New Holster Model

[Colt Hammerless]

Reading this thread has had me again thinking about an idea I've had for some time now. I was thinking about how to keep the grip of a 1911 or some other long gripped pistol tighter against one's body, even when at a regular ride height. I too was picturing the holster as sort of a see-saw. I thought, what if there was a thick piece of leather on the outside of the holster on the back side along the slide (or barrel in the case of a revolver,) and below the belt, that would keep the holster and gun from tipping away. It would have to be pretty thick, at least a 1/4 inch, about 16 oz. Go put your highest riding holster on and wedge something about that thickness (maybe even thicker) between the holster and your body, and below the belt, and see what you think. It seems to work. I think it might even be a good option for IWB and normal ride heights. I've read about a high ride design by Bob Mernickle that I think may be along the same lines, though I'm not sure.

Colt Hammerless

[K-Man]

Malabar:

What does the current model have for a degree of cant? From the current picture, it looks like a near vertical cant.

I know of at least one holstermaker who patented a design for a high ride holster with an elongated paddle on it. That design was very short-lived.

Where in central Florida are you?

Never mind - I found your Facebook page. Looking at the pictures you've posted there - I have to be honest and say I don't see how you can claim that the gun/holster is concealed (other than it being under the black sweatshirt). You can clearly see a large object.

Another issue present with high rise holsters is the larger gun requires an extended draw in order to clear the holster. You start pushing that holster farther back on the waistband, with a small degree of cant, and the user struggles to clear.

Edited January 18, 2012 by K-Man

[Denster]

K-Man and Katsass pretty well covered the ride hieght and cant.

A few things I noted. I've never been much of a fan of snap on OWB holsters. That is a YMMV situation of course but I don't see any advantage for the added complication. I also don't see the purpose behind flat back designs. It complicates the build process and does not add materially to the concealablity over a well designed pancake. It also gives up much of the pancakes retention ability by not having a bind on the holster with the weapon in this would also be escaberated by the use of 5/6 for the outer panel.

I'm curious as to what price point you intended to bring this holster in at? With all of the complications you've added. ie: Flat back, metal reinforcement, snap on loops etc. it looks like a time consuming design to build.

[K-Man]

IMO, the flat back designs are worthless. They push everything out and away from the body. In addition, they put added stress on the stitching because all of the weight is supported by those stitch lines.

If Malabar would allow me, I have a couple of pics of a customer wearing one of our pancake holsters with a SIG P226 in it, and can post them here. If you compare his pictures of his holster being worn with mine, you would be able to clearly see how a pancake design is markedly better in concealing in comparison to the flat back design.

My experience has been that a snap-on holster, if built/designed properly, is but a variant of the pancake design. Separate straps have a greater potential of stretching and wearing out than a strap that is an extension from the body of the holster itself.

Edited January 18, 2012 by K-Man

[malabar]

K-Man and Katsass pretty well covered the ride hieght and cant.

A few things I noted. I've never been much of a fan of snap on OWB holsters. That is a YMMV situation of course but I don't see any advantage for the added complication. I also don't see the purpose behind flat back designs. It complicates the build process and does not add materially to the concealablity over a well designed pancake. It also gives up much of the pancakes retention ability by not having a bind on the holster with the weapon in this would also be escaberated by the use of 5/6 for the outer panel.

I'm curious as to what price point you intended to bring this holster in at? With all of the complications you've added. ie: Flat back, metal reinforcement, snap on loops etc. it looks like a time consuming design to build.

As you say, your mileage may vary. I target my holsters to civilians who are carrying concealed.

Most non-LEOs see a real advantage in a holster that mounts and dismounts quickly and easily. It makes it a snap to run into the post office, or the kid's school. Pop off the holster, put it in the glovebox and go.

"It also gives up much of the pancakes retention ability by not having a bind on the holster with the weapon in this would also be escaberated by the use of 5/6 for the outer panel." I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Are you saying that flat-backed holsters don't have positive retention? Some of the best makers in the business would disagree with you. You can turn my holsters upside down and they hold the gun. And I typically use 6/7 for the outer plate.

I make my pancakes the same way -- flat back, molding on the front. And they are high-ride, too. Why? Easier to conceal for most people. The bottom of the gun is less prone to sticking out below the bottom of a shirt. Now, does that affect proper presentation? Absolutely. But like everything else associated with firearms, it's a compromise. I think the trick is to get it high enough to conceal more easily, without pushing it so high that it affects stability, or makes a proper presentation difficult. As others have pointed out, there have been quite a few designs chasing that combination of high ride, stability and proper presentation.

Price point? I figure $75, like my sidestrap IWB. Takes me a little over an hour to make one, although that hour tends to be broken up into five to 10-minute increments over the course of several days. With about $15 in materials, that's $60 profit per holster. Actually, $48 profit, after the government takes its share <g>

tk

[Denster]

As you say, your mileage may vary. I target my holsters to civilians who are carrying concealed.

Most non-LEOs see a real advantage in a holster that mounts and dismounts quickly and easily. It makes it a snap to run into the post office, or the kid's school. Pop off the holster, put it in the glovebox and go.

"It also gives up much of the pancakes retention ability by not having a bind on the holster with the weapon in this would also be escaberated by the use of 5/6 for the outer panel." I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Are you saying that flat-backed holsters don't have positive retention? Some of the best makers in the business would disagree with you. You can turn my holsters upside down and they hold the gun. And I typically use 6/7 for the outer plate.

I make my pancakes the same way -- flat back, molding on the front. And they are high-ride, too. Why? Easier to conceal for most people. The bottom of the gun is less prone to sticking out below the bottom of a shirt. Now, does that affect proper presentation? Absolutely. But like everything else associated with firearms, it's a compromise. I think the trick is to get it high enough to conceal more easily, without pushing it so high that it affects stability, or makes a proper presentation difficult. As others have pointed out, there have been quite a few designs chasing that combination of high ride, stability and proper presentation.

Price point? I figure $75, like my sidestrap IWB. Takes me a little over an hour to make one, although that hour tends to be broken up into five to 10-minute increments over the course of several days. With about $15 in materials, that's $60 profit per holster. Actually, $48 profit, after the government takes its share <g>

tk

I'm afraid I still fail to see the real advantage. Schools and the Post Office are gun free zones not holster free zones. Seems much simpler to just secure the weapon.

What I meant by the bind is that pancake designs where the centerline of the gun is aligned with the centerline of the holster puts pressure aganst the back and front of the holster when it is on the belt with the weapon in. This pressure is one of the things that gives even a poorely designed pancake holster good retention when it is worn. With the flat back design most of that pressure is lost. You essentially have the entire holster pouch attached to a flat back. Then with the 5/6 OZ weight leather you may have good retention when new but long term I think is problematic.

I doubt whether too many of the better holster makers would disagree.

It sounds like you are a pretty efficient workman to complete those holsters in an hour. Better than I could do.

You might be well served to take K-Man up on his offer to post photos of well designed pancake holsters and explain the drawbacks of your design. Legitimatly he is one of those better holster makers you refered to.

[malabar]

IMO, the flat back designs are worthless. They push everything out and away from the body. In addition, they put added stress on the stitching because all of the weight is supported by those stitch lines.

If Malabar would allow me, I have a couple of pics of a customer wearing one of our pancake holsters with a SIG P226 in it, and can post them here. If you compare his pictures of his holster being worn with mine, you would be able to clearly see how a pancake design is markedly better in concealing in comparison to the flat back design.

My experience has been that a snap-on holster, if built/designed properly, is but a variant of the pancake design. Separate straps have a greater potential of stretching and wearing out than a strap that is an extension from the body of the holster itself.

Having some issues with posting comments to my own thread. If anyone sees an incomplete version of this post, my apology...

"IMO, the flat back designs are worthless. They push everything out and away from the body. In addition, they put added stress on the stitching because all of the weight is supported by those stitch lines."

That's an interesting perspective. It's certainly easier to build holsters where the gun is sandwiched equally between two pieces of leather. But the outer surface of the holster won't be any further from the body regardless of which design you use. What you get with a flat back is a holster that molds more easily to the contour of the body. That can mean a more comfortable holster, depending, of course, on a variety of other factors as well. And I'm not sure your comment about stitch lines is correct. It seems to me that in a standard pancake, the force of the gun entering the holster is directly transferred to prying the two layers apart, which would be harder on the stitching. It seems to me that in a flat-backed design, more of that force is absorbed directly by the leather.

Either way, what you get with a flat-backed holster that is hard-molded is a fit where the gun kind of "clicks" in and out of place with a velvety feel.

Now, I've never handled your holsters, so I can't make any observations about them. But what I have observed with the regular pancakes (and here I mean the store-bought holsters I've had access to for many years) is this: When you flex the side "wings" of the holster in toward the body, simulating the forces applied when you mount the holster, the outer plate gets stretched, pulling it in toward the surface of the gun, while the inner plate gets compressed, pushing it slightly away from the surface of the gun. This affects the feel of the gun when drawing and reholstering. It's why so many off-the-shelf holsters have a "soggy" feel when drawing and reholstering. I'm not suggesting that applies to the work of anyone on this forum, it's simply one of the issues I've tried to address in my own designs.

Yeah, that's a lousy photo on the facebook page, which is why I didn't post it here. I should reshoot those photos. There's a big bulge in the side of my fleece sweatshirt, but it's not the pistol, as you could probably tell if you look at the photo I posted on this forum -- the bulge is at 3 p,m. and the pistol is back at 4:30, and quite tight to the body.

By all means, feel free to post any photos that you think expand the conversation.

"Separate straps have a greater potential of stretching and wearing out than a strap that is an extension from the body of the holster itself."

I'm curious: Why would this be the case? By using separate straps you can make them out of heavier leather than the body of the holster itself. And many highly regarded makers would disagree with you. Of course, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but I'd like to understand how you arrived at this conclusion.

tk

[malabar]

...

What I meant by the bind is that pancake designs where the centerline of the gun is aligned with the centerline of the holster puts pressure aganst the back and front of the holster when it is on the belt with the weapon in. This pressure is one of the things that gives even a poorely designed pancake holster good retention when it is worn. With the flat back design most of that pressure is lost. You essentially have the entire holster pouch attached to a flat back. Then with the 5/6 OZ weight leather you may have good retention when new but long term I think is problematic.

I doubt whether too many of the better holster makers would disagree....

Yeah, I got you. Even old and saggy pancakes often "grab" the gun.

And I suspect there's a huge difference in the way a handmade pancake behaves and a mass-market pancake behaves.

My flat-backed designs were inspired by some of the designs from Milt Sparks. A lot of folks simply like the "feel" of the draw from the heavily molded holsters.

tk

[Denster]

Yeah, I got you. Even old and saggy pancakes often "grab" the gun.

And I suspect there's a huge difference in the way a handmade pancake behaves and a mass-market pancake behaves.

My flat-backed designs were inspired by some of the designs from Milt Sparks. A lot of folks simply like the "feel" of the draw from the heavily molded holsters.

tk

You suspect there is a huge difference? If you are going to be in the holster business you should have a pretty good working knowledge of holsters in general not just the particular style you choose to build. Just my opinion YMMV

[K-Man]

Malabar:

I'll go snag those pics and post them up shortly.

Are you referring to Milt Sparks and Matt DelFatti as the other holster makers who use straps? If so, their strap designs are vastly different from yours. I can only tell you what my experience has been in utilizing the style of strap you show on your design. You're going to be replacing those a lot more often than you think. While you may think that's not a big deal, it affects your reputation as a holster maker who makes (or doesn't) a durable, functional holster.

With respect to the flat back, all front pouch aspect, you are putting all the stress of carrying the gun on that single front piece of leather. Where do you think the relief to that is going to be ? It's on the stitch line. In addition, balancing a gun in a high ride holster creates additional stress. With a traditional pancake style of holster, you have both pieces of leather essentially carrying that stress. Thus it takes the stress off the stitch line to a great extent.

Your attempt to make an all leather version (flat back/pouch front) of a hybrid (kydex/leather) holster is just simply not going to work IMO. I designed (and sold quite well) an IWB that some saw as an all leather hybrid holster. It wasn't really that though because I set it up as what I would term an abbreviated pancake holster. In fact, I took one of my existing pancake holster designs I had at the time and modified it. That particular holster was the most desired at the time of our IWB or OWB holsters we offered.

The click or snap you get is from the holster being well-molded.

Presentation/draw of the gun, and the ease to do so, is tantamount to a well-designed holster. And unless you've got a high/long middle body, a person is going to struggle getting a large frame gun out of a high ride holster that is near vertical in cant. If you're stuck on making a high ride holster, you would be much better off making something for a 3"/3.5" barrel length and no larger. In most short-barreled guns, i.e., Glock 26, 3" 1911, etc., where does most of the weight lie? In the grip. So you're right back to the balancing act.

Like Denster said, trying to build in too many aspects is creating a complex situation. I encourage folks to think outside the box and to evaluate and investigate new ways to make a holster. Don't concern yourself with how it looks. The aesthetics (sp?) always follow suit to a well-designed holster. Simplicity is oftentimes key to success.

I would encourage you to step back and re-evaluate your design and goal. Focus on the basic goals of function and durability. Design something that is going to function and appeal to the largest group of users. What you show in this design is only going to work, realistically if at all, for a very small group of people.

That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.