IWB holster for Glock 27

[usmc0341]

I made this yesterday to pass the time. It doesn't conceal as well as I thought it would, not sure what I did wrong. Sorry for the crappy cell phone pics.

[WaG35]

I don't think you did anything wrong. There is a lot more of that gun on the grip end than the muzzle end.(I don't know if that makes sense, it does in my mind) One thing you could do, is ditch the loop on the grip side and raise the loop on the front of the holster so the holster would sit a little lower into the waistband but then it might hamper your grip. Personally, I decided I don't like IWB after I made acouple. But yours looks nice.

[usmc0341]

That's kind of what I was thinking. The VM2 for the Glock 27 has alot more leather at the bottom if you look at their website. I prefer IWB since it conceals the best for me, but it definitely isnt the most comfortable way to carry. Thanks for the compliment.

[Billsotx]

IWBs ... you either love 'em or you hate 'em. I hate 'em. I been wearing a gun all day, ever day for forty years. About 5 minutes of wear and I'm done. I know guys that been wearing them all day, every day and they claim they don't know they're there. Don't mean you shouldn't keep trying. You might find one. That's the part about rolling your own. You're showing you skill mortier-man. ... oh-three-hun-erd here ... but ain't we all? ... lol! Semper-Fi!

[TwinOaks]

One thing about IWB holsters is that no one has made one yet that can make a gun thinner. With a Glock, you've got an inch ( + a smidge?) thick pistol, plus the thickness of the leather to deal with. Then you've got the back of the grip to deal with. The biggest issue is probably your clothing.I wear a full size 1911, in an IWB that I made, and it disappears under a t-shirt. Difference? My cant is a lot sharper than yours, and the pistol is thinner. That double stack mag is hard to hide. Try going with a larger pant size, it'll be a lot more comfortable. Safe the pistol and stick it in your waistband with no holster. Once there, play with the angles to find one that hides well. You're doing well, just keep trying.

[Jordan]

Ahhhh the holy grail of holster design, to be able to design and make a holster that anyone who wears it all day long will swear it isn't even there! That quest is either going to make me boatloads of cash or sink me. LOL

[usmc0341]

Twinoaks, I think you're right, the gun is too wide. The only solution is a thinner gun. I guess you can send me your 1911! :D I've carried this gun IWB for about 4 years now, but I was hoping for a more comfortable holster, I guess it's back to the drawing board!

[TwinOaks]

I guess you can send me your 1911! :D

Ahemm..."cold dead hands" ...what can I say? It's a Colt.

Though the Glock is wide, it CAN be concealed. You just have to play with the cant of the holster to point the bottom rear corner of the grip towards your ribs. I carry at about 5:30 (right handed). That helps use the shape of the torso better ( on me) Also, as mentioned, try to keep the grip a little higher out of the waist band. When you do this, don't stitch so closely to the trigger guard, and don't worry about a 'sight channel'. Mold the leather in close on the trigger guard. That helps with retention, but allows you to pull the pistol straight up. Once you break past the molded guard, the muzzle will have cleared enough to prevent sight hang up. In effect, you draw the pistol at an angle from the molding of the holster.

Semper Fi

Edited February 16, 2008 by TwinOaks

[usmc0341]

Thanks for the info Twinoaks. I think I'll just tell my wife I need a 1911!!!!

[BOOMSTICKHolsters]

This is the most fun I've had reading a thread in quite a while! Sign me up for the next 1911 give away!

usmc0341, you should probably spread the loops farther apart for one thing. Also, if you add more material below and behind the holster you add stability and surface area, which makes it more cofortable. You might also consider rasing the loop placement (but make sure you're not obstructing your grip when you do it). The reasoning behind this is that you have a pistol with a short barrel riding high, so the weight of the loaded magazine tends to make the pisol want to lean out, which also makes the barrel end want to press in. After a while that is no fun.

To summarize, give it a little more support and spread the pressure over a wider area and you will have a more comfortable IWB rig.

[Randyc]

I've never been able to comfortably wear an IWB holster but none the less alot of people like that mode of carry. Like other guys have suggested, I plan to design my next IWB longer and wider at the top and bottom so that more of the holster is below belt line line offering more stability especially with the shorter, thicker automatic pistols.

Mortarman,

All is not lost with your holster. Try wearing the holster between your your belt and waistband. I've found that mode of carry comfortable and conceals well with the shorter length automatics, at least for my body style.

Randy

[Warren]

I'm with Boomstick! I learn more from reading what everybody posts than I could any other way I can think of. Put my name in the 1911 giveaway too! Keep it up guys, it's great!

Warren

[TwinOaks]

1911 giveaway?!?!?!? SIGN ME UP TOO!!!

I forgot to mention this earlier, but my IWB can be seen in "finally remade the blooming thing" I know it looks rough, but it is flesh out, and since I don't have a sewing maching, I'm learning to hand stitch . The important parts are how well the holster retains the pistol, and how comfortable is it. After all, if it's IWB, no one should see it anyway.

Note how much cant I have for the pistol and how much of it is above the belt.

[K-Man]

Actually you do want to stitch as close as you can on the dust cover/trigger guard side of the gun. If you get too far away, then guess what's going to happen? Yep, the leather will loosen up somewhat with time and useage, and then you've got a gun flopping around in there. Which, for one thing, will make it mighty uncomfortable to wear/carry; not to mention, potentially unsafe depending on the gun. You want the gun held securely within the leather. A sight path can be achieved relatively easy with nothing more than a 1/4 or 3/8 dowel rod set atop the slide of the gun. You then mold and stitch around it. Take a look at some pictures of holsters made by Milt Sparks holsters, Josh Bulman holsters, Lou Alessi holsters, Matt Del Fatti holsters, as they will give you a sampling of what's been found to work the best.

Edited February 17, 2008 by K-Man

[TwinOaks]

Kman, what I was getting at is to use the rest of the holster for the retention, and the part that's above the waist is little more than cover. The leather around the trigger guard should not be what's holding the pistol. If that was the case, regular holstering and drawing would wear out the retention mechanism, requiring constant remolding of that area. For an IWB holster, the belt is what is holding the pistol, and all of the holster that's above belt is protection for the pistol. The sight rail is a gimick unless the holster is carried with zero cant. If carried at even a slight cant then the draw motion is UP not forward, and once the motion starts the sight clears the holster through simple geometry. That same draw is why I stated to not stitch too close to the trigger guard. You need to allow room for the upward motion in a forward raked holster, and if you look at the pic at the top of the thread, you'll see that is what we're talking about. I guess I should have worded it " don't stitch so close that the leather is too tight to allow an upwards draw of the pistol, because if you do, the leather will be too tight to allow adequate 'wiggle' of the pistol during the draw (because we all know that your adrenalin absolutely kills the fine motor skills you need to draw a pistol at a precise angle, instead of just yanking the thing clear of the holster and loosing a round from the hip) and may hamper your ability to draw, possibly with adverse effects on your present state of being alive." Would that have been better?

Incidentally, since you've dropped some names in the holster making community, please check out the holsters made by Milt Sparks (Summer Special model) and Horseshoe Leather holsters- particularly the model 62 IWB holster ( which is what I modeled mine on). It is a flesh out IWB, without even the details of boning---and the stitches are not tight to the shape of the pistol.

In contrast, the OWB holsters have incredibly fine boning work that looks like it was vacuum pressed. They DO have tight stitching to aide in retention, probably because the belt is on the wrong side of the holster to retain the pistol.

Edited February 17, 2008 by TwinOaks

[K-Man]

Thanks for pointing out about the OP's picture - guess I missed that. I don't believe I said that the only retention of the gun in the holster is achieved in the trigger guard area. That's only a part of it. A properly molded holster is what provides the correct amount of retention. Some holster makers detail that more than others. Part of the retention is achieved by the stitching also. And if you have the stitching too far away from the frame of the gun, you're going to eventually have problems with the retention.

A sight path is not a gimmick. Try pulling a gun out of a holster that has some of the larger/taller after-market sights on it without the holster having a sight path molded or sewn in. All you're going to get is a big wad of leather and most likely excessive wear on the finish of the gun from trying to pull it out of the holster without a sight path.

I know T. Kanaley at Milt Sparks fairly well and have talked with him on many an occasion. In particular, you mention the Summer Special. You might want to refresh your memory about that holster. Take a close look as to where the stitch line is in comparison to the trigger guard/dust cover of the gun. And if you happen to look at the picture of it on their website, you'll see a sewn-in sight path. My suggestion to you is to be sure you know what you're talking about when you post about it here....

Best of luck to you in your holster making endeavor(s).

Edited February 17, 2008 by K-Man

[TwinOaks]

... A properly molded holster is what provides the correct amount of retention. Some holster makers detail that more than others. Part of the retention is achieved by the stitching also. And if you have the stitching too far away from the frame of the gun, you're going to eventually have problems with the retention.

I agree completely with this statement. I stated something similar in the post that you originally responded to. Also I said not to stitch too tightly. That shouldn't be construed as 'nowhere near'. Only that it shouldn't be so tight as to interfere with the removal of the pistol/revolver from the holster.

A sight path is not a gimmick. Try pulling a gun out of a holster that has some of the larger/taller after-market sights on it without the holster having a sight path molded or sewn in. All you're going to get is a big wad of leather and most likely excessive wear on the finish of the gun from trying to pull it out of the holster without a sight path.

If the pistol won't clear the holster quickly and cleanly, it's in the wrong holster. For high sights, Yes, a sight rail may be needed.

... Take a close look as to where the stitch line is in comparison to the trigger guard/dust cover of the gun. And if you happen to look at the picture of it on their website, you'll see a sewn-in sight path.

From Wikipedia: In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries.

I submit to you that the addition of the sight path is an industry's effort to build a holster that can fit a particular model of pistol, i.e. 1911/clone, with a variety of options- such as aftermarket sights. If the weapon in question has the larger sights then a holster may indeed need that sight channel, and for those models of pistol the holster should be built to accomadate that. But, for standard sights, as found on most pistols that aren't modified (I know there are exceptions here, such a a Colt GCT) the sight channel is completely unneccesary. It is an effort to make one holster fit all of a particular type of pistol, and in doing so, provide a semi-custom holster at a reasonable price. It's an excellent business decision to use one pattern that fits many things. I applaud the folks a MS for being able to produce quality holsters that fit most guns of particular type, and supply them to customers in a reasonable time frame. However, the design doesn't cover all pistols. A prime example is that a new trend is to have an accessory rail. I don't see many holsters on Miltsparks.com that address this. Designing one is probably in the works, but opining that 'all holsters need to have an accessory rail channel sewn in' doesn't make sense. Custom building each holster would increase production times drastically, whereas having a pattern ready to go decreases the production time. If the sight rail was absolutely required, then why don't all holsters have one, and why does the IWB I made without one (as ugly that it is) work so well?

I've got Miltsparks.com open on the other computer, and have been looking at their work. It is supurb, no doubt, but I'm having trouble with one image. Could you help me find the tight stitch line on model CC-AT? I can't seem to find it as there is another retention mechanism- namely the ajustable tention welt. I wonder if having a belt over an IWB holster would do the same thing (secure the pistol in the holster), by adding pressure to keep the holstered pistol pulled in tight to the body? It has always seemed to me that for the IWB style of carry, the holster is really there to protect your skin from the weapon, and to protect the weapon from your skin ( and sweat, body oils, etc.).

As it happens, Mr. Kanaley is a member on this board, and if he could spare the time, I'm sure we'd all appreciate his input, as opposed to reading our bickering back and forth.

[K-Man]

Yes, Mr. Kanaley is a member of the board here, and I've invited him to comment on his holster designs to help you understand the theories of holster making. I suspect I know why the stitching on the CCAT model is as it is, but I will defer the answering of your question to him.

When a sight path is incorporated into a holster, it is, in part, an effort to do two things. One is to accomodate the already applied sights on a gun, and also to allow the user to put aftermarket sights on their gun at a later time without having to buy a new holster at the point they do that. People change sights on a gun as often as they change underwear. Most holster makers will ask the customer what style of sights they have on the gun or whether they intend to put aftermarket sights on in the near future. In addition, I never said that a sight path was absolutely required in every instance. I only provided a ways/means to incorporate one if USMC0341 (or anyone else) wanted to add one in on their next holster.

The making of a custom holster is just that - it's made to fit the specifics of a particular gun. There are all kinds of variables and considerations that come into play, however, some aspects remain the same across the board. There are a number of users on this board who can provide you (and others) with sound advice on the making of holsters. Best of luck to you and those here on the forum - I'm outta here.

[usmc0341]

Thanks for all the input guys. I'm going to have to play around with some ideas and see if I can fix the problems. One more holster into the unused holster box!!!

[BOOMSTICKHolsters]

One more holster into the unused holster box!!!

I've upgraded to an unused "holster garbage bag". When I have made it all the way to an unused "holster bin" I'll consider myself a real pro! :D

[TKanaley]

Sight channel; If you're commercially making holsters and you don't provide some sort of sight protection into your holsters, you're going to have a lot of people that will complain about that little ball of leather hanging off their front sight everytime they draw their pistol. That much I will guarantee.

The way I look at it, if you're just making holsters for yourself, it really doesn't matter whether you incorporate a sight channel into your design or not since you will be the only one using it. Experiment and decide for yourself.

BTW, a sight channels usefullness has nothing to do with a holsters cant as has been suggested.

All the guns I carry have very sharp front sights and are of a semi post profile and are usually very sharply serrated. When practicing my draw stroke, I do not like looking at a ball of leather scrapings where my front site ought to be, so I provide some sort of channel to preclude that from happening on any holster I make for myself. It just so happens that the holsters I make for myself are also the basis for any holster we make for our clients and all our designs for semi autos have that feature incorporated into them. It certainly doesn't hurt anything to have a sight channel built into a holster even if a person thinks they don't really need it. And it certainly doesn't require a lot of engineering or labor for the hobbiest to incorporate it into their own designs either. Do as you will though.

Stitching around the trigger guard and close to the gun; We do it several different ways depending on the model and type of sight channel we provide in that particular model. But in a nutshell, no matter how we stitch and mold the holster, our goal is to always do it in a way to provide resistance for the first inch or so of movement out of the holster after which, we like the holster to provide a clean effortless presentation from that point forward in the draw stroke. That always involves stitching close to the trigger guard since that figures into that first inch of initial resistance and whether it's IWB or OWB it is something we always do.

Could you help me find the tight stitch line on model CC-AT? I can't seem to find it as there is another retention mechanism- namely the ajustable tention welt.

The welt is in the shape of the outline of the gun it's fitted to. There is a small relief that starts below the trigger guard and ends at a point below where the stitching stops, which acts as a hinge for the adjustable part of the welt. Other than that, the welt is fit tight up against the gun. The adjustable (lower) part is set according to the end users requirements for retention. The stitching on the CC-AT might not follow the outline of the gun, but its only real purpose is to anchor the welt, which is fit tight against the trigger guard as well as the muzzle end of the gun.

I guess I'm really not interested in getting involved in this argument any further, nor do I really have the time. My name was brought into this, hence the reason I'm responding. I'm would suggest that those who are reading this, glean what they can from these posts and then take a close look and see what the folks who are sucessfully making a living at this are doing.

Cheers,

TK

[TwinOaks]

Thank you Mr. Kanaley for taking time to offer your input. I appreciate your experience on the matter and I'm sure all who are following the thread do too. I will re-evaluate my opinion on the sight channel based on your insight. Not guaranteeing I'll change my opinion, but I will rethink it.

Kman, it's been an interesting debate to say the least, and I hope you're still around in the future.

I think we've pretty well worn this one out, and can walk away certain that there are at least two, and probably more, opinions on the best way to make a holster. To all who've followed this, thank you for reading our squabbles :D

Y'all have a good day.

[K-Man]

I never saw it as a debate, but rather your (TwinOaks) perspective that needed to be re-evaluated.

I suspect you don't know who I am nor what I do, but suffice it to say that I only respond (to a great extent) to postings where I see the issues heading down an errant path, and hope by my postings to clarify the issue at hand. When it comes to holsters, and related accessories, I generally have a very sound basis for my comments - to include applied and practiced theories, which, in part, has come from making a great quantity (more than 2) of such items.

In my opinion, part of becoming a master craftsman at what you do is having the willingness to learn from those who know what they're talking about. Sometimes it's not an easy perspective to follow. At the point you stop learning is the point you stop becoming a craftsman. As I mentioned above, there are a number of users on this board who can provide you (and others) with sound advice on the making of holsters. Best of luck to you and all here.

[Jordan]

Lively debate aside, I enjoyed the read gave me alot of information to digest which I will incorporate into my database, the mind is a wunerful thing better than a computer anyday. Thank you all for the input and now I think I'll break out the graph paper and design another one.

[Billsotx]

Yo Gyrene,

What you might consider, especially since your working with the wide slide. Take a look at the Summer Special on Milt Sparks website - the shape and design. Then build you another IWB of that style and design, but build it more closely toward the original S/Spl that Bruce Nelson built. At a glance that original holster may seem too limp and wimpy, but we must consider the purpose and exactly what Nelson was doing - under narcotics assignments - highly concealable, readily available, practical, utilitarian. Worn either in the appendix or cross-draw. It was not intended to be a range holster, the 7/8 oz. design would come later and mainly from copies. The original S/Spl was constructed of 3/4oz. leather, flesh side out, with a mouth band and belt loops constructed of 7 to 8 oz. hide. There was a metal liner within the mouth band and the very first design (in fact most of Nelson's) had only 1 belt loop, which in the beginning were all cut from a single piece of leather. The metal liner was galvanized sheet metal, it was cut from gutter flashing, as were the mouth bands on his IWB magazine pouches. It ain't pretty, but it works. You might experiment a little and not necessarily copy the original design. Install, or at least provide for two belt loops when you install the mouth band. I would make the loops detachable which is what Nelson sometimes did in his late design. That allowed the user to change belt widths and still have a good tight fit. We know the loops must fit the belt tightly and Nelson was adamant about that. Going with the detachable belt loops you could then experiment with one only, or either, or both loops. Nelson's method was to use a t-nut and bugle head screw to attach the male or stud side of the snap. Ideally a one-way snap. The t-nut and liner are stitched inside (under) the mouth band, then punch a hole and slip one end of the belt loop over the t-nut where the nut protrudes through the mouth band, and then set the snap stud over the belt loop, and install the screw. That snap stud gets the bugle head screw which if the right size is countersink into the recess of snap stud and of course the other end of the belt loop gets the female side of the snap. (Make extras if you wear different width belts.) The original S/Spl does not lend itself to being a great range holster, but it's light, compact and most of all it helped to achieve the primary rule of a gun fighting - Bring a gun! The attached pix is not from an S/Spl but a Nelson Patriot (that one snapped over the belt), nevertheless it illustrates the order of installation that he used. I believe the removable belt loop(s) will let you experiment with placement of the loops, where you position on the belt, as well as the cant - sort of tweak it to your liking. Look forward to seeing your next one. Your work's improved exponentially in short order! uuuuuuurrrraaahhhh! ~Semper Fi and Watch Your Six!