There was a recent thread requesting opinions on leather gun belt makers and there was a high reply on the Beltman gun belts. My reply was Armour gun belts as I have been wearing one for years and extremely satisfied. In need of a new belt because I lost some Lb.s and with all the satisfied replies with the Beltman I gave him a try.

To start with both belts craftsmanship are excellent in my opinion, you will not be disappointed in either belt. Customer service, The beltman contacted me prior to making my belt to insure that I had ordered the right size and we spoke on the phone (Nice guy). Don't recall If Mike at Armour's belts confirmed belt size or not but it didn't matter because it fit fine.

What customers need to know is that Beltman's 1.5" gun belt and Armour's 1.5" gun belt is not a fare comparison. What it comes down to is the thickness of the 2 layers of leather. You see the Beltman's gun belt is just shy of a 1/4" thickness and Armour's gun belt are 5/16" thick. Being that I have been wearing a Armour's belt for about 5 years I was expecting that type of thickness from the Beltman. In my opinion the beltman's gun belt compares to Armour's Dress belt as they have the same thickness. This isn't ment to take away from the Beltman's belt, just not what I have been accustom to. I prefer the thick belt. So for the customers that are on the fence about whom to get a belt from with these two companies know that the Beltman's gun belt is equivalent to Armour's 1.5" dress belt. As for me I'm a little disappointed because I'm spoiled with a heavier duty belt (some people may not want a thick ass belt, I do). I hope someone gets something out of my $80+ lesson. Hray.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: hray,

I have to agree with you here. I don’t have a Beltman belt but rather a belt made by Crossbreed. My prior belt was an Armour belt and it was leaps and bounds better than any other belt I’ve ever had. I got the Crossbreed because I was in a hurry and it was a bit cheaper...money was tight for us last summer.

My next belt is definitely going to be another Armour belt, no doubt about it. I’m just waiting on the Crossbreed one to wear out...shouldn’t take more than another year I would imagine. At least it’s (the Crossbreed) better than the Galco belt I got when I first started carrying....that thing was ready to be replaced in less than a year. Garbage.

I have 1 belt man and 3 Armour. The Beltman is the oldest and like the OP prefer Armour.


My last belt I had quite a bit of interaction with the owner as I was trying to match the belt with a pair of frll quill ostrich Lucchese boots. He sent me samples, I selected the two colors (base smooth cow leather and full quill leather). He hit it out of the park and I’m ecstatic with the end result.

quote:

Originally posted by hray:

What customers need to know is that Beltman's 1.5" gun belt and Armour's 1.5" gun belt is not a fare comparison. What it comes down to is the thickness of the 2 layers of leather. You see the Beltman's gun belt is just shy of a 1/4" thickness and Armour's gun belt are 5/16" thick. Being that I have been wearing a Armour's belt for about 5 years I was expecting that type of thickness from the Beltman. In my opinion the beltman's gun belt compares to Armour's Dress belt as they have the same thickness.

Would you speak to the functional differences, rather than just the appearance and physical thickness?

IOW, what is the actual difference in carry functionality- is there a significant difference that can be felt when carrying a heavier gun? Say, a 229 or 226?

tatortodd:

Damn that is a good looking belt.

Hray very helpful post thanks.

The Beltman belt that I wear daily is ten plus years old made by the original owner of Beltman. As I understand it the new owner was instructed by the old owner on procedures of fabricating a belt. If the quality is the same you'll have a quality belt.

quote:

Originally posted by AH.74:

quote:

Originally posted by hray:

What customers need to know is that Beltman's 1.5" gun belt and Armour's 1.5" gun belt is not a fare comparison. What it comes down to is the thickness of the 2 layers of leather. You see the Beltman's gun belt is just shy of a 1/4" thickness and Armour's gun belt are 5/16" thick. Being that I have been wearing a Armour's belt for about 5 years I was expecting that type of thickness from the Beltman. In my opinion the beltman's gun belt compares to Armour's Dress belt as they have the same thickness.

Would you speak to the functional differences, rather than just the appearance and physical thickness?

IOW, what is the actual difference in carry functionality- is there a significant difference that can be felt when carrying a heavier gun? Say, a 229 or 226?

Beltman's does what it's designed to do. It holds your britches up with a side arm attached to it. . Subjectively I feel it flexes more than Armour's, That can be negated by insuring it's snug around your waist, if your between holes in the belt go to the tighter one. I also feel Armour's supports/ distributes the weight better. Armour's takes up more space in the holster loops. It doesn't move with out you moving it. Best way I can put it is this. The beltman's gun belt is a beefed up belt for carrying a side arm. The Armour's belt is a Gun belt that If I was in a tree climber and didn't have a harness I would be OK with strapping a rope around the tree and attaching it to my belt for a safety line. Both belts do the job, Armour's just feels more tool/industrial grade. hope this helps. Hray

quote:

Originally posted by lowflash:
The Beltman belt that I wear daily is ten plus years old made by the original owner of Beltman. As I understand it the new owner was instructed by the old owner on procedures of fabricating a belt. If the quality is the same you'll have a quality belt.

Mine is at least 13 years old and has been worn every day since I took delivery of it. It is still good as new. If I ever need another belt, I hope they are still in business and have the same quality.

I also have a Beltman. I can't imagine I would ever need a thicker belt than this. Sounds like both are top notch belts.

Thanks for the info hray.

Been needing a new belt, just placed an order for an Armour belt.

quote:

Originally posted by lowflash:
The Beltman belt that I wear daily is ten plus years old made by the original owner of Beltman. As I understand it the new owner was instructed by the old owner on procedures of fabricating a belt. If the quality is the same you'll have a quality belt.

Same experience for me, 10 years or so.
I still wear the oldest one and it's got years left in my opinion.
I have two newer ones in a different width and one has a stiffener that I don't really need for my use. I bought one used on eBay and he sent me a different buckle, quickly and it was inexpensive.
Never owned another brand gun belt. I suspect any of the quality makers would look good and last a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by bigpond73:
Thanks for the info hray.

Been needing a new belt, just placed an order for an Armour belt.

So did I

I just want to be clear, Beltman belts are excellent quality belts that does the job very well. He has more buckle options than Armour does and was another reason I wanted to try them. I really liked the look of the antique brass knurled buckle. I have a couple of pair of pants that the Armour belt wont go through the loops. The Beltman will. So everything has a trade off. I just like the thicker belt for my daily casual wear. Hray

I have both Armour and Beltman (in alphabetical order, because I am CDO, which is like OCD, but alphabetical, as it should be).

I have absolutely no complaints about either of them.

I also have a Ryan Grizzle belt, which is the best looking of all, but functionally, they are all good.

Howdy folks, Beltman here. Thanks for posting your findings hray, and I think your comments were very fair. Three years ago, before Rachel and I bought this business, we ordered a gun belt from most of the well-known makers on the market, and the belt we bought from Armour is basically identical to tatortodd’s. I was very impressed with the quality and craftsmanship of Mike’s belt, but he definitely makes his belts considerably thicker than Beltman belts. As hray said, “some people may not want a thick ass belt" (and I’d argue that most people don’t), but if someone DOES want (or is already accustomed to) a thick ass belt, I can certainly understand how they might be disappointed with the thickness of the classic Beltman gunbelt, although I don’t think anyone would be disappointed with the craftsmanship and quality of the belt OR its ability to do its intended job. Jim (the original Beltman) didn’t like overly thick belts, and although I can see the appeal of a much thicker belt for some people, we didn’t want to stray from Jim’s design philosophy with our primary belt line. Now having said that, we may join the “thicker belt wars” at some point and introduce a much thicker belt, and I may just decide to call it the Beltman Thick Ass Belt in honor of this thread. But you'll always be able to get the traditional Beltman belt thickness that is so highly regarded and works with just about any holster on the market.

Just like with the variations of firearms available these days, we live in great times when it comes to holsters, magazine carriers and belts.

Individuals have many options to suit their specific wants and needs. I own an original Beltman that is still going strong now for nearly 10 years but usually use a Wilderness Instructor belt for carry due to how I mount magazines (11 o’clock, horizontal).

quote:

Originally posted by AH.74Would you speak to the functional differences, rather than just the appearance and physical thickness?

IOW, what is the actual difference in carry functionality- is there a significant difference that can be felt when carrying a heavier gun? Say, a 229 or 226?

I have Armour and Beltman belts, both old and new ones. For me, the only functional difference is when carrying a full-size service pistol OWB. I think the Armour belt works better for that. It's like a duty belt. For 99.9% of my needs which involve carrying guns up to the size of a Glock 19 IWB or pocket carrying a J frame revolver, I don't need a belt as thick as the Armour to hold my gun and pants up. For my everyday use in carrying mostly sub-compact and compact pistols, the Beltman belts are much more comfortable, as are Wilderness Instructor nylon belts. The Beltman belt is not thin at all. It's thicker than many other high-end gun belts. It's just when you compare it to an Armour belt (and a few others), it's a little thinner and more flexible. If a belt is too thick, it can actually be a pain to get it through some holster belt loops and clips.

Just for reference I just measured my Beltman 10 year old belt in an area without any wear.
The thickness is .238" give or take.
If you want more stiffness but the same thickness you can always get one with the stiffener.
Nice that we have all these great quality makers here to answer any question.
I'm sure any can make you happy with their quality.

I would agree that Beltman's belts are slightly thinner. I have 2 Beltman belts, a 1.5" and a 1.25", both bullhide. What I've found is that I can fit the 1.5" belt in some holster/mag pouch slots/loops meant for 1.25" belts. I personally like the thickness, as it provides excellent support (at one time I carried a 3" 65 IWB for 12+ hours/day) without "overdoing" it. It's kind of like the difference between a 686 and a GP100.

I'm actually hoping to get a horsehide belt from Beltman sometime in the next couple of months.

quote:

Originally posted by The_Beltman:
Howdy folks, Beltman here. Thanks for posting your findings hray, and I think your comments were very fair. Three years ago, before Rachel and I bought this business, we ordered a gun belt from most of the well-known makers on the market, and the belt we bought from Armour is basically identical to tatortodd’s. I was very impressed with the quality and craftsmanship of Mike’s belt, but he definitely makes his belts considerably thicker than Beltman belts. As hray said, “some people may not want a thick ass belt" (and I’d argue that most people don’t), but if someone DOES want (or is already accustomed to) a thick ass belt, I can certainly understand how they might be disappointed with the thickness of the classic Beltman gunbelt, although I don’t think anyone would be disappointed with the craftsmanship and quality of the belt OR its ability to do its intended job. Jim (the original Beltman) didn’t like overly thick belts, and although I can see the appeal of a much thicker belt for some people, we didn’t want to stray from Jim’s design philosophy with our primary belt line. Now having said that, we may join the “thicker belt wars” at some point and introduce a much thicker belt, and I may just decide to call it the Beltman Thick Ass Belt in honor of this thread. But you'll always be able to get the traditional Beltman belt thickness that is so highly regarded and works with just about any holster on the market.

I cant imagine there is anything wrong about your belts. I've been on your site many a time admiring them. Someday I want that wide bastard where your site reads, " Buddy, now this is a strap." I ordered the first 2 belts from Armour in 1 3/4" width. I friggin love 'em and will have more. I do hold a special place for your elephant belt. I friggin love those too...lol. Oh and just for the sake of being innovative, what I want in the future are a few Ranger style belts. Dont give me no skinny little narrow straps when what I desire is a Ranger built...heavy duty. Wider than normal. Thick and sturdy.