Pistolsmith

Go Back   Pistolsmith > Gun Forum > Holsters and Belts


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-09-2001, 07:51 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 66
As a relatively new USPSA to IDPA convert, I am curious regarding the most prevalent holster position in IDPA, given its emphasis on real world practicality and concealment. From my informal survey, FBI cant appears to be the most common holster configuration. Anyone out there using a staight drop? Tony K. at Milt Sparks told me that the late Bruce Nelson favored a straight drop, but I don't know if concealment was a key issue with Mr. Nelson. I am currently using Blade-Tech belt loop holsters in FBI cant. Comments, please.
Bill Go
 
Remove Ads
Old 04-09-2001, 08:17 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,610
I use the FBI cant for duty and for games. To me it just makes sense.

A further question to yours would be - who carries one style for carry/duty, and uses another style for IDPA?
 
Old 04-09-2001, 08:41 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 66
Good question, Shane. I thought about that myself, i.e. using a straight drop for competition and an FBI cant for actual carry. I decided to go FBI cant for everything since it just made logical sense to do everything one way (the old saying you "fight like you train"). I noticed in the latest IDPA newsletter that Ken Hackathorn is reminding members to heed the IDPA rule that the trigger pad us supposed to go BEHIND (not on) the centerline of the body, which favors an FBI cant.
Bill Go
 
Old 04-09-2001, 08:47 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 849
Bill, Actually, it depends on where you feel most comfortable wearing the gun. If you like to carry the weapon at the side seam of your pants, or forward of that, then a straight drop would be the choice. It should be noted that as you start moving the gun back around the hip, the angle must be increased to allow the gun to be drawn effectively. I like to wear a gun just behind the side deam of my pants, which for me is comfortable, and concealable. It also provides for protection of the weapon using one's elbow.
Lou
 
Old 04-09-2001, 05:30 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 239
I find that the straight drop is very fast, but harder to conceal. A certain amount of cant helps concealment, but there is a point of diminishing returns as the holster will need to be moved back on the waist. You'll end up reaching or contorting to draw, which will slow down your draw stroke.

Also important to draw comfort/speed, and frequently neglected, is the height of the holster relative to the belt. You'll have to figure it out for yourself what works best, but those with shorter torsos will generally find that high ride rigs are a pain.
 
Old 04-09-2001, 09:10 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
38 Super Combat Commander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NH
Posts: 614
I like the FBI cant.I seem to draw the gun quicker and the holster is more comfortable to me.
 
Old 04-10-2001, 08:08 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 515
Master holstermaker Lou Alessi hit the nail on the head with his earlier post on the degree of cant having to be increased the farther back the holster is worn.

One advantage of a straight drop holster is that it permits one to obtain one's initial grasp on the pistol without "breaking" one's wrist downward. Straight-drop does pretty much require that the holster be worn directly on one's side and it can be less accessable when seated.

Rosco
 
Old 04-10-2001, 02:03 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 581
I tried a FBI cant holster for IDPA and didn’t care for it.

For me drawing the gun straight up is more natural than pulling it forward to get it out of the holster. I see a lot of IDPA shooters lean forward when they draw from a canted holster. Maybe to make it easier to draw? Hell, I don’t know. It just looks unnatural and slower to me.

Once you get it out of the holster you have to stop the ass end of the gun and rotate it forward. Before you get that done, you might be covering yourself. If you Donnie Dumbass the draw and knock off your safety early, bad things can happen. I would much rather AD in the dirt than in my thigh.

Being an IPSC to IDPA convert, a straight drop holster will be easier to get used to.

This is for the game called IDPA. Not for real carry. For real carry/concealment, I think the cant helps with concealment. And yes, I do carry a gun concealed everyday. Just not on base.

If I offended anyone by saying IDPA is a game I am sorry, but I think it is and treat it as such. After all, the targets aren’t shooting back.

Tom
AF Shooting Team
 
Old 04-10-2001, 05:46 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
On 2001-04-10 15:03, Oops! Fix me! wrote:
If I offended anyone by saying IDPA is a game I am sorry, but I think it is and treat it as such. After all, the targets aren’t shooting back.
I don't think any of us IDPA'ers are offended by your comment. We would have to be fools to think any different.

A serious game maybe, that MAY help in the real world, but a game non the less.
 
Old 04-14-2001, 04:31 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 524
Quote:
I like to wear a gun just behind the side deam of my pants, which for me is comfortable, and concealable. It also provides for protection of the weapon using one's elbow.
Lou
Again Mr. Alessi shows great wisdom. I have been toting one of these things for 27 years, on duty and off, and it has always been a primary concern of mine to be able to protect it. I am not a competion shooter, so I can't address that point, but I think protection from being grabbed should be considered formost for your "carry" concerns.
 
Old 04-14-2001, 06:37 PM   #11
die
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Argentina
Posts: 65
Hi i agree with the previous tops that the straight drop is faster than the FBI cant. I believe that is because the movements you need for draw, are less and more natural than the ones you need for a draw from behind the hip with FBI cant (the best way, i think, to carry with this kind of holster).But is also thrue, that for certain individuals, like me, with short waistband and not to tall, is very dificult, near imposible, to conceal a handgun.
Also, i take the oportunity to ask, if the speed cut that certain designs have, are actually a plus, or nothing more than cosmetics.
 
Old 04-14-2001, 09:45 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 176
I am truly interested in this topic because I am ignorant of the History and Refinement of the FBI Cant/Holster and sincerely seek first hand information.

I had always assumed the holster was set up that way by FBI instructors/advisors to facilate a fast draw in conjunction with a crouching motion.

The advantages to this seem to be a a very fast two hand presentation in conjunction with offering a moving target as you lower your profile by going into a crouching position as the sights come to bear.

I believe one would set up on the balls of your feet, left foot a bit forward, knees slightly bent, as you start the draw, you begun to bend the knees, this brings the head/eyes down to meet the sights as the pistol comes up and forward.

At least that`s the way I was instructed ( for Games )

I find it very fast. Am I all wet here ?
 
Old 04-14-2001, 10:12 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,610
die,
Certain cants are faster for certain people. I can't be more specific than that. The only way to tell what is right for you is to grab your timer, and two types of holsters, and have at 'er.

My own timing has consistently proved time after time that my draw times are ALWAYS faster with the "FBI cant". An added bonus, as Lou mentioned, is weapon retention. My elbow meets the grip perfectly with this style holster.

Blackjack,
You are not all wet. The steps you outline are pretty close to the dynamics of an actual draw as practiced by FBI agents.

After trying different types of design and styles, it was the "FBI cant" that offered the best combination of concealment, retention, and speed.
 
Old 04-16-2001, 02:15 PM   #14
die
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Argentina
Posts: 65
Shane: you are right. What works for someone, not necessary work for another one. It just a matter of practice. About this, i recently read an article about the draw speed written by Duane Thomas in Gun World. In this one, he said that he doen't understand why persons insist in carry with the FBI cant. He gives some considerations about the advantages of the straight drop position. He mention a certain inestability when you actually present the handgun. For me is a little "overtecnique". By the way, what everybody in this forum think about these gun writers?
 
Old 04-16-2001, 03:34 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 3,830
Gun writers? Some are good guys some are dorks.

Duane Thomas commenting on holsters? I know Duane. I have shot with him some. He is the worst example of a gun writer IMO. Being published in any gun magazine or on a forum doesn't make what you have to say worth repeating :smile:

Question for any DT supporters on list? Why did DT loose his Washigton State armed guards license? The first and only license revocation in the history of the Washington program BTW.

Yes, I know DT. :roll:

As far as why anyone would carry in FBI? It's easy. It conceals better. Works if you have to draw seated or in an automobile better. It can be just as fast as any rig. It is not as easy. Ask Bill Jordan, Jelly Bryce, or I dare say the old foggies on list like Higgibotham, Given's or myself. I am sure there are others. The first two are dead but we three amigos aren't quite yet and can throw a fairly quick leather slap from a FBI rig when called upon. :grin:



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dane Burns on 2001-04-16 18:07 ]</font>
 
Old 04-16-2001, 04:41 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 418
Dane, say it ain't so. You're disparaging a gun writer. Everything I ever learned, I learned from them. I learned that the ultimate carry gun was the M29 .44 Mag. No, it was the Sig 226. No, wait, it was the M13, no, the Sig 228, no, the Glock 19, no the 225, no 4586, no the 1911. Agggh, the inconsistencies caused by needing new articles!

By the way, Dane. Feel free to e-mail the info about the license revocation, as well as any other tidbits. Inquiring minds want to know!
 
Old 04-16-2001, 05:09 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 3,830
Better yet I'll start a writers Q&A in the off topic section :grin:
 
Old 04-16-2001, 06:18 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 66
Gentlemen, thank you one and all for the comments. I was undecided for a while about holster cant; there were well respected experts on both sides of the straight drop vs FBI cant debate. Bruce Nelson wore a straight drop (but I don't know if concealment was a concern of his). Ross Seyfried won the first IPSC World Shoot with s Sparks 1AT (FBI cant). We have heard from Dane, Lou Alessi, et al. In addition, I concluded from my own trials that if the weapon is carried behind the trouser seam, then the FBI cant is the most comfortable way to grasp the gun without an unnatural bend of the wrist. If one insists on open carry, then I could see using a straight drop (that's how I used to carry my IPSC gun). But now my local IDPA club runs most of its events requiring concealment (gun behind the hip). That decided me on the FBI cant.
Bill Go

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bill Go on 2001-04-16 19:20 ]</font>
 
Old 04-16-2001, 06:36 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 3,830
Bill
You might be interested to know that Bruce Nelson generally carried a LTW Commander IWB in the strong side appendix position for concealment and speed. Not an uncommon position for "street" people for the same reason.

The Nelson Professional holster was designed for both point of hip draw and cross draw.

Ross not only won the Worlds with that AT1 but also the shoot off, man against man, with a 5" gun at the beginnings of the race gun era. All that more impressive to me.

Jelly Bryce and Bill Jordan were some of the fastest men in the world...on timers and against human opponents. ( presentations under .75 of a second concealed, Jordan was under .5!) They both prefered the FBI cant. As mentioned earlier it also allows for some protection of the gun in a schuffle and easier access to the gun in poor body positions, not to mention the aid in concealabiltiy.
 
Old 04-16-2001, 07:51 PM   #20
die
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Argentina
Posts: 65
Dane, after all that process to choose a weapon for his job, the right holster, the right, the right, etc., he was stripped form the license. I can't believe. Seriously, i remember his article from Gun World, in wich he write 5 or 6 pages about his new job. I wasn't any serious for me, but, everyone can do what he want. I don't consider him a good shooter, considering the data he publish from his test, and everything here confirm this. Well, i don't need more confirmations than reading his articles. Topic close.
Besides, i want to say that, regardless what i think about wich method is faster, i only carry mi guns behind the hip with FBI cant (IWB or FBI).
 
Old 04-16-2001, 08:02 PM   #21
die
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Argentina
Posts: 65
mea culpa: they couldn't work if we don't read they articles, and, well, i read everything. Is not that they are bad. There are someones that are really good, and you can learn from them but someones really leave a lot to desire. Well, maybe after all, he is not that bad.
At last rememeber the YK2 boom articles, how you have to be armed.
 
Old 04-16-2001, 08:48 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Since I was old enough to think about how to produce a sidearm rapidly, there has been contention about how best to carry and where.

I don't think the efficacy of the so-called FBI-draw (which was brought to the Bureau only long after Tom Threepersons had designed a neat, trim little belt rig for which he has long lost popular credit), has ever been discredited 'til fairly recently when folks have copied the CT style which largely stemmed from a specialized need for producing a handgun while regularly wearing kevlar, masks, and a massive collection of other gear.

The current straight up and push out technique certainly has application around a heavy kevlar vest and LBE, but it's hard for me to believe that generations of men who actually used their weapons for the purpose they were created were all wrong with their concept of the circular motion of the draw as being most economical of motion and consistent.

The technique of using a vertical scabbard, moving directly to the butt, lifting up vertically, and thrusting straight out was tried and dismissed years ago by folks like McGivern, Jordan, and Askins (who came close with his Berns-Martin hip rig and New Service belly gun.

As Dane pointed out, the forward canted rig tends to be concealable, adaptable to sitting, and the fact that it was early on used in a crouch didn't faze Jordan or McGivern a bit who both shot from an erect stance. (McGivern DID have sort of a forward lean to his pear shaped gun mount). Jordan and McGivern were both fast and accurate despite "breaking" the wrist to set a number of records and Jordan certainly had the opportunity to use his piece for the purpose it was intended.

The vertical rig has it's place. Nothing wrong with a vertical position per se, but I daresay most will find a forward canted butt more concealable and faster to access under a coat, and somewhat more comfortable when sitting. It also makes for a vertical sweep of the muzzle up the long axis of a target which gives a lot more latitude for error when adrenalin in a life or death situation cranks into the equation.

If one is like the young hero who sat at another table across from me at lunch just the other day, it really doesn't matter. Wearing some large autoloading sidearm in an equally bulky holster in what was clearly a vertical hip rig under a surplus Swiss army shirt buttoned up, the weapon stood out like a terminal goiter, couldn't be accessed anyway short of ripping off the buttons, and was just an embarrassment. If he belonged to me, I'd have beat him with a stick...but I suppose he was just proud to have a real sidearm and mebbe even a CC permit. Hell, he might have been a writer...
 
Old 04-16-2001, 11:47 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 849
The term "FBI cant" is used loosely today. The term came from the first authorized holster by the Bureau, which was designed by one, Hank Sloan, who was a firearms instructor, and agent, and tinkered with holster design. He came up with a holster that canted the gun at about 25 degrees, and sold the design to Bucheimer Holsters, of Maryland. The holster was the first to use an
adjustable tension welt which would apply tension to the forward portion of the frame just ahead of the trigger guard. It was a good design for the times, and the Bureau used this holster for many years. Only when they switched to the 3" mod 13, .357 did they switch holsters to a Bucheimer concealed slot belt slide.
Today any holster that is slightly canted and worn behind the hip is refered to as an FBI cant, but this is not true to the original which was more extreme in angle. More holsters today are designed with slightly less than a 25 degree cant, and I find myself leaning more towards a 11-15 degree cant. This enables more freedom of placement of the holster, while retaining the concealment factor, and allowing for better speed from concealment. One doesn't have to 'break the wrist' quite as much, and
the lesser cant is more adaptable to semi autos.
Lou
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:12 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Lou,

Thanks for the history recap. Maybe my memory is fuzzy and I should do my homework, but I thought all Sloan did was take the Threepersons rig and pitch it at a more acute angle and add a shroud to prevent the sight from catching on a coat lining.

The old Sloan rig that Milt Sparks once produced and Keith seemed to like was even bulkier than a Myers Threepersons, didn't conceal any better, but did have a tension device to hold the weapon securely without a strap.

The FBI scabbard has surely been used to describe almost any butt forward, muzzle to rear canted holster. May not be precise but it sorta seems to me like using the term "solid"--hard to restrict it to the newer homogenous metal bullets when it was originally conceived to refer to heavily steel jacketed projectiles. Hate to be imprecise though.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 12:33 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 849
_____________________________________________
Lou,

Thanks for the history recap. Maybe my memory is fuzzy and I should do my homework, but I thought all Sloan did was take the Threepersons rig and pitch it at a more acute angle and add a shroud to prevent the sight from catching on a coat lining.

The old Sloan rig that Milt Sparks once produced and Keith seemed to like was even bulkier than a Myers Threepersons, didn't conceal any better, but did have a tension device to hold the weapon securely without a strap.
_____________________________________________
256, You're right. Hank Sloan took the Threepersons rig, and added the shroud to protect the suit coats from the hammers, and added the adjustable welt. That adjustable welt got him a patent, but it was as much as useless, because as he was working for the gov't at the time, he couldn't enforce it.
The original design was a pretty slick holster, but when Bucheimer started mass producing it, they butchered it. The belt loop was too large, which allowed the holster to move around, and also didn't 'pull' the gun into the body the way a well made model of the same holster would,
ie: Milt Sparks. He made that holster work properly. That's why Elmer liked it so much.
Still, it wasn't the greatest of concealment holsters. Gaylord, and Seventrees made that holster obsolete overnight..
Luigi




_________________
Alessi Holsters, Inc.
You'll never know it's there, until you need it..

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Louis F. Alessi on 2001-04-17 01:36 ]</font>
 
Old 04-17-2001, 08:52 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 176
Mr. Alessi and 256M-S.

Thank You...That history of the FBI Canted Holster and Crouching Draw was what I was hoping to see posted...kinda hard to know why we do things the way we do if you don`t know where we came from.

I find that History fascinating.

Also those Men should be remembered in our Small World.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:05 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Lou, So from where did Sloan originate?

Does his innovation plus the bulk of the holster lending itself more to outside carry or at least carry by LEO's who weren't all that concerned about serious concealment tie in to your East-West theory? Certainly, the Keith-Milt Sparks connection does.
 
Old 04-18-2001, 08:47 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 849
256, I don't know what part of the country Hank Sloan was from, but from looking at his design, it would appear his leather origins were in the saddle making trade. He used extremely heavy leather, bulky seams, and welts, and heavy hardware. The real tip off is that the holsters were natural, and finished with oil, instead of dye.
Lou
 
Old 04-18-2001, 08:57 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 849
256, Many years ago,(1975) I was at Quantico
and saw a number of the Sloan holsters laying around in the arsenal. Some were actually very well made, and finished, and some were very crude. The quality was not consistant from one batch to another. Some of the better finished holsters were marked
"Hank Sloan" on the back, and others had the Bucheimer logo on the back with the name 'Sloan' stamped into the logo. They were definitely from two different makers. Maybe the holsters that were nicely finished
were made by Sloan himself, or they may have been early examples from Bucheimer. Now I wish I would have asked.
Luigi

_________________
Alessi Holsters, Inc.
You'll never know it's there, until you need it..

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Louis F. Alessi on 2001-04-19 00:38 ]</font>
 
Old 04-18-2001, 09:21 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Thanks, Lou.

Wish I'd known about those pieces at Quantico, I'm sure that friends could have accessed one or two. Would have been nice to have a copy. Were they produced by Bucheimer or with their Bucheimer-Clark line--the latter being a bit better quality? Perhaps that could have explained the 2 different maker??? I just don't remember that model atall and the only Sloan holster I remember is Milt's.

As usual, you've got a wealth of information. You really ought to consider doing a book on holster development. To date, there have been only TWO--Gaylord's and Bianchi's.
 
Old 04-18-2001, 09:36 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Amherst, NY
Posts: 849
256, The holsters I saw were only marked Bucheimer, not Buchmeimer/Clark. I think Bucheimer acquired Clark Holsters in California in the mid to late 70's, but they never did merge operations. Clark stayed in California, and continued to make their designs, while Bucheimer was located in Maryland. I believe the acquisition was a result over a lawsuit of a Bucheimer patent, but I don't rememebr the facts now. Bucheimer was the maker of the original "Dirty Harry" shoulder rig, with the cylinder cut out to flatten the profile of the gun. That was a nice rig. Then some guy in Chicago licensed that design, and took all the credit. Actually, he never even made that holster. He used to order them from Bucheimer with his logo stamped on them.
He then moved to Texas, and advertised that holster for years in the magazines as the "Dirty Harry" rig.
Lou


_________________
Alessi Holsters, Inc.
You'll never know it's there, until you need it..

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Louis F. Alessi on 2001-04-18 10:40 ]</font>
 
Old 04-18-2001, 05:38 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Thanks, Lou. I surely didn't know the background of the "Dirty Harry" rig. That was an interesting bit of knowledge.
 
Old 04-28-2001, 12:04 PM   #33
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 12
The Bruce Nelson holster being written about was designed for concealment. The Summer Special was designed for deep concealment.
 
Reply

  Pistolsmith > Gun Forum > Holsters and Belts


Search tags for this page
alessi holster ten degree cant
,

fbi cant

,
fbi cant angle
,

fbi cant holster

,
fbi cant or straight draw
,

fbi cant position

,

fbi cant vs straight drop

,
fbi canted position
,
what cant dgrees are used on gun holsters

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
opinons wanted--Heinie Straight 8's vs CGR RC Straight 8's jmg Gun Accessories 4 11-27-2004 06:24 PM
Drop Leg holster Batman Holsters and Belts 2 08-10-2002 06:13 PM
To keep things straight... Jim Richardson Browning Pistols 0 06-24-2002 08:02 AM
Saffariland Drop Holster Strap Joey Holsters and Belts 2 11-26-2001 07:05 PM
3 position safety? youngun Kimber Pistols 1 08-17-2001 11:22 PM

Top Gun Sites Top Sites List


Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright © 1999-2012 Pistolsmith. All rights reserved.