a holster for every gun

[Zach S]

By forcing the user to extract the handgun by pressing down, you eliminate the possibility of an inexperienced user wrapping their finger around the trigger in panic mode to help pull the firearm out.

You eliminate nothing.

The blackhawk serpa holsters are not allowed in several places (front sight, various ranges, some police departments) because a few folks have shot themselves in the leg after drawing from one - even though the release on the holster indexes your finger along the upper part of the frame.

 

[Joel]

I think you proved my point instead of disproving it. The Serpa requires the index (trigger) finger to apply pressure to release the handgun thus creating the possibility that the user will continue this pressure once the trigger is exposed and the index finger will want to fall into the trigger guard. The design as presented eliminates this possibility by forcing a downward motion against the web of the hand which would counteract the tendency to want to grip the firearm with all available fingers. Unless I'm missing some finger release in the design as presented.

 

[KazPGates]

it would seem they do make it for a 1911 and glock 17, and they use a back strap and can be pull up if the gun is placed in chambered. I have thought before that I may want to carry cocked and locked, but even when I am working I feel ok con 3 (I work armed security). the holsers were designed fro and used by the military and special forces in russia, on the deadliest warrior the spetsnaz soldier had a makarov and one of these holsers and it seemed to do him great justice. did eveyone watch the video?

 

[KazPGates]

and no no finger release with its intended draw stroke, straight through out the bottom of the holster....

 

[KazPGates]

haha, this post sure aroused some interest, wish my other posts would get so much attention.....

 

[mgmorden]

, on the deadliest warrior the spetsnaz soldier had a makarov and one of these holsers and it seemed to do him great justice. did eveyone watch the video?

Ok, at this point I'm convinced we're just being trolled. Did you seriously just bring up DEADLIEST WARRIOR in a serious conversation about tactical gear?

The EXTREME majority of concealed carry, military, and law enforcement users all agree that carrying with a round in the chamber is the way to go. Its safe, and there's no gimmicky contraption to fail when you need the gun to work.

 

[Zach S]

I think you proved my point instead of disproving it. The Serpa requires the index (trigger) finger to apply pressure to release the handgun thus creating the possibility that the user will continue this pressure once the trigger is exposed and the index finger will want to fall into the trigger guard.

I think it proves it, and disproves it, if that makes any sense.

When used properly, the user's trigger finger will be indexed along the frame above the trigger guard, instead of in it, yet folks have still managed to shoot themselves.

I've seen a lot of guys picking up air, battery, and electric powered tools and inadvertently pull the trigger. I've got hurt as a result of this of this as well (it was a wire brush on a drill, IIRC), and due to that I had pretty good trigger finger discipline before I got into firearms.

I could see someone putting their boogerhook on the bang switch in the process of drawing from that holster, due to the fact that when the rest of your fingers are grasping something, the one that isn't wants to follow them. It takes effort to keep that one finger straight for a while before it becomes second nature.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

the holsers were designed fro and used by the military and special forces in russia, on the deadliest warrior the spetsnaz soldier had a makarov and one of these holsers and it seemed to do him great justice. did eveyone watch the video?

Instant facepalm.

Get some professional training and learn that carrying chambered is perfectly safe as long as you are safe.

 

[KazPGates]

professianal training and no round in the chamber fits me better, carry how you want, it is not worth it to me, actually a=I am getting a 1911 and one of these holsters....haha, I'll let you guys know how it works...

 

[JTQ]

professianal training and no round in the chamber fits me better, carry how you want, it is not worth it to me, actually a=I am getting a 1911 and one of these holsters....haha, I'll let you guys know how it works...

I am interested to hear what your instructor says when you show up with one of those holsters.

My guess is he/she will try and persuade you to select a different holster and to carry with a round chambered.

 

[ForumSurfer]

I am getting a 1911 and one of these holsters....haha, I'll let you guys know how it works...

Talk all you want. Grab a regular holster and the holster you describe. Try each seperately. Draw, put two rounds on target center of mass and one in the head.



Internet talk, silly TV shows that prove absolutely nothing, everyone's opinions (including my own) are all pretty useless. Don't tell us it feels faster or you think it is faster, use a shot timer and see the results. The results will speak for themselves as cold, hard, indisputable facts. I'm %1000 sure I know which one will let you put rounds on target significantly faster regardless of how well trained you are with the holster. Sam broke it down for you in simple physics regarding muscle movements on the draw stroke. Any extra movements that require you to counter your own momentum (push, then pull) add precious time to the draw stroke. Fluid movements are always faster. Push down (especially with enough force to rack the slide), then pulling back up is not fluid...it is counterproductive. The holster you describe simply can't be faster due to the way the body works.

Also, start a poll and you'll see the percentages of those of us OK with carrying cocked, locked and a round in the chamber are significantly higher than those who don't. You can carry however you want. With proper training and following the 4 rules, accidents don't happen. Negligence happens if you disobey the 4 rules, but accidents won't.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

professianal training and no round in the chamber fits me better, carry how you want, it is not worth it to me, actually a=I am getting a 1911 and one of these holsters....haha, I'll let you guys know how it works...

Not sure what kind of training you are going to get but I have a feeling that they are not going to let you continue it if you refuse to first chamber a round.

 

[Pete D.]

misinformation

Some strange ideas here:

when you put the gun in, it cannot be drawn straight back up, but rather it must be pushed through chambering a round.

Not so. The gun can be removed by drawing as normal. That is the way the holster will be used the vast majority of the time. The push through feature is for combat use or practice only. It is for getting the gun ready in an instant.
The holster is actually quite small, smaller than the pancake holster pictured in this thread - the point being that if you can wear a pancake, you can wear one of these (though it will not ride as close as the pcke).
Now - about that ready in an instant idea - the argument here is that the push through holster doesn't do that because the push moves the gun in the wrong direction. Is that the gist of it? Up and out is good (and maybe a tad back, with the forearm and upper arm crunched kinda together. Not meant to be too critical, the "normal" draw from a IWB or a pancake or other "regular" holster has always seemed anatomically awkward. The fact that many of you do it well is a tribute to practice). Down and out is bad.
In any case, I am having trouble "seeing" why down and out in a single relatively simple thrust is a bad thing, is the wrong direction. The bad guy is in front of me, yes?
Help me out here. (I did read through all the posts in then thread. None of the explanations worked particularly well for me.) There was a passing reference to an explanation of the anatomy/muscle use of the draw....I must have missed that. Which post?

this is a solution to a problem that 99.9% of the gun-carriers in the world are (at best) unaware they have

I don't see it as a solution to any problem, rather another way of doing something.
Pete

 

[Sam1911]

In any case, I am having trouble "seeing" why down and out in a single relatively simple thrust is a bad thing, is the wrong direction. The bad guy is in front of me, yes?

This may be too complicated to explain in words if the explanations above don't make it clear enough. On a range with either a trainer, or a trained and well-practiced shooter (especially a competitive shooter) -- and a shot timer -- this would be abundantly clear. But we just don't have the luxury of all getting together for a demo run.

 

[Pete D.]

Thanx

I appreciate that you took time to respond.
It seems that an effective demonstration would require a person or persons who are as well practiced with the push through holster as with the more traditional pull out holster. No? Yes?
That makes me wonder if the big difference is the matter of familiarity. We get real good when we practice.
Pete

 

[Sam1911]

If you could somehow have a push-through type holster and a more common style OWB holster for the same gun, and could put the same level of practice into both, that would indeed give the greatest possible level of equality of comparison. At that point, only the benefits or drawbacks of the specific holster would be in question, as the gun and shooter would be equaled out.

That's pretty much impossible as the holsters don't exist for the guns most of us carry and none of us has, or is going to devote the time to, developing that much proficiency with the push-through system.

But that's ok. An experienced competitor or instructor can evaluate the functions that must be performed and identify the drawbacks inherent in the system without investing more than a few minutes of contemplation.

Someone who has been well trained in the most current best practices has seen first hand that the "down & up" or "potato digger" type draw is slow, not conducive to accuracy, and not optimal for weapon retention. Folks have been working to perfect the draw-stroke for decades. It is very well understood at this point. We know what works best and what falls short. This type of holster forces the user to abandon the best practices. Strike one.

We also can clearly see that this introduces a failure point in that the shooter must execute a broad, critical function before the gun is ready to fire. We know from studying gun fights and the way people react under stress that any such act being required increases the rate of failure. We aren't talking here about dropping a thumb safety that's naturally under the thumb as you present the weapon, but a large gross motor movement that you may be too cramped, too blocked, too pinned, or just too panicked to perform in a timely fashion. The risk of failure could be reduced through training, lots and lots of training, but this was offered as a possible duty holster. Police officers by and large (and soldiers issued sidearms), don't get that level of training. Not even close. Strike two.

Third, the specific function required -- that of chambering a round -- is a problematic one. Again, those who shoot a lot tend to understand this intuitively. Chambering a round, not through the automatic action of the weapon, but by external means, is a heightened failure rate operation. Most good shooters do a "press check" before shooting a course of fire. They know that no matter how many times they've chambered that first round out of the mag, every once in a while something fouls and the chamber is empty. Or, that the first round out bobbles and fails to feed. So, not only does the shooter have to perform a specific and "grand" operation of the gun under stress, but that operation is the single function MOST likely to cause the gun to jam or come up empty. Strike three.

So, A big distinction here is familiarity. But it isn't THE only one, and it isn't the most important one.

 

[Pete D.]

Sam: Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. I hope that you don't mind my continuing the discussion. I like to know how people know things.

We know what works best and what falls short. This type of holster forces the user to abandon the best practices.

Since this type of holster is not in common use - I have only ever seen pictures of one - how can it have been evaluated properly? How do we know anything but that it is a different way to do a task? If it fares poorly in all the areas which you mentioned, on what basis was that judgement made since no one, evidently, uses the things in this country? (Too often, I have seen something labelled bad just because it was different and there was a lot of bad info - like that earlier comment that the gun in the Spetsnaz holster could only be removed by pushing it out and into battery. That would be inconvenient. But that is not the case.)
The "large gross motor movement" to which you refer, personally, I don't see the push down as any more of a challenge than the contortion that a shooter has to go through to remove a pistol from a IWB or pancake holster, especially if the holster is located toward the back.
Using a push type holster - as I see it - the shooter grasps the gun (*) and straightens the shooting arm, raises the ready to fire weapon and shoots. Pancake - the shooter draws his elbow back(and partly the shoulder, since the deltoids are involved), during the drawback, the angle between the upper and lower arm becomes more acute (* this happens during the grasping stage with the push holster also) , grasps the grip, releases the retainer with the thumb, raises the arm, etc, a bit more in order to clear the holster and then has to swing the arm forward, get it straight, rotate the wrist a bit and then engage.
I don't believe that I am over detailing the series of events there. Perhaps you have a different take on it. The point being that there seems to be more than enough "gross motor movement" involved in a normal draw.
Mind you...I am not advocating one method over another. I just don't see a big difference.
Pete

 

[Sam1911]

Since this type of holster is not in common use - I have only ever seen pictures of one - how can it have been evaluated properly? How do we know anything but that it is a different way to do a task?

In the strictest sense, you are right.

But as I said:

But that's ok. An experienced competitor or instructor can evaluate the functions that must be performed and identify the drawbacks inherent in the system without investing more than a few minutes of contemplation.

There are similarities between the motions this holster forces you to perform and those that many neophyte shooters slip into using because they don't know better. The "down-&-scoop" motion of that draw is something that most trainers and shooting instructors watch for and are expecting to see from folks who have been practicing on their own for a little while and don't realize the inefficiencies of their technique.

It takes a little guidance and corrective criticism to get folks to develop to a better form, but once they do they're surprised at how much faster they go and how much better control they have.

If it fares poorly in all the areas which you mentioned, on what basis was that judgement made since no one, evidently, uses the things in this country?

I don't have to drink paint thinner to understand how doing so might be harmful. To really PROVE it -- you're right -- I'd better have two test subjects, one drinking water, and one drinking paint thinner and then we can study and record the effects on each. To be fair, though, I really aught to make use of a larger sample size...

On the other hand, someone who has studied biology and physiology and pathology could probably deduce from identifying the compounds in the substance and comparing their known quantities with the way the human body normally works, and make some very well educated and sound statements about whether or not the practice would be beneficial -- even without the benefit of a perfect test of that theory.

See the analogy?

I agree that a very carefully organized test, on video, with a timer, would be the most convincing possible finder of fact regarding these holsters.

But that isn't possible, and it really isn't necessary for most knowledgeable folks to make a judgement about the drawbacks and benefits.

If that doesn't convince you, that is certainly fine. I understand and appreciate a strong habit of skepticism. Please do look into it if it interests you and if you're ever in a position to obtain test examples and can make your way up to central PA, I'd love to provide range facilities and extra volunteers and help you make the most scientific test of it we can.

The "large gross motor movement" to which you refer

...

The point being that there seems to be more than enough "gross motor movement" involved in a normal draw.
Mind you...I am not advocating one method over another. I just don't see a big difference.

I certainly understand your contention. My take on it is slightly different.

The standard 4-count draw stroke works like this:
1) Obtain firing grip
2) Draw to pectoral "retention" position -- (gun may be body-index fired at the opponent from this position)
3) Extend gun to centerline and forward to meet support hand. -- (gun may be fired at the opponent from this position)
4) Full extension -- aimed fire.

The "Spetsnaz" draw changes that to a 5- or 6- count draw stroke:
1) Obtain firing grip
2) Press down hard to full extension. (Assuming/hoping to cleanly disengage handgun from holster and chamber a round.)
2.5) Draw past the holster level...
3) ... and up to pectoral "retention" position -- (gun may be body-index fired at the opponent from this position)
4) Extend gun to centerline and forward to meet support hand. -- (gun may be fired at the opponent from this position)
5) Full extension -- aimed fire.

For a good draw stroke this can only add a step or step and a half, and that extra motion is strongly, forcefully in the wrong direction. You will have to "recover" your momentum from that motion and change direction to come back up past the holster and to your proper "Count 2" position.

 

[Joel]

Can I be in the paint thinner group???

 

[Sam1911]

Yes...wait...I thought you were already in the "Sterno" test group?

 

[Joel]

I was? Oh crap... Memory loss was one of the side effects, wasn't it?! Oh crap... Oh crap...

Seriously though, Pete, Sam is right on the money. You can test this out yourself by doing a one handed chambering/clearing drill on your belt/holster (with an empty gun or dummy rounds PLEASE) and try to get up on target. You're going to have to stop the downward momentum and either swing the gun up which will result in poor sight acquisition and thus a probable wild shot, or reverse directions (passing the handgun by the holster you would have normally just drawn from) which brings us right to the point of an extra step or two and the loss of speed.

 

[Pete D.]

clearing

Sam and Joel: Thank you both. I do continue to wonder.
One thing that I wonder about is whether your own great familiarity and dedicated training leads you to simplify what are really complex movements.

1) Obtain firing grip
2) Draw to pectoral "retention" position

Seems to me that there's a lot going on between 1 and 2 that's not accounted for. The whole act which is summarized by "draw", for instance.

Joel : showing my own lack of familiarity here....that "one handed chambering/clearing drill" to which you refer. I am not at all familiar with such a thing. Any worthwhile videos?
I am probably going to have to play with this myself. I have a Makarov and various holsters for it. I'll need to pickup one of the Spetsnaz holsters.
Very curious, I am.
Pete

 

[bigfatdave]

Not so. The gun can be removed by drawing as normal.

yes, I assumed that if one could put the gun in from the top that it could also be removed from the top.
Which still makes it a clunky and oversize holster for normal upward removal, now doesn't it?

The reason one would accept that oversize holster would be for the gimmick offered by the push-to-operate-slide feature ... I don't see anything else nice about the holster, barring collectors' interest

 

[bigfatdave]

Oh hell, given a holster of this design, I'd take a swing at running it (I'm in NW Ohio and do have range facilities, Mak ammo and free time on a somewhat random schedule, if you're in the area, bring one of these silly things to the range, and a shot timer ... I'll supply Silver Bear HP Mak ammo and snap-caps, maybe some reactive targets, too)

But I really don't see how the racking can be reliable
And I don't see how thrusting my hand and weapon DOWN will result in a faster draw than up ... maybe if it punched the gun forward it could rely on the pivot at your shoulder to bring the muzzle in the correct direction?

The shot timer tells all - a freebie shot timer android app demonstrated the madness of empty-chamber carry quite well to me, I still gave it a dry-run attempt after careful consideration showed me that it was a silly way to carry a gun ... because I wanted to quantify how silly it was (very).

 

[Sam1911]

Seems to me that there's a lot going on between 1 and 2 that's not accounted for. The whole act which is summarized by "draw", for instance.

Not sure what to say about that. Hand on gun, raise gun, rotate level at "Count 2." That's it. Gun can be fired from right there.

But even if we agree that there's something complex about that motion, there's nothing going on there that is negated or removed by the push-down step, recovery, and change of direction required by the "Spetsnaz."

So you went down instead of up, now you have to come UP -- and come up farther than you would have had to before.

Is there some other way of saying it? If you push the gun down, below the belt line, the gun does not then make a quantum leap and instantly appear in the "count 2" position near the pectoral muscle. You still have to cross the intervening territory and that takes just as much time -- more now, actually -- than it would have had you simply come UP to begin with.