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

Status
Not open for further replies.
maetsack said:
Alright TDC - Since you asked so nicely, I'll play one more time. You asked about the use of cover and how it relates to using a holster safely. Here goes:

In order to achieve the highest probability of safety, when approaching low cover, with your firearm holstered, you should:

A - Draw the firearm BEFORE kneeling behind the cover
B - Kneel behind the cover and THEN draw your firearm
C - It doesn't matter, do whatever is fastest

Best practices in holster training says the answer is always A. Some would argue get behind that cover first cause the bad guy is shooting at you. However holster instructors will point out the fact that if a bad guy is shooting at you, you are in a high stress situation and bad things are far more likely to happen in high stress situations. You can forget things like ACTS and PROVE and this can have serious consequences.

ACTS and PROVE are completely retarded and anyone who subscribes to them hasn't the faintest clue about what they're doing. Its gov't bullsh*t designed by an incompetent clown. Where you get this idea that I support them or that they are valid is beyond me, but it speaks volumes as to your level of training.

If you had kneeled and then drawn, there is a high probability that at least one of your legs is forward of the gun and holster - this is simple body mechanics, one of your knees is forward of your waist. If you were to hit the trigger in that draw, you could easily shoot yourself in the leg. So the best practice is to reduce/eliminate that risk by teaching shooters to draw BEFORE they kneel and not the other way around.

If your response to stress is to slip your finger on the trigger, you need more training, hence the reason you train. It is not always practical or possible to draw then kneel, so teaching "the safest" method as the only method is ignorant. Outside the competitive arena that is the REAL WORLD, guns get pointed at all kinds of things and people. It is the discipline with your finger that counts the most. I've drawn from prone, supine, seated in a vehicle, seated at a desk, I've even drawn while rappelling. What has never crossed my mind regardless of where or what I was doing at the time, was placing my finger on the trigger. The fundamental four ensure you don't have an ND.

Now you are no doubt going to say that if you had just followed ACTS and PROVE it would accomplish the same thing so the training is unnecessary (I read your mind there, didn't I). And your holster instructor is going to agree with you and then point out that we just said this was a high stress situation and that you are human and capable of making a mistake and that only a total phukking idiot doesn't stack the deck in his favour when possible (I'll assume you agree with this). Adopting this best practice reduces risk and the probability that you will accidentally shoot yourself so why wouldn't you do it?

The instructors I've trained under all carry for a living and most have shot people, a lot of people. I agree that training can and does improve ones abilities. What I don't agree with and what you seem to gloss over is the reality that training is NOT REQUIRED to use the holster SAFELY, it is required to use the holster EFFICIENTLY, there is a big difference. I agree that as humans we are capable of making mistakes, would you agree that even with training you are capable of making a mistake??

Further to this, there is a second reason why we would draw BEFORE kneeling and that is efficiency. What if a shot presents itself before you are fully behind cover? Does it not make more sense to be prepared to return fire as soon as possible? To have the firearm comfortably welded to your hand as soon as possible? We have a second benefit to this best practice, beyond the realm of safety.

What is more important, winning the gunfight or not getting shot??? The situation dictates the tactics so a broad answer such as the one you present is neither true nor false. In your scenario you need to address a few more factors. How far away is my target, do I have the skills to make the hit on the move at this distance? Would seeking cover be more advantageous than taking a low percentage shot? Does my target possess a superior weapon like a rifle, is he sighted in? Too many variables to say that drawing prior to taking cover is the answer, but I'm sure you knew that.

Now, I'll warn you now, if you start debating this best practice, we are done. You don't get to ask me for a textbook answer (you are free to validate this with any holster instructor you know) and then say you disagree with the textbook, especially since you already admitted to not believing in holster training and you are a believer in ACTS and PROVE and this practice is simply an extension of that.

You need to work on your comprehension. I am by far one of if not the most vocal proponents of professional training. What I said was this: YOU DO NOT NEED TRAINING TO RUN A HOLSTER SAFELY. YOU DO NEED TRAINING TO RUN A HOLSTER EFFICIENTLY.

There's your example. Holster training is filled with these type of best practices that keep people from injuring themselves and others. And while some, most or even ALL of them may come down to extensions of ACTS and PROVE, using a holster introduces so many more things to think about, it only makes sense to focus on reducing risk and complexity. Of course, the training then advances to making these actions smooth and unconsciously competent.

The addition of a holster adds a lot to think about yes, but it doesn't have any bearing on the fundamental four. There is no difference between running a holster and not, when the gun is in your hand you follow the fundamental four. The gun doesn't know where it is or where it originated, it only does as the dumb meat stick behind it commands it to do. If adding a piece of leather/kydex alters your handling habits, you need to TRAIN more or stop using firearms. As I've said several times in this thread, training is always a good thing, but its not a necessity. Proper training with regards to efficiency will greatly improve the speed at which one can draw.

I will reiterate, ACTS AND PROVE ARE GARBAGE

Given your 150+ hours of training I would have thought this would be very obvious to you. Am I wrong?

I'm well versed in the use of holsters, cover, concealment, etc. Please enlighten us all as to your credentials? So far it sounds like you're a big fan of ignorant sh*t like ACTS and PROVE and feel that safe firearms handling is impossible without training. I have to ask, if training is required prior to safe handling, then how did we as humans get this far? Someone had to try the methods and techniques we now teach, so who taught them??
Click to expand...

I'm in the bold, please read carefully...

TDC
 
maetsack said:
Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. What do you think this means "Along the way, you learn to shoot in dozens of scenarios and participate in internal matches to learn more and test your skills."

Strapping on a holster does not grant you your holster qualification. I wouldn't want to be a member of a club where it does.
Click to expand...

Ok - I re-read what you wrote. Still seems absurdly onerous way to qualify shooters for basic range / competition equipment. I get it for 'learning more and testing your skills' - sure- but it should not take that long to instruct a qualified shooter to safely use a holster. I'm starting to wonder if you're really the troll in this thread... with the Serpa and all
 
dallasm said:
Ok - I re-read what you wrote. Still seems absurdly onerous way to qualify shooters for basic range / competition equipment. I get it for 'learning more and testing your skills' - sure- but it should not take that long to instruct a qualified shooter to safely use a holster. I'm starting to wonder if you're really the troll in this thread... with the Serpa and all
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should take a course so you can see what I'm talking about before you comment,... just sayin'
 
I remember having a fun debate with TDC about the ACTS and Prove VS the Fabulous Four a few years ago.... :)

If I recall correctly the part TDC doesn't like about ACTS PROVE is the examination of the bore after the gun has been checked and cleared of ammo.

The crucial 4 does not allow for an unloaded gun and there fore an examination of the bore by eye.

All guns are always loaded. This means that in order to eyeball the bore you would have to break one of the mighty 4 rules.

I get it ..... but that's a bit too rigid for me.

The fact that TDC sees ACTS and PROVE as complete insanity shows where he's coming from in this "debate" about holsters and training.

I don't see much difference in the ACTS and the Fundamental 4 but obviously somebody came up with the acronyms and course material to help newbies develop safe habits.

Nothing is perfect because of the human factor and I will agree with TDC that the Fundamental 4 that he prefers does cover it all simply.
 
One more thing.... I also agree that a person that understands the golden rules of firearms should be able to operate a holster without a course.

I've taken some shooting courses but never a holster course, yet I feel quite comfortable carrying my handguns loaded in a holster.
 
I'm well versed in the use of holsters, cover, concealment, etc. Please enlighten us all as to your credentials? So far it sounds like you're a big fan of ignorant sh*t like ACTS and PROVE and feel that safe firearms handling is impossible without training. I have to ask, if training is required prior to safe handling, then how did we as humans get this far? Someone had to try the methods and techniques we now teach, so who taught them??
Click to expand...

I've often had the same thoughts about the good ol days when the Wright Brothers were flying by the seat of their pants!

How exiting learning how to build a flying machine and then fly it all with basicly no previous experience or lessons!

Today's planes almost fly themselves and are way more advanced then the original designs but it takes for ever to go through all the training and is very expensive..... doesn't make much sense.
 
maetsack said:
Well after that rant, you've made my point for me.
We're done :)
Click to expand...

Can I ask what your credentials are? You talk big game, but you are talking smack to a lot of people I know have a lot of experience handling guns and some that shoot at top tier levels.
Are you suggesting that your holster training eliminates all chances of NDs? Last I checked that stood for NEGLIGENT discharge, somebody was not paying attention to what they were doing and ended up making the gun go bang when they didn't mean to. Training or not people can get careless, and that is what will lead to the ND.

If someone with no training is slow and careful about their draw always indexing their finger, practices thousands of times are they more likely to have a ND vs some hotshot that attended your fancy holster training session, and now thinks they are the king sh*t of the world and doesn't follow all the rules under an actual stressed scenario?

Remember you yourself said, after repeated practice you build muscle memory. Training is good, but having the right mindset is better still.

Since you push your doctrine rather hard, I have to ask you again, what do you do for a living?
 
Can-down said:
I remember having a fun debate with TDC about the ACTS and Prove VS the Fabulous Four a few years ago.... :)

If I recall correctly the part TDC doesn't like about ACTS PROVE is the examination of the bore after the gun has been checked and cleared of ammo.

The crucial 4 does not allow for an unloaded gun and there fore an examination of the bore by eye.

All guns are always loaded. This means that in order to eyeball the bore you would have to break one of the mighty 4 rules.

I get it ..... but that's a bit too rigid for me.

The fact that TDC sees ACTS and PROVE as complete insanity shows where he's coming from in this "debate" about holsters and training.

I don't see much difference in the ACTS and the Fundamental 4 but obviously somebody came up with the acronyms and course material to help newbies develop safe habits.

Nothing is perfect because of the human factor and I will agree with TDC that the Fundamental 4 that he prefers does cover it all simply.
Click to expand...

You're half right, I don't like looking down the bore of my own hardware, it violates rule #2. My biggest complaints about the ACTS and PROVE bs is that its far too complex and teaches two levels of safety, one with a loaded firearm, and one without. There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm, if you can safely handle it loaded, then why the belief that you should unload it to "make it safe"? Four rules as you said, covers it all and keeps it simple. Doesn't matter what make/model/style/calibre/activity etc etc, the four rules covers it all. Simplicity reduces the potential for failure.

TDC
 
You do not need training, what-so-ever to safely use a holster. If you can read and understand the owners manual of a firearm you don't need any training to use it safely.

I'm disappointed you're not man enough to apologize to me, but this is the internet.

I'm surprised we haven't started to see sling courses, "members may not use slings with their rifles without qualification."
 
NavyCuda said:
You do not need training, what-so-ever to safely use a holster. If you can read and understand the owners manual of a firearm you don't need any training to use it safely.

I'm disappointed you're not man enough to apologize to me, but this is the internet.

I'm surprised we haven't started to see sling courses, "members may not use slings with their rifles without qualification."
Click to expand...


Laugh2 Laugh2 Laugh2
 
It is to laugh .... the dip####z in our club disallowed the use of rifle sings in our off hand "Hunting Rifle" and "Military Rifle" matches. Why? Because I was using slings on my rifles and winning.
The use of a 'hasty sling' on a hunting rifle was an unknown thing to them and the GI military rifle sling completely baffled them. Ergo - it had to be disallowed. They similarly banned the sitting position, but allowed kneeling, the most useless position for precision shooting.

When you're dealing with people who have not had the benefit of military or target rifle training, you have to deal with this sort of thing.


NavyCuda said:
I'm surprised we haven't started to see sling courses, "members may not use slings with their rifles without qualification."
Click to expand...
 
TDC said:
You're half right, I don't like looking down the bore of my own hardware, it violates rule #2. My biggest complaints about the ACTS and PROVE bs is that its far too complex and teaches two levels of safety, one with a loaded firearm, and one without. There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm, if you can safely handle it loaded, then why the belief that you should unload it to "make it safe"? Four rules as you said, covers it all and keeps it simple. Doesn't matter what make/model/style/calibre/activity etc etc, the four rules covers it all. Simplicity reduces the potential for failure.

TDC
Click to expand...

Half right... Ha ha. I guess I'm half wrong eh.
Is that even a passing grade? :)

From your response I'd say I aced it but that's just my opinion based on the facts as I choose to see them.

I get what your saying but sometimes unloading the gun is necessary.
Some of the guns I have in storage are currently pointed at objects I do not wish to destroy and the fact they are unloaded is assuring.
Wouldn't want one cooking off in the chamber in the event of a fire eh!
 
Last edited:
Sharps '63 said:
It is to laugh .... the dip####z in our club disallowed the use of rifle sings in our off hand "Hunting Rifle" and "Military Rifle" matches. Why? Because I was using slings on my rifles and winning.
The use of a 'hasty sling' on a hunting rifle was an unknown thing to them and the GI military rifle sling completely baffled them. Ergo - it had to be disallowed. They similarly banned the sitting position, but allowed kneeling, the most useless position for precision shooting.

When you're dealing with people who have not had the benefit of military or target rifle training, you have to deal with this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

You do NOT need military training or target rifle tactical carbine ninja bushido way of the gun dodge city doctrine training to understand the use of a sling...
Come on now, lets stop the insanity...

The best tactical training you'll ever get in your whole life is to be able to run 4 miles cross country and be able to put 10 shots on target on a 10 inch gong at 100 yards after those 4 miles regardless of firearm type. Since I'm not able to do that yet, no point in doing any other ninja tactical training.

When ill be able to do that and I've lost about 25 pounds and my damn love handles sure ill go the green line tactical ninja school.

Lets get real here guys and lets stop with the I've had training in this and that and thus better than anyone else argument and penile measurements please!
 
Last edited:
TDC said:
You're half right, I don't like looking down the bore of my own hardware, it violates rule #2. My biggest complaints about the ACTS and PROVE bs is that its far too complex and teaches two levels of safety, one with a loaded firearm, and one without. There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm, if you can safely handle it loaded, then why the belief that you should unload it to "make it safe"? Four rules as you said, covers it all and keeps it simple. Doesn't matter what make/model/style/calibre/activity etc etc, the four rules covers it all. Simplicity reduces the potential for failure.

TDC
Click to expand...

Just a guess, but does TDC = Too Damn Complicated?
 
TDC said:
You're half right, I don't like looking down the bore of my own hardware, it violates rule #2. My biggest complaints about the ACTS and PROVE bs is that its far too complex and teaches two levels of safety, one with a loaded firearm, and one without. There is no such thing as an unloaded firearm, if you can safely handle it loaded, then why the belief that you should unload it to "make it safe"? Four rules as you said, covers it all and keeps it simple. Doesn't matter what make/model/style/calibre/activity etc etc, the four rules covers it all. Simplicity reduces the potential for failure.

TDC
Click to expand...
On this one I agree with you completely.
 
mikethebike said:
You do NOT need military training or target rifle tactical carbine ninja bushido way of the gun dodge city doctrine training to understand the use of a sling...
Come on now, lets stop the insanity...

The best tactical training you'll ever get in your whole life is to be able to run 4 miles cross country and be able to put 10 shots on target on a 10 inch gong at 100 yards after those 4 miles regardless of firearm type. Since I'm not able to do that yet, no point in doing any other ninja tactical training.

When ill be able to do that and I've lost about 25 pounds and my damn love handles sure ill go the green line tactical ninja school.

Lets get real here guys and lets stop with the I've had training in this and that and thus better than anyone else argument and penile measurements please!
Click to expand...

Did someone say way of the gun doge city?

50622-1-1391287636.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom