Handgun Holster, what are they used for? (in canada)

[Runningfool]

The argument against the "sling shot" is that your thumb and finger grip is more likely to slip and unless I'm mistaken, a lot of shooters lower the gun. When you over hand you are more likely to keep those nasty paper targets in view. Since most of us aren't fighting off bad guys with our hands covered in blood I suppose it doesn't matter too much. The other benefit of the overhand is that it uses bigger muscles and is easier for people who find racking the slide a physical challenge.

As an exercise, try a quick "tap rack bang" both ways and see which is faster and more sure.

I used to use the overhand method until I saw pics of someone who had a very nasty hand wound when he cleared a hang fire that way. Because my targets don't fire back, I made the conscious decision to "tap rack bang" using the slingshot method. I wish I could find the pic; iirc it was JDman who had it happen and it wasn't a pretty picture.

 

[C.Tremblay]

If a private range wants to mandate holster training then that's there right; personally I side on "Just help a brother out" you see a new shooter show him a thing or two; you will make him safer and make a friend.

With that said, in response to the original question; holsters are mandatory In my eyes. if your handgun is not aiming at a target, our up in the work space; it should be in your holster loaded and chambered with the safety on. carrying your handgun around in your hand ties up a hand that can be used for anything else; and greatly increases the chance of you "bumping" the trigger should you trip. Personally I feel 100% uncomfortable leaving my handgun behind the line and going down range. It will almost for sure never happen, but someone could decide to go bell tower on my ass while I am down range; A. I wont leave my gun for them to use against me; B. I will have my gun to return fire should they be dumb enough to try with there own. Therefore carrying my handgun in a holster allows me to safely keep my handgun in my possession at all times.

I was trained (formal payed training, from CF members), at all times it was a hot range. You always had your firearm loaded and a round chambered, then you holstered with safety on. you would bull####, change targets, load magazines, and pick your nose; all hot. surprisingly no one got shot; turns out a holstered weapon with safety on wont randomly shoot. When you drew your gun, you would index your finger STRAIGHT; it would then fall along the slide; as you punched out and were lined on target you would then move your finger into the trigger guard and take up slack; at full lock you would fire; Pretty simple concept. I have never understood why competition shooters go to such extremes to clear there firearm; there is no need for a full jury to come to a verdict whether your gun is clear or not, so you can holster. All modern handguns were designed to carry loaded and chambered (I don't know much about anything pre-1911, so they may not be suitable); that is what the safety is for. if you are going to go to such extremes to clear a firearm you don't even need a safety; its redundant. Maybe I ruined myself by starting out with Mill/Concealed Carry/Self Defense training but damn; you competition guys are more nervous then my grandmother. People treat there firearm like they are pulling a live blast cap out of a roadside IED; it does not need to be that rigid.

In no particular order:
-Safety on when not actively in use
-NEVER let your muzzle cross something you are not prepared to destroy
-Draw with a straight/flat trigger finger
-When turning to a new target your focus moves first and the gun follows behind
-When doing anything other than shooting, or being holstered; (ex. reloading, fixing jams, moving position, assessing your surroundings). your gun is up in "the workspace" (you should be able to look past your trigger guard and see the target at all times)
-If your not lined up on target; your finger is out of the trigger guard and along the slide.

 

[Sharps '63]

And the beat goes on .... is that the melody of "I got You, Babe" by Sonny & Cher I hear in the back ground ....?

In a Utopian world where everyone was competent and could be trusted to do the 'right thing' all the time, we wouldn't need "rules" of any kind. Alas, in this age of the race to the bottom, posting the latest act of human stupidity (like drawing and shooting yourself with your own gun), we are faced with the reality that this is not the case.

When it comes to firearms and their potential to do harm, the risk is too great to make any assumptions regarding individual competence. At this juncture in time, the consequences resulting from an accidental shooting on a range would have serious implications for all gun owners.

That is the heart of the matter. The rest is just a bunch of chest beating smoke and mirrors - a circular 'straw man' argument.

 

[KevinB]

Carrying and/or drawing "Israeli" is stupid as is the holster clip on your pic.

Tdc

Holster clip with a trigger guard like was posted by Can-Down has been used by a bunch of folks way cooler than me to good effect.

But I agree carrying "Israeli" is dumber than dumb. You don't need a pistol, until you need it and it may only be with one hand (why my BUG is left hand draw).

 

[hercster]

So let's see. All we need to do is "forcefully eject" people for unsafe handling. We have a few issues here: by whose definition? under whose authority?how does the transgression be defined and recorded? is the individual permitted to disagree? the list goes on and on and chaos ensues.

Law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce only what is defined by the law AKA "rules". Laws and rules precede enforcement except in places where thugs act at the behest of the local dictator and bash anyone that they please for any reason or no reason.

This ideal world that some of you think is workable breaks down immediately when put into practical use. If I were ejected because someone had the opinion that I had exhibited unsafe practices, the range in question would be getting a summons and spend some time in small claims court. They might have a problem explaining their position to the judge.

Can I assume that if any of you that support this undefined world gets pulled over by a Law enforcement officer that you will just pay the ticket based on his or her opinion? I guess all the ticket would have to claim is that you were "unsafe". No speed limit refraction, no details, just the total to pay.

I'm going to join a few others who have retired from this thread.

 

[Sharps '63]

That would be your right - and you would likely lose, explaining your position in court. Why? Because the club would be shown to be acting within the precepts of 'due diligence'. And your position would be .... ?, other than you object to being told that your gun handling is unsafe? I think it's predictable how that would go down in court.

Our club members read and sign off an agreement as they receive their club membership stating that they have read, understood and are willing to comply with the club's 'rules'. They further sign another such statement if they wish to shoot on the indoor range. These documents were written, debated and discussed by the membership before being approved and adopted.
In the event of an incident, the onus would be on the individual to 'splain where why and how said incident occurred if they were in compliance with safe and prudent guidelines.

This ideal world that some of you think is workable breaks down immediately when put into practical use. If I were ejected because someone had the opinion that I had exhibited unsafe practices, the range in question would be getting a summons and spend some time in small claims court. They might have a problem explaining their position to the judge.

 

[hercster]

That would be your right - and you would likely lose, explaining your position in court. Why? Because the club would be shown to be acting within the precepts of 'due diligence'. And your position would be .... ?, other than you object to being told that your gun handling is unsafe? I think it's predictable how that would go down in court.

Our club members read and sign off an agreement as they receive their club membership stating that they have read, understood and are willing to comply with the club's 'rules'. They further sign another such statement if they wish to shoot on the indoor range. These documents were written, debated and discussed by the membership before being approved and adopted.
In the event of an incident, the onus would be on the individual to 'splain where why and how said incident occurred if they were in compliance with safe and prudent guidelines.

I think you misunderstand Mr. Sharp. I was talking about being ejected from Club Utopia. I fully recognize that I wouldn't stand a chance with a well organized club in the real world. Why? Because the rules of the road would have been clearly laid out for me as would the consequences for non compliance.

In the real world, legal structures and consistent application of well understood "rules" are what prevent organizations of all sorts from imploding.

 

[Sharps '63]

Only if said rules are (a) understood by all and (b) sensibly and uniformly applied. We would entertain an appeal by an individual who contravenes the 'rules' before the BOD.
It is already in the club bylaws that:

- "The BOD shall have the power to pass such regulations not inconsistent with these by-laws as it may deem advisable, respecting the conduct of the affairs of the Society."
- "Any member may be expelled or suspended from the Society by the BOD if the Board deems that his or her continuance as a member of the Society is inimical to it's best interest."

These powers are not to be used lightly to preclude any vendetta against an individual based on personality issues. What is not stated in the By-laws is the quorum of the BOD necessary for expulsion of an individual. It is not likely that any such decision would be unanimous amongst the BOD. Elsewhere in the By-laws it states:

- "The quorum necessary for the transaction of business by the BOD shall be seven."

We have fourteen. unless otherwise stated, it can be presumed that a simple majority of the BOD would suffice to exclude a member.

In the real world, legal structures and consistent application of well understood "rules" are what prevent organizations of all sorts from imploding.

 

[TDC]

Holster clip with a trigger guard like was posted by Can-Down has been used by a bunch of folks way cooler than me to good effect.

But I agree carrying "Israeli" is dumber than dumb. You don't need a pistol, until you need it and it may only be with one hand (why my BUG is left hand draw).

The pic did not include a trigger guard/blocker. I use the RC Vanguard2 without issue and it is of similar simplicity. In both cases reholstering is less than easy or intuitive.

That would be your right - and you would likely lose, explaining your position in court. Why? Because the club would be shown to be acting within the precepts of 'due diligence'. And your position would be .... ?, other than you object to being told that your gun handling is unsafe? I think it's predictable how that would go down in court.

Our club members read and sign off an agreement as they receive their club membership stating that they have read, understood and are willing to comply with the club's 'rules'. They further sign another such statement if they wish to shoot on the indoor range. These documents were written, debated and discussed by the membership before being approved and adopted.
In the event of an incident, the onus would be on the individual to 'splain where why and how said incident occurred if they were in compliance with safe and prudent guidelines.

For an indoor club some sort of video monitoring system is a must. With that in place it isn't difficult to prove negligence. Depending on the club and the severity of the incident I think a three strike rule would work well. Stupid behavior should not be tolerated under any circumstances. The courts need not be involved, in fact the courts should never be involved. Too many people feel it is the "law" who should govern the people, not the people who should govern themselves.


TDC

 

[mini15]

The pic did not include a trigger guard/blocker. I use the RC Vanguard2 without issue and it is of similar simplicity. In both cases reholstering is less than easy or intuitive.

And that was the point bud. Because I don't have a kydex trigger guard blocker I have to carry it Israeli style.

 

[Sharps '63]

That is an excellent idea! It would go a long way if push ever came to shove and an incident wound up in court. I wouldn't be surprised if that was to become the accepted norm eventually. Video cams have long been used in training. Of course, members would have to sign a consent form with regard to being filmed.

As far as the "three strikes" rule, I'm not so sure ..... first offence slap on the wrist - "We have observed your behaviour and wish to point out that blah, blah, blah ....". On the second offence, a sterner smack on the wrist. For the third , a slap on the pee-pee and a note to your mother.

It could be that the first offence involves an accidental shooting. That's one incident too many. I have witnessed an individual on our range have an AD on the rifle range during a match and on other occasions, have a muzzle violation and an AD while shooting stages. This guy has had "holster training" for Cowboy Action Shooting. Nothing is fool proof in the hands of a fool, training or not.

All we can do is take the best course of action possible - Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

For an indoor club some sort of video monitoring system is a must. With that in place it isn't difficult to prove negligence. Depending on the club and the severity of the incident I think a three strike rule would work well. Stupid behavior should not be tolerated under any circumstances. The courts need not be involved, in fact the courts should never be involved. Too many people feel it is the "law" who should govern the people, not the people who should govern themselves.
TDC

 

[TDC]

That is an excellent idea! It would go a long way if push ever came to shove and an incident wound up in court. I wouldn't be surprised if that was to become the accepted norm eventually. Video cams have long been used in training. Of course, members would have to sign a consent form with regard to being filmed.

As far as the "three strikes" rule, I'm not so sure ..... first offence slap on the wrist - "We have observed your behaviour and wish to point out that blah, blah, blah ....". On the second offence, a sterner smack on the wrist. For the third , a slap on the pee-pee and a note to your mother.

It could be that the first offence involves an accidental shooting. That's one incident too many. I have witnessed an individual on our range have an AD on the rifle range during a match and on other occasions, have a muzzle violation and an AD while shooting stages. This guy has had "holster training" for Cowboy Action Shooting. Nothing is fool proof in the hands of a fool, training or not.

All we can do is take the best course of action possible - Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

I've witnessed 2 ipsc shooters nd on the line. First offense could result in permanent ban and I think an nd is grounds for that. A shooting at the range has occurred on several occasions and no one was sued. You sign a waiver for a reason and assume all liability.

Lesser ignorant acts can result in a suspension for the day, week, month, up to and including permanent ban.

Tdc

 

[TDC]

That is an excellent idea! It would go a long way if push ever came to shove and an incident wound up in court. I wouldn't be surprised if that was to become the accepted norm eventually. Video cams have long been used in training. Of course, members would have to sign a consent form with regard to being filmed.

As far as the "three strikes" rule, I'm not so sure ..... first offence slap on the wrist - "We have observed your behaviour and wish to point out that blah, blah, blah ....". On the second offence, a sterner smack on the wrist. For the third , a slap on the pee-pee and a note to your mother.

It could be that the first offence involves an accidental shooting. That's one incident too many. I have witnessed an individual on our range have an AD on the rifle range during a match and on other occasions, have a muzzle violation and an AD while shooting stages. This guy has had "holster training" for Cowboy Action Shooting. Nothing is fool proof in the hands of a fool, training or not.

All we can do is take the best course of action possible - Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

I've witnessed 2 ipsc shooters nd on the line. First offense could result in permanent ban and I think an nd is grounds for that. A shooting at the range has occurred on several occasions and no one was sued. You sign a waiver for a reason and assume all liability.

Lesser ignorant acts can result in a suspension for the day, week, month, up to and including permanent ban. No consent required to videotape as long as its clearly indicated, much like every business does now.

Tdc

 

[wicked_police]

My holster...

Been practicing at the range with this weekly.

More gold from mini15... lol

...I carry with an empty chamber and do "Israeli Draws".

'Carry'. Yeah, that's what using a metal clip at the range is called.

And the Israelis have been mostly going away from carrying their glocks on an empty chamber, and carrying a properly loaded pistol.

 

[NavyCuda]

As a child I didn't need a sign board or a list of rules to know I would get my ears boxed if I mishandled a firearm.

I don't need the criminal code to know that I shouldn't infringe on the rights of others.

Deal with stupid individuals on a case by case basis and according to the nature of their acts.

 

[Can-down]

I think you misunderstand Mr. Sharp. I was talking about being ejected from Club Utopia. I fully recognize that I wouldn't stand a chance with a well organized club in the real world. Why? Because the rules of the road would have been clearly laid out for me as would the consequences for non compliance.

In the real world, legal structures and consistent application of well understood "rules" are what prevent organizations of all sorts from imploding.

A bit off topic but since we are discussing rules and laws,

I must say I have a real distaste for people that use "the rules" as an excuse to indulge in otherwise immoral actions.

There are rules and laws put in place by people only too happy to exploit them for their own gains at the expense of others.

The financial collapse is a good example of bad rules and laws exploited by psychopaths wearing expensive suits,doing expensive drugs and getting expensive blowjobs..

 

[hercster]

A bit off topic but since we are discussing rules and laws,

I must say I have a real distaste for people that use "the rules" as an excuse to indulge in otherwise immoral actions.

There are rules and laws put in place by people only too happy to exploit them for their own gains at the expense of others.

The financial collapse is a good example of bad rules and laws exploited by psychopaths wearing expensive suits,doing expensive drugs and getting expensive blowjobs..

Geeezzz where do I apply for my share of BJ's. I'm not a psycho as far as I know and I've never done drugs. However I am an alkie (recovering 29 years) and used to wear expensive suits. Do I still qualify ?

 

[Sharps '63]

I share your distaste. But what's "immoral" about the 'rules' we have been discussing? And who's "gaining anything at the expense of others"?

I must say I have a real distaste for people that use "the rules" as an excuse to indulge in otherwise immoral actions.QUOTE]

 

[Chrisisnutz]

Maybe people concealed carry anyway? Not everyone obeys laws lol

 

[Cowboy Shootist]

This part always bugged me. Qualified by whom? How hard is it to put a gun in a holster? If I am qualified to own a restricted, I am qualified to wear one in a holster. This is just another example of one select group of firearms owners screwing over another. Join our little club or you don't get to wear your pistol on your belt.

Back when the Olds, AB range was open. The president at the time said that only police, ex police or retired police could wear a pistol/revolver in a holster on the range. Are you ready for this?........because they know how. As a result, I always carried my retirement badge and ID in my gun bag in case I was challenged by some range Nazi.