocket holster?

 

[AK103K]

What if youre not carrying in a pocket?

 

[kokapelli]

What if youre not carrying in a pocket?

There is still a lot of reasons to holster carry like keeping sweat and lint off the pistol and perspiration that can cause rust.

 

[AK103K]

There is still a lot of reasons to holster carry like keeping sweat and lint off the pistol and perspiration that can cause rust.

No doubt, and Im not saying you should carry without a holster, especially if it makes you uncomfortable.

There are times though, that carrying a second or third gun, warrant a different method, and its nice to have options.

Unorthodox methods are also many times, the only way to pull off carrying a gun, and for many, those methods can give pause, especially if they havent tried them out to understand them.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

AK103K, I understand you're playing devil's advocate, but can you name a situation where carrying a Glock sans holster in your waistband is a good option? Because otherwise it's kind of a moot point. Even the cheapest holster beats just stuffing the gun in your pants, if for no other reason than it's more comfortable, less likely to damage your clothing, and less likely to expose the gun to sweat.

 

[OneSevenDeuce]

Yes, that is a good general rule. Even if carrying in a pocket without a holster isn't worse than carrying with a holster, it is never better.

 

[AK103K]

Madcap,

Its a moot point, to the point, you happen to need to do it.

Im not advocating it as a normal way to carry the gun either, as Ive said before, and I "normally" do carry using a holster, but there have been times when I did have another along, in a different capacity, and it was not in a holster.

My main point in bringing it up is, you need to prove to yourself, that what youre hearing on the internet, and other places, is in fact correct. You ALWAYS hear, and more often than not, from people who dont even own one, that Glocks should not be carried without a holster, yet how many who tell you that, actually know for a fact its true? Im simply saying, prove it to yourself, that the way you think you might carry it, is in fact, unsafe. The only way to really know, regardless what others might say, is to do it. And that goes for anything, not just Glocks.

Over the years, Ive personally seen more safety issues with things like 1911's and SIG's, than I have Glocks.
It doesnt matter what the gun is, if your lackadaisical or become complaisant in your handling, youre apt to have issues.

 

[OneSevenDeuce]

AK, the problem you aren't acknowledging id that your experience is anecdotal. Science has shown that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all. I'm not suggesting that you can measure a holster scientifically, all I'm saying is your experience is your experience. Nothing else. It in no way is a comprehensive assessment of how safe or unsafe the method of carry you are talking about is. Not everyone needs to get into a car accident to want to wear a steatbelt. You don't have to prove to yourself that you'll never get into an accident this year.

 

[ljnowell]

Nothing is without risk.



Im simply asking how many who say it is "overly risky", or more risky than anything else, have actually carried one in that manner, to know, one way or the other.



My personal, and actual experience has been, if youre reasonable in your gun handling, its not any more risky, than anything else.

This argument is invalid. I don't have to play with a rattlesnake to know it's dangerous either.

Common sense says having the trigger exposed on a gun with no manual safety while stuffed down your pants is a bad idea.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

AK, the problem you aren't acknowledging id that your experience is anecdotal. Science has shown that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all. I'm not suggesting that you can measure a holster scientifically, all I'm saying is your experience is your experience. Nothing else. It in no way is a comprehensive assessment of how safe or unsafe the method of carry you are talking about is. Not everyone needs to get into a car accident to want to wear a steatbelt. You don't have to prove to yourself that you'll never get into an accident this year.

Ordinarily I would be the first person to call someone out on believing that the plural of 'anecdote' was 'evidence,' but I actually think his only point is that it is possible to carry a Glock in condition one in your waistband without having a negligent/accidental discharge.

Which is true, but like he says, without some compelling necessity you wouldn't want to, since while it can be done, it is significantly less safe than in a holster.

 

[OneSevenDeuce]

That may have been a point, but I don't think it was his only point. He seemed to be stressing the point with GLOCKs specifically, which seemed to suggest that he was speaking against the idea that GLOCKs are somehow less safe when carried without a holster than weapons with a thumb safety. THAT point I actually agree with, because thumb safeties can, and have, been inadvertently actuated in a pocket.

 

[OneSevenDeuce]

It CAN happen…

http://concealednation.org/2014/09/concealed-carry-on-campus-shoots-itself-in-the-foot-literally/