BTB Holsters for Concealed Carry

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChanceMcCall

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
350
Location
Midwest
I think, in my opinion, that the holster style that best combines rapid access and concealability is the between the belt holster.

I use this style for years with a Combat Commander LW and later a Detonics, and moved through a Glock 30, Glock 36, and finally a SA XDs. My wife uses one for her Boberg when she wears a belt.

Here are some manufacturers:

http://store.bullardleather.com/btb-holster
https://mitchrosen.com/products/holsters/between-waistband-belt-holsters/

Inside the waistband requires buying pants too large, it's uncomfortable, and slower to draw.
On the belt is hard to hide, especially in summer.

Your thoughts?
 
I'm aware they are available, but they are still quite rare, and probably for a reason.

They are outside of your pants, so they don't give any concealment advantage over an Outside the Waistband (OWB) holster.

They are inside your belt, so they don't offer a comfort advantage over an Inside the Waistband (IWB) holster. I understand what you're saying about pants sizing, but I just don't wear my pants tight enough (OK, Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year's may occasionally present issues) for it to make a difference. My pants are loose enough that I wear my belts to hold my pants up, they are more than decorative fashion accessories or just tools to hold up a gun/holster combo. I have room inside my pants to stick a gun and holster.
 
I almost always carry OWB even in the summer, with a shirt untucked. Never had a problem with people knowing I was carrying.

Being inside the belt, does draw them closer than any OTB holster I have ever tried. There is also better retention when moving around quickly or violently. Like everything else related to this, clothing choices, and their fit, also matter. I'm far from fat, so I tend to wear fairly formfitting clothing.

For that matter, I've seen guns printing on guys in sport coats when they bend over or move in certain ways. When one travels to cities where LE rarely encounters legally armed people that aren't wearing the colors of the day, or know the word of the day, it is best to stay as low profile as possible, even when legally armed.
 
I'm aware they are available, but they are still quite rare, and probably for a reason.

They are outside of your pants, so they don't give any concealment advantage over an Outside the Waistband (OWB) holster.

They are inside your belt, so they don't offer a comfort advantage over an Inside the Waistband (IWB) holster. I understand what you're saying about pants sizing, but I just don't wear my pants tight enough (OK, Thanksgiving-Christmas-New Year's may occasionally present issues) for it to make a difference. My pants are loose enough that I wear my belts to hold my pants up, they are more than decorative fashion accessories or just tools to hold up a gun/holster combo. I have room inside my pants to stick a gun and holster.

You have some interesting points, but, I've been using them for 50 years and I believe, in my opinion, they are considerably more comfortable that IWB when sitting or driving or moving around quickly. If you try one, I'm confident you will find they do hold much more tightly to the waste than any OWB I've every tried.

Even setting aside the comfort factor, IWB holsters are much slower to draw from standing up and, unless you choose a cross draw, almost impossible to draw from quickly when sitting or driving.

You do have a point about not many being made. When Glocks first came out, there were several accidental self-inflicted shootings when holstering the guns. One of the largest makers was sued and lost. (Galco). That caused other makers to discontinue them for a number of years. I think Glock corrected the problem on their end, because I've carried two Glocks (the 30 and the 36) in these types of holsters (after fully testing them personally) and never had a problem. The very different style of Mich Rosen may because of this incident.
 
Last edited:
You do have a point about not many being made. When Glocks first came out, there were several accidental self-inflicted shootings when holstering the guns. One of the largest makers was sued and lost. (Galco). That caused other makers to discontinue them for a number of years. I think Glock corrected the problem on their end, ...
I'm skeptical that the reason there are so few Between the Belt holsters is because of reholstering issues.

How would reholstering into a Between the Belt holster be any different, specifically more dangerous, than reholstering into an IWB or OWB holster.

What did Glock "correct" on their guns that made them safer to reholster?

Even setting aside the comfort factor, IWB holsters are much slower to draw from standing up and, unless you choose a cross draw, almost impossible to draw from quickly when sitting or driving.
If positioned at the same spot on the belt and at the same ride height, how would IWB be significantly different than Between the Belt and OWB?
 
I prefer OWB pancake with thumb break and a cover shirt/jacket. Unfortunately here in the tropics that isn't an option most of the year.
 
OWB pancake for me. It took me two of my three years carrying to come to this conclusion.

Comfortable, concealable and a good draw.

Personally I've never seen the point in ITB.
 
I'm skeptical that the reason there are so few Between the Belt holsters is because of reholstering issues.

How would reholstering into a Between the Belt holster be any different, specifically more dangerous, than reholstering into an IWB or OWB holster.

What did Glock "correct" on their guns that made them safer to reholster?


If positioned at the same spot on the belt and at the same ride height, how would IWB be significantly different than Between the Belt and OWB?

I have no idea when Glock corrected the issue. I have never had the issue of any kind of an accidental discharge. What I was lead to believe by a holster maker was that there was a problem and it was corrected. Talking to several holster makers over the years, the ones making this type of holster became concerned about liability and ceased making them.

Most BTB holsters do not have reinforced lips so it takes considerable pressure to reholster not required a OWB holsters. I don't have very much experience with IWB holsters other than one I was issued a number of years ago which I suspect was far different than the average holster so I can't comment knowledgeably on the differences between those two.

I'd be curious as to why you think so few of these holsters are being made and utilized.
 
I'd be curious as to why you think so few of these holsters are being made and utilized.
Because they lack the comfort of an OWB holster, which they equal in concealment, and lack the concealment of an IWB holster, that they equal in comfort.

In other words, if you want more concealment at the cost of some comfort you'd choose an IWB holster. If you want more comfort at the cost of some concealment you'd choose an OWB holster. The Between the Belt holster gives you the comfort of the IWB (less), and the concealment of the OWB (less). I just don't see an advantage.

The whole Glock thing, I think you may have some bad information or possibly mis-remember something. Glocks have always had a firing pin safety, and the trigger safety toggle. I can't think of anything they've modified on the gun that would make them safer to holster.

Let me add: If you like the Between the Belt holsters, rock on. Though not common, they are still made, so no doubt somebody other than just you likes them. They must be popular enough for both Rosen and Bullard (and I'll assume others) to still make them. One holster, or holster type, isn't right for everybody. You've found what works for you, and most folks are really still looking to get where you are. Good on you.
 
Last edited:
Inside the waistband requires buying pants too large, it's uncomfortable, and slower to draw.
On the belt is hard to hide, especially in summer.

Your thoughts?
Depends on what "slower" means to you I suppose. I have a consistent sub 2 second draw to first round hit on 8" round steel at 7 yards from an AIWB holster and I'm not even close to being what I would call fast. I know and/or have trained under several people who are under one second. Much of holster selection and opinions are based on body type and fitness level, two subjects that are very often left out of discussions about holsters even though they're arguably the second most important, after the handgun itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top