Questions About Cartridge Loops On Belt.

[katsass]

Ok, I threw one together and I mean threw it together.

It's rough but its a proof of concept. I colored the tabs on the bullet leather red on the back to make them easy to see. From what I remember they can be glued down and the loops wont slip back in if pushed. The distance between tabs, the actual loop, is a little short and since it was just a quick test its not really straight. But this is the method I was talking about. Needless to say I have enough information to use it now. I think that if its done well and correctly it would work on an unlined belt and look fine.

Questions, comments, snide remarks? (the concept, not the crappy way it was thrown together.)

Thanks

Michael

OK Michael; the one thing I see as a possible problem is that for the system to work well is that it requires precision measuring as well as very precision cutting of the position of the 'tabs'. I believe that the tabs are designed to fit exactly between the cartridges. A miss-step in cutting or a measurement will make the loop either too loose or too tight -- as will variations in the thickness of the leather. To me it doesn't seem to provide for any increased security over the simpler method I generally use, as the back side of the cartridge is not seated on solid leather, as is the method I use. JMHO Mike

P.S. Here is a pic of a rig I made about 35 years ago -- the back side of the belt can be seen showing the loops. They don't seem to be too objectionable. Mike

Edited December 8, 2011 by katsass

[mlapaglia]

OK Michael; the one thing I see as a possible problem is that for the system to work well is that it requires precision measuring as well as very precision cutting of the position of the 'tabs'. I believe that the tabs are designed to fit exactly between the cartridges. A miss-step in cutting or a measurement will make the loop either too loose or too tight -- as will variations in the thickness of the leather. To me it doesn't seem to provide for any increased security over the simpler method I generally use, as the back side of the cartridge is not seated on solid leather, as is the method I use. JMHO Mike

P.S. Here is a pic of a rig I made about 35 years ago -- the back side of the belt can be seen showing the loops. They don't seem to be too objectionable. Mike

Mike,

I totally agree with you. It was just I remembered seeing it and then could not find it anywhere nor could I explain my self enough to make people understand. It was driving me a little nuts. After playing with making it my sample shows all the problems you mention. I also played with a simple weave with a straight cut piece of leather and it lined up and adjusted great. It is a much better way.

Thanks. That's a great looking rig. Id like to be half as good as you are someday. The main thing is I am having fun trying.

Michael

[katsass]

Mike,

I totally agree with you. It was just I remembered seeing it and then could not find it anywhere nor could I explain my self enough to make people understand. It was driving me a little nuts. After playing with making it my sample shows all the problems you mention. I also played with a simple weave with a straight cut piece of leather and it lined up and adjusted great. It is a much better way.

Thanks. That's a great looking rig. Id like to be half as good as you are someday. The main thing is I am having fun trying.

Michael

From the old and grumpy guy: Thank you, I do appreciate the compliments, however you may consider that I have been making holsters for quite a few years and the simple odds are that some of them would come out pretty well. I have observed, over time, that one thing seems to be a truth. That is that a lot of shooters (including LEO's) love 'gimmicks', and a lot of the newer holster designs are 'gimmicky' in my eyes. I've seen new designs show up, sell like hotcakes then disappear from the scene. I'm very much a traditionalist in my design and work. I have made some of the newer designs and just a few (IMO) are pretty good. Two that pop out at me are Ray's (Lobo Gunleather) enhanced pancake and avenger styles, while others just don't appear anymore practical than older designs. One of the negative (IMO) design aspects that has appeared is the holster mouth reinforcing. In all my years I have never seen a well made and cared for holster collapse from use. If an empty one hit the floor of the barn and had a couple of 100# sacks of grain, or a couple of bales of hay land on it, it probably would flatten out, but in everyday use --- never. The only positive aspect that I see of the reinforcing is that it provides a palette for enhanced aesthetics by the addition of a contrasting color, or an exotic hide. My advice would be to experiment as much as you want, but keep a grasp on practicality, understand why (and if) the change is actually better than the more traditional. Remember that those traditional designs have stood the test of time, and are still around. Some of the most versatile are the Tom Threeperson style, the Mexican Loop, and the common pouch. With them you can fit damned near all handguns made, and make them suitable for many methods of carry. JMHO Enjoy what to are doing and keep it up. Mike

Edited December 8, 2011 by katsass

[TwinOaks]

Mike,

I have to disagree with you about the holster mouth reinforcement....to a degree. Yes, for holsters worn on the belt, the holster is not likely to collapse. I agree with that completely, and do my utter best to build holsters that will stand up to years of use. However, as much of the market now deals with IWB holsters, the mouth band is playing an important part. Correctly fitting pants is one of the biggest issues with the buyers of the IWB holsters - NObody wants to buy a size larger or lose weight to carry concealed. Either is crucial as it accounts for the additional space needed for the weapon (and I HAVE had a customer ask why I wouldn't make a IWB for his Redhawk). The mouth band simply adds a partial second layer to the holster only at the top, allowing the rest of the holster to be of single thickness. I think this adds to the utility of the design as it will give support at the mouth, but not add any additional bulk behind the waist band of the pants. Think of it as a skeleton design.... for one of the layers.

Back to OWB / belt holsters; I've lately started making more 2 layer holsters, with grain 'up' on both sides, after seeing your results. Even with lighter weights like 4/5, like you, I've found them to be much stiffer than they'd ever really "need" to be. But for a small portion of the holster market, having that mouth band screams "BUY ME!".....and I wouldn't want to argue with the customers.

[katsass]

Mike,

I have to disagree with you about the holster mouth reinforcement....to a degree. Yes, for holsters worn on the belt, the holster is not likely to collapse. I agree with that completely, and do my utter best to build holsters that will stand up to years of use. However, as much of the market now deals with IWB holsters, the mouth band is playing an important part. Correctly fitting pants is one of the biggest issues with the buyers of the IWB holsters - NObody wants to buy a size larger or lose weight to carry concealed. Either is crucial as it accounts for the additional space needed for the weapon (and I HAVE had a customer ask why I wouldn't make a IWB for his Redhawk). The mouth band simply adds a partial second layer to the holster only at the top, allowing the rest of the holster to be of single thickness. I think this adds to the utility of the design as it will give support at the mouth, but not add any additional bulk behind the waist band of the pants. Think of it as a skeleton design.... for one of the layers.

Back to OWB / belt holsters; I've lately started making more 2 layer holsters, with grain 'up' on both sides, after seeing your results. Even with lighter weights like 4/5, like you, I've found them to be much stiffer than they'd ever really "need" to be. But for a small portion of the holster market, having that mouth band screams "BUY ME!".....and I wouldn't want to argue with the customers.

Thanks Twin Oaks, I see your point. I actuality I have only built one true IWB holster in the last 15 or so years. That one was a very simple light weight pouch with a single clip for hanging on the belt. It was for a personal friend and retired LEO that was rather rotund, and even with his 'chubbies' the mouth never really collapsed --- squish a little yes, but he still had little problem re-holstering. BUT as you say also --- the customer is (almost) always right. Along those lines, I have made a few IWB (inside the BELT) holsters for off duty and concealed carry for LEO's (mainly). These are not much more than a slightly re-designed standard belt pouch with the exception being that a right-hand model is actually left-hand appearing --- the integral belt loop is on the outside. When worn, if the toe of it seen, it appears to be nothing more than the omnipresent cell phone holster. NOW --- I'll quit there, I don't want to get going on those damned cell phones. I will say that I have one, I pay $20 every 90 days to be able to use it --- I have over $300 in available time accrued from lack of use. Haven't found enough of an emergency to use the damned thing. Mike

Edited December 10, 2011 by katsass