Re: Thumb break or not on OWB leather holster?
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:32 am
Vol Texan, Just wondering if you made a decision on a holster? If so...which one did you order?
The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Yes, I have decided on Randy Warren.Take Down Sicko wrote:Vol Texan, Just wondering if you made a decision on a holster? If so...which one did you order?
I knew that my explanation could digress into this discussion, so I've re-highlighted in red font above the operative parts. Sure, it may be designed to work in a certain way, but now it's designed to work in a different way. But then again, I'm just a guy with a preference, just like all the rest of us are. Perhaps you'd prefer commentary from Massad Ayoob1911 Raptor wrote:Not sure I see the benefit of the safety, it looks like a fix for something that doesn’t need fixing. Now you have to rely on the safety to not only disengage but to cock the hammer? No Thank You. Adding more things to potentially fail to a firearm that is designed to work a certain way is IMHO another opportunity for a failure at the worst time. If the safety disengages but doesn’t cock the hammer someone’s in a world of hurt.Vol Texan wrote:Yes, I have decided on Randy Warren.Take Down Sicko wrote:Vol Texan, Just wondering if you made a decision on a holster? If so...which one did you order?
I knew I didn't want to buy one off the shelf, because my handgun is a bit unique. I have a Colt 1991 model which had a SafetyFast shooting system installed on it before it was gifted to me. This gives it an ambidextrous safety, and modifies the hammer position while still carrying in condition one. This means the thumb break would need to be a bit higher than on a traditional 1911. I won’t do a good job explaining it, but hopefully these links will give you more information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs3kl2cTkGI and http://www.cylinder-slide.com/sfssystem.shtml.
SIDE TOPIC:
I know there are a lot of 1911 purists out there who would think that this is an abomination - why mess with perfection? Well, (a) I'm no purist, (b) I don't see perfection in any one platform, and (c) I can recognize that even the greatest inventions have the potential to be made even better. "Better" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder, but I have to admit that this SFS has grown on me. In a normal 1911, the safety lever activates and deactivates the safety. On this one, pushing the hammer forward activates the safety. The safety lever itself only deactivates it (while simultaneously snapping the hammer to the rearward position - just watch the video above). So, the process steps to FIRE the gun are the same as with a normal 1911 - draw, disengage the safety lever, and fire. But the process steps to SAFE the gun are different - just push the hammer forward.
Why do I like it: I like that I can feel the hammer below my cover garment and know that because it is forward, the safety is engaged. If it is back, then the safety would have been disengaged by mistake, and I can simply push the hammer forward to re-engage it.
END SIDE TOPIC
So...because this was a weird setup, I knew that a standard off the shelf holster with thumb break wouldn't fit it. A 'normal' thumb break would be sized to hold the gun in with the hammer back - and it would not fit over mine with the hammer forward. I needed mine to be a bit higher, and it would doubly serve the purpose of holding the gun in and ensuring it was always on safe.
Randy Warren doesn't keep much stock on hand. He makes most things custom, and makes very attractive holsters of high quality. I figured this was a good match since I didn't want anyone to push their existing inventory on me.
Fast forward to now - Randy and I have shared a bunch of info back and forth. He is reluctant to build such a custom thumb snap setup without the gun in hand, because he wants to make sure it fits properly. Likewise, if I ever want to use it on another 1911, or sell it, it would be nearly useless with any other gun.
So that got me thinking...I actually have two 1911-style pistols. One is the already mentioned 1991 with the SFS system installed, and the other is an Argentine D.G.F.M - (F.M.A.P) Sist. 1927. According to this site (https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=68064), it’s one of the better Colt replicas, made with Colt machinery, under the supervision of Colt engineers. This one was a gift from Mrs. Vol Texan, and it has a lot of meaning to it. She is an Argentinean native, this was an Army-issued pistol (it is stamped with Ejercito Argentino on the slide), and I was in the Army, so she thought it fit well into my 'really like this gun' spectrum (she's right, of course!).
Yeah, I really don’t have any ‘normal’ 1911s, do I? Maybe that’ll change someday.
Considering that I own two of these, each with different mechanisms (and because my wife suggested that I should be able to carry either of them), I agreed with Randy's suggestion to not have a thumb break on this holster (despite the strong suggestions on this thread that I should have one). I'll still carry 95% of my time concealed anyway, so I won't be giving up much at all. I do look forward to seeing his completed design, and wearing it to one of our upcoming West / South Quadrant Forum Breakfasts here in Houston!
Sorry for the long explanation, but I've got to get back in the swing of things if I'm ever going to catch TAM on word count per message.
I came here to update this thread to share photos of the new holster, but I wanted to respond to this one first.1911 Raptor wrote:
Again I see it as a solution for a problem that does not exist. Massad didn’t actually endorse it only explained that it is a viable option for those who don’t like cocked and locked. It solves nothing but provides a piece of mind to those who don’t understand the 1911 platform.
I don’t understand the fear of cocked and locked. To each his own I guess.
Nice, very nice.Vol Texan wrote:
I'd wear it.bblhd672 wrote:Nice, very nice.Vol Texan wrote: