quote:

Originally posted by DMF:
Can the "it's completely safe crowd" explain how to draw from appendix carry while seated, so the muzzle isn't pointing at any part of your body during the draw?

No, when seated it is impossible. Which is why I specifically stated "standing". There are several higher risk factors associated with AIWB, and working it while seated is one of them. BTW, drawing while seated from strong side commonly muzzles one too, which is why leg muzzle is not a safety violation in USPSA, but certainly less sensitive part of the area.

TLG didn't use holsters with muzzle level wedges. His tests were done either Shaggy or SME, neither of which has this feature that points muzzle away from a body. Which is why I mentioned gear selection. My wedges are inch or even more thick, which is why I specifically mentioned my experience.
Todd was a great AIWB practitioner and did a lot for promoting its safety. The statement "..you will die" was intended to command one's attention to a potential consequences of an ND in AIWB. It is a figure of speech, there are nonfatal NDs in that position that people who committed them even posted about. I agree that risk of a fatal ND is increased comparing to a strong side, however, "greatly increased" isn't supported by any data.
It is a very low rate event statistically and it is very hard, if not impossible" to detect "great" differences comparing low rate events. Yet we all should be cognizant of that.
While I like pointing out the fact that people don't realize how often self muzzling occurs with other carry positions, a primary goal of my posts is to touch on that there are ways of mitigating one's risk when practicing AIWB. Insightful training, gear selection(that includes the Gadget in question) and avoidance of high risk factors are just that.

If you want some interesting reading, Frontsight maintains a list of accidental shootings there:

https://www.frontsight.com/Saf...tion=ShowSingle&ID=5

I am neither pro or con Frontsight, but they have a bunch of people pass through, and they put these reports up on their website. They are up to 22 shooting incidents, representing a mix of action types, and a mix of phases of shooting -- drawing, holstering and other.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:
BTW, drawing while seated from strong side commonly muzzles one too, which is why leg muzzle is not a safety violation in USPSA, but certainly less sensitive part of the area.

Yes, you are much less likely to have a pelvic girdle, or high on the thigh, problem with strong side hip. An AD/ND to the pelvic girdle, or to the femoral high on the thigh, practically guarantees you will bleed out prior to getting to a trauma center, as there is no way to use a tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

quote:

TLG didn't use holsters with muzzle level wedges. His tests were done either Shaggy or SME, neither of which has this feature that points muzzle away from a body. Which is why I mentioned gear selection. My wedges are inch or even more thick, which is why I specifically mentioned my experience.

Look at that pic again (I believe that is Todd, and it is from his site). It wouldn't matter if he used a one inch thick wedge, or four inch thick wedge, the muzzle is pointed high thigh/pelvic girdle, and would still be pointed that way when the trigger is clear of the holster, but the muzzle is not.

quote:

Todd was a great AIWB practitioner and did a lot for promoting its safety.

I agree, but he did not try to downplay the increased risk.

quote:

The statement "..you will die" was intended to command one's attention to a potential consequences of an ND in AIWB. It is a figure of speech, there are nonfatal NDs in that position that people who committed them even posted about.

Yes, but the fact remains the risk of a fatal accident are much greater when the muzzle can, and usually does, spend time pointed at the pelvic girdle/high thigh, than in hip carry. With hip carry you are much less likely to have the muzzle pointed at an area where it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop the bleeding.

quote:

I agree that risk of a fatal ND is increased comparing to a strong side, however, "greatly increased" isn't supported by any data.
It is a very low rate event statistically and it is very hard, if not impossible" to detect "great" differences comparing low rate events.

As you point out there is too little data to do a statistical analysis of AD/NDs. However, where the muzzle is pointed during holstering/draw clear creates a much greater risk with appendix carry, than it does with hip carry. That's just the reality of the likely "target" areas if there is an AD/ND.

quote:

. . . fact that people don't realize how often self muzzling occurs with other carry positions . . .

I agree, and one of the most common, and most dangerous, are people that use holsters with leather "sweat shields," and tend to use the muzzle of their gun to push up the softened leather, so they can re-holster. They too have greatly increased their risk, because the muzzle ends up pointed into the pelvic girdle and/or high thigh.

quote:

. . . a primary goal of my posts is to touch on that there are ways of mitigating one's risk when practicing AIWB. Insightful training, gear selection(that includes the Gadget in question) and avoidance of high risk factors are just that.

I agree that there are ways to help reduced the risk associated with appendix carry, but I disagree with your assertion that there is nothing that shows the risk is "greatly increased."

The fact is an AD/ND with appendix carry is much more likely to strike the pelvic girdle/high thigh, than it is with hip carry, because of where the muzzle goes during the process. While you can reduce the risk of having an AD/ND, just like you can with hip carry, or any other method, you can't change the greatly increased risk of bleeding out from a pelvic girdle shot, or high thigh hit to the femoral artery.

I am not saying no one should appendix carry, but they need to have a full understanding of the pros/cons of the method of carry.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobofbone:
Many of us don't look at the holster when placing a weapon in it.

Yet should.

I wonder if the same people who say "my finger and my brain are my safety" are the same people who use Blackhawk holsters.

And a department banning these? Increased officer safety I guess is not a priority.

The Gadget is simply another tool that helps mitigate mistakes. It's does so with no known reliability compromise and with simple modification. There is not one person here who is incapable of making a mistake, so I don't understand why someone would not want this.

quote:

Originally posted by TheNewbie:
And a department banning these? Increased officer safety I guess is not a priority.

Well, it's not that simple. The problem is this is not an item that has been extensively tested, at least not in the way that most LE agencies want them tested.

I would like for my agency, or another large LE agency, to thoroughly T&E the gadget, so we could get it approved. However, budgets are tight, and that's money that is going to be spent elsewhere. When it comes to modifying our pistols, other than sights and grip coverings (Pachmyer/Hogue sleeves, Talon grips, etc), my agency won't allow it. The agency doesn't have the budget to T&E every new mod that comes along.

The managers at my agency know the pistols, as configured, were thoroughly tested during the competition for the contract. They don't have that same kind of data for the "Gadget."

It's not unreasonable for them to be against allowing items that haven't been tested to the same level.

quote:

Originally posted by TheNewbie:
Increased officer safety I guess is not a priority.

A full response to that would be very long, but a few comments:

First and foremost, LE agency policies are established by people, and just as there are people among the small group of posters in this thread who believe that such a device is unnecessary at best, and a deadly danger to officer safety at worst, the same will inevitably be true of policy makers in departments. Some people believe the Gadget will increase officer safety, some people believe it would reduce it.

And because an agency’s approving the device will then put the agency in the liability loop if something goes wrong, such as an officer’s being killed because the device malfunctioned, someone would have to make an affirmative decision to assume that risk to the agency. If, however, the agency just says, “No nonfactory modifications are permitted,” then the liability is much easier to shift back to either the gun manufacturer or to the individual:

“Oh, you had your gun out and were covering a suspect when his unarmed father attacked you. And when you were trying to holster the gun while dealing with him, loose clothing got in the trigger guard and you shot yourself in the knee and the baby in his mother’s arms in the apartment below—correct? Well, you should have taken your eyes off your attacker and looked to ensure that your holster was clear before putting your pistol away. That negligent discharge, your being crippled, and the baby’s death were all your fault, not ours or the gun manufacturer’s.”

On the other hand, if an agency approves—and especially if it mandates—such a device, what would happen if it malfunctioned and prevented an officer from defending himself or another?

“Mr. Glock representative, is the ‘Gadget’ an approved modification to your guns?”
“No. Making such modifications voids our warranty.”
“Police Chief, why did you approve making a modification to your guns that voided the warranty?”
“Because of officer safety concerns. We believed it would reduce the likelihood of accidental discharges when officers holstered their guns.”
“How many times have officers holstered their Glock pistols in the past 10 years?”
(Quickly calculating) “Perhaps 400,000 times.”
“How many accidents like that have you had in the past 10 years?”
“Um, … two I know of.”
“So, (quickly calculating) that means there was about a one in 200,000 chance of an accidental discharge without the device being used on your department’s guns—correct?”
“Um, … yes.”
“Were you aware that because the Gadget was a mechanical device that it was subject to mechanical failure?”
“Um, … yes, but we thought that the chance was very low.”
“Less than one in 200,000?”
“We didn’t know.”

Etc., etc., etc.

As I recently posted in another thread, many people have the mindset of Never say “Yes” to anything and you can’t get in trouble yourself, and it’s not limited to lawyers.

Added: And DMF provided an excellent explanation of the issues pertaining to agencies’ abilities to thoroughly test and evaluate such modifications themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Look at that pic again (I believe that is Todd, and it is from his site). It wouldn't matter if he used a one inch thick wedge, or four inch thick wedge,

Well, I was quite friendly with Todd but not friendly enough to know what woulda happened if there was an extra inch or four in his pants...I do have a decent idea what happens with mine. I have no videos of me from that left side but this is one of Gabe's; we have a similar draw mechanics. Strong hand comes from the outside, not straight down. The initial contact actually pushes a grip slightly in, which means that the muzzle actually rotates a bit out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ3KzHIRAF4

You have to get your mechanics down, and you need a right gear. Having poked several thousand femoral arteries, I am pretty confident that with these two conditions met, the chance of hitting a femoral is not as high as people think. I do say that with some amount of reluctance as I don't want to promote any complacency in this matter.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

Look at that pic again (I believe that is Todd, and it is from his site). It wouldn't matter if he used a one inch thick wedge, or four inch thick wedge,

Well, I was quite friendly with Todd but not friendly enough to know what woulda happened if there was an extra inch or four in his pants...I do have a decent idea what happens with mine. I have no videos of me from that left side but this is one of Gabe's; we have a similar draw mechanics. Strong hand comes from the outside, not straight down. The initial contact actually pushes a grip slightly in, which means that the muzzle actually rotates a bit out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ3KzHIRAF4

You have to get your mechanics down, and you need a right gear. Having poked several thousand femoral arteries, I am pretty confident that with these two conditions met, the chance of hitting a femoral is not as high as people think. I do say that with some amount of reluctance as I don't want to promote any complacency in this matter.

Nice video, but as I watched it, I stopped it at 0:14 and got lucky as it's a bit blurry, but you can see the muzzle had just cleared the top of the holster. The clearest thing, as it's blurry from the speed, is the finger indexed on the frame. If you follow the line from that finger, it's a straight line to his upper thigh/hip crease. Basically meaning as the gun comes out, he's pointing at the pelvic girdle and upper thigh.

Again, I'm not anti-appendix carry. I just believe some proponents of the appendix carry tend to minimize the risks.

"Again, I'm not anti-appendix carry. I just believe some proponents of the appendix carry tend to minimize the risks."

Which is why DA/SA and LEM guns with a hammer, and devices like the Gadget, provide an extra layer of protection for those carrying AIWB and IWB/OWB.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

Utter hogwash.

Nearly EVERY holstered position covers the body at some point. Pocket carry routinely covers the thigh, knee, calf, and foot. Carrying on and behind the hip covers the buttock, and can cover the calf and foot kneeling. Hell, Safariland police duty holsters are all canted sightly inward, covering the calf, ankle, and foot depending on exact positioning on the belt.

Want proof? Place a long cleaning rod through the muzzle end of your gun, thread on a brush, and pull the rod back into the chamber. Now try your position of choice. The rod is going to touch you somewhere.

Bullshit.

Not in anything I carry, or any mode in which I carry it.

Should you choose to carry in a method that puts your weapon covering you, that's your choice.

Then you're either a human stick figure, are carrying I'm a drop, offset type holster, or you're dreaming. There simply is no position by which to attach a holstered firearm to your body that will not result in some level of flagging from some common shooting positions. Different modes of carry will have different levels of exposure, but they're all going to do it. The mere nature of having a hip socket that moves on a lateral axis and a foot that can move independently from the rest of the leg ensures that it occurs.

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:


There simply is no position by which to attach a holstered firearm to your body that will not result in some level of flagging from some common shooting positions. Different modes of carry will have different levels of exposure, but they're all going to do it. The mere nature of having a hip socket that moves on a lateral axis and a foot that can move independently from the rest of the leg ensures that it occurs.

Again, bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:


There simply is no position by which to attach a holstered firearm to your body that will not result in some level of flagging from some common shooting positions. Different modes of carry will have different levels of exposure, but they're all going to do it. The mere nature of having a hip socket that moves on a lateral axis and a foot that can move independently from the rest of the leg ensures that it occurs.

Again, bullshit.

^^^^^
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

One of these days people who are scared to carry Glock will accept that and carry something else.

Oh my

quote:

Originally posted by sg:
One of these days people who are scared to carry Glock will accept that and carry something else.

I carried mainly striker pistols for years (Glock & Kahr) until I got my HK P30SK LEM last year. That pistol worked so well for me that it kicked everything else off my hip for a while. Then I started carrying a P239 again and recently a S&W CS9D. I wouldn't say that I'm scared to carry a striker pistol now but I have found myself preferring hammer-fired pistols for CCW.

With that said, I would not modify my Glock with this device. If I carry a Glock or Kahr, I don't holster it on my body. I place the pistol in the holster and don the holstered pistol as one unit. That's the way I've done it for a long time and I feel safest doing it that way. If the pistol comes out, the holster is removed when it's time to reholster. I sometimes do it with a hammer-fired pistol too but always with a striker pistol. I usually feel safe with my thumb over the hammer during reholstering.

I carry almost exclusively in-the-waistband at about 4 o'clock in a High Noon Holsters Light Duty unit. These do not have a reinforced mouth so it can take a bit of fumbling to reholster the gun anyway. That's why I started removing the holster to get the pistol back inside, especially with strikers.

If you like the Gadget, use the Gadget. Does it add a layer of potential breakage. Maybe. There isn't enough data to say for sure. No idea, and most people are just speculating, and propping up their belief with their reasoning.

I really get so tired of all the doom.

Want to appendix carry? Have at it. You possibly shooting yourself in the junk (or worse) doesn't effect me in the least. If your gun breaks, it doesn't bother me a bit.

Don't want to look at the holster when you reholster? Don't look.

Think a 9mm is too puny? Carry a .45.

DA/SA too hard to shoot on the first shot? Pick any of a dozen choices or more that aren't DA/SA.

Want to point shoot and disregard the sights? Have at it.

Did I miss anything?

Be happy, gents. We live in good times.

quote:

Also, they aren't meant for aftermarket triggers, which is a bit of a letdown.

Now available for aftermarket reduced pretravel triggers.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:

quote:

Also, they aren't meant for aftermarket triggers, which is a bit of a letdown.

Now available for aftermarket reduced pretravel triggers.

need to find out how to contact them to see if they will swap out mine