TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Photoman wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Photoman wrote:What is your reasoning for retention with concealed carry?

To keep your gun in the holster and not yanked out by a seat belt, or someone grabbing it in a struggle, or any other of the hundreds of reasons I have actually seen them end up not in the holster.

Thanks for the reply. Any concern about retention devices slowing the draw?

From hand hands up I can unsnap and draw and get 2 shots in the A zone from 7 yards in about 1.8 Seconds, and 3 shots well under 3 seconds from 3 yards. Thats with a shooting timer.

Thats good "to first shot times", I'm curious what your "splits" are? A third round shouldn't add much more than .20-.30 so you would be more than "well under 3". By the way, those times are just about exactly what I do from a shoulder rig. Does that sound slow?

Those are not "to first shot times" they are "to last shot" times.
I was not making a point of comparison to cross-draw, rather I was attempting to show that a simple retention device does not slow one down.

BTW, I am an old leather guy, but there were a couple of guys at the last class with the new Blackhawk Serpa. It is a very fast holster. As soon as BH has one for the Warrier, I am getting one.

TX,

I realize the aggregate time includes: Reaction time, time to draw, time to fire two shots (or three). I should have been more clear in my attempt to compliment you. What I meant to convey was: That either of those times would be good "to first shot" times for the average person.

I asked about your "splits" in order to determine the time between shots. Subtracting this from your overall time would tell me "time to first shot" and give me a rough idea of your cadence or shooting rhythm.

If you wanted to deduct .15-.25 for reaction time, then we can further narrow down just how fast your draw is. I don't allow deductions of .20 for "rate of assimilation" in these cases because you already know what you're going to do. In fact, if you're like me.. you probably don't have your buzzer set on "random" and can accurately anticipate when its going to go off.

You said you weren't comparing speed between draw styles, O.K. but, you did say this: "if you have an opponent within arms reach and need to shoot, you simply cannot unless you swing the gun across the front of your body. It is very slow and easy to defeat." This is what I disagree with. Not only is it not slow (if my times are matching yours), it is not anymore "easily defeated" than strong side. The problem here is not where you initiate the draw from. The problem is: You have a threat at arms length!

As to your question about how many LEO, IDPA, IPSC shooters carry cross draw, I think you already know the answer and the reasons why.

You know full well that CD is not allowed in IDPA or IPSC or at any of the popular training schools because it is thought to present a safety hazard, not because it is slow or necessarily impractical. So, if you seek to prove your point by citing these groups...then shame on you. In fact, some LEO and Military personnel do carry cross-draw quite effectively.

Training: I'll try to break loose from work for a few days this fall, maybe we can get together and take a critical look at both modes, I know we'll have fun. Oh, and "realistic/dynamic", I wouldn't have it any other way.

Cheers!

Flint.

txinvestigator wrote:

Photoman wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Photoman wrote:What is your reasoning for retention with concealed carry?

To keep your gun in the holster and not yanked out by a seat belt, or someone grabbing it in a struggle, or any other of the hundreds of reasons I have actually seen them end up not in the holster.

Thanks for the reply. Any concern about retention devices slowing the draw?

From hand hands up I can unsnap and draw and get 2 shots in the A zone from 7 yards in about 1.8 Seconds, and 3 shots well under 3 seconds from 3 yards. Thats with a shooting timer.

Thats good "to first shot times", I'm curious what your "splits" are? A third round shouldn't add much more than .20-.30 so you would be more than "well under 3". By the way, those times are just about exactly what I do from a shoulder rig. Does that sound slow?

txinvestigator wrote:

kw5kw wrote:TX... of it.
Russ

I understand your desire to have access while driving. It does cause a concern. However, I am not a fan of cross draw at all for several reasons.

Some I would have to show you, but an opponent can easily foil your draw by pushing your arm against your body. Even if you step back with the gun side, you still present the arm across the body.

Also when you draw you tend to muzzle sweep everyone to your left. Kinda difficult to train that way.

And if you have an opponent within arms reach and need to shoot, you simply cannot unless you swing the gun across the front of your body. It is very slow and easy to defeat.

I did not come to these conclusions casually either. I have gone through training attempting each carry mode. As a armed bodyguard, I like to carry in a shoulder holster if I will be driving. However, I also carry strong side 3 o'clock because thats the best place for carry for decisive action, IMO.

And remember, these are all just opinions.

My friend, we have just got to get together. I appreciate your "opinion" concerning cross-draw, but I can't help but think it is the result of your "swallowing" what was taught to you at some training school.

There is nothing slow about cross-draw, you don't have to "sweep" everyone while presenting your weapon, and blading your body when reaching across will thwart most attempts to pin the arm against the body.

We've had this discussion before, and I will be happy to prove to you that "at arms length" I will stall your draw (from your strong side) EVERY time.

Cross draw gets poor press from those who do not know how to do it properly.

It is not an ideal mode of carry for every circumstance, but then neither is any other. It is certainly not deserving of most the things you have claimed it causes or results in.