TexasCHLforum.com

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:06 am**

recaffeination wrote: I was impressed by the ccw breakaway pants but I don't have enough slack(s)in my budget.

Stealth pun ftw

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:18 am**

Keith B wrote:
Maxwell wrote:TAM,

"Heater"???? ROTFLOL! I think the last time I heard that term was an old Star Trek where Kirk and Spook traveled to the 1950's.

And yes I am showing my age as I probably saw the original broadcast of that show...

Think TAM has been reading his old archive of Mickey Spillane novels again.

Think Roscoe.

Anygunanywhere

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:49 am**

and when I read someone posting "strapped", I just roll my eyes...

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:13 pm**

http://ccwbreakaways.com/

I have a pair of their Khakis. It's a bit expensive ($85), but worth it IMO.

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:18 pm**

Keith B wrote:
Maxwell wrote:TAM,

"Heater"???? ROTFLOL! I think the last time I heard that term was an old Star Trek where Kirk and Spook traveled to the 1950's.

And yes I am showing my age as I probably saw the original broadcast of that show...

Think TAM has been reading his old archive of Mickey Spillane novels again.

Hey, I was quoting the website I found the pants on. I would have called it a "gat" or "roscoe."

Posted: **Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:47 pm**

Maxwell wrote:TAM,

"Heater"???? ROTFLOL! I think the last time I heard that term was an old Star Trek where Kirk and Spook traveled to the 1950's.

And yes I am showing my age as I probably saw the original broadcast of that show...

Star Trek - A Piece of the Action
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=5o1rH63IaDA[/youtube]

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:22 am**

There is always a tradeoff between degree of concealment and draw speed.

I don't see much point in carrying deeper than IWB. As it is, my draw from IWB is slower than a draw from OWB, but I can still draw "acceptably" quickly. If I need to draw, I don't want to be rooting around down in the front of my pants trying to find the handgun.

When I am carrying my 5" Govt 1911 IWB, that is acceptably concealed. I see no need to go smaller or more hidden.

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:34 am**

Reserve161 wrote:I have a couple of the 5.11 undershirts and they work, somewhat, for me.
I carried either a SW p99 or a full-sized 1911, but had problems with the gun
leaning to the opening and the velcro not able to keep it in.
Now, I was up and down installing lighting and taping extension cords to the
floor and stuff - not just sitting at a desk or walking around.

Perhaps with a smaller/lighter gun I wouldn't have that problem.

Haven't tried it with my new 3.5" (what is that, commander-sized? officer-sized?) 1911
because I got a Galco owb holster with it that works like a charm for me so far...

I had the same problem. I had to be really careful bending over because the weight of the gun would start working on the small pieces of velcro. I had my wife sew in additional length of velcro between the two small strips they provided on the shirt. It makes opening the shirt a little more difficult, but it seems to help keep my .45 Baby Eagle in place. This is not my preferred choice of carry but sometimes it is my only option. I still have found no substitute for IWB carry. I still do occasionally carry in a fanny pack or gun pack.

Posted: **Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:34 pm**

I carry an XD9SC in a 5.11 everyday at work. I make sure the velcro makes good contact in the morning and don't have a problem the rest of the day.

I am very active at work on some days and may be upside down unloading crates.

Posted: **Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:28 pm**

I am very limited with the uniform I am required to wear is the problem that creates the most constrictions. It is something I have tossed around for about a year but due to recent events disclosed to us about a fellow employee I have decided until I can find another job I need to think about being armed.

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:15 pm**

I am new to guns and conceal carry. (62 and somewhat bulging middle) My first carry weapon is a Ruger R40C. I specifically wanted something easy and didn't want to have to buy new clothes just for carry purposes. I was looking at some not so conventional systems.

http://tactipac.com/fusionpac-iwb-holst ... formation/

http://www.remoraholsterstore.com/Produ ... eries-6ART

http://stickyholsters.com/products-page ... y-holster/

And the one i just ordered

http://3speedholster.com/ I will offer review after receiving it and breaking it in.

Posted: **Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:31 pm**

I have, and have used, a Safepacker http://www.thewilderness.com/index.php? ... parent=145.

Nobody ever gave it a notice, although it must be said that here CHL's are so few that you are more likely to encounter Bigfoot than a CHL holder.

It does require some discipline about not setting it down and leaving it somewhere.

Posted: **Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:33 am**

kde71450 wrote:I am new to guns and conceal carry. (62 and somewhat bulging middle) My first carry weapon is a Ruger R40C. I specifically wanted something easy and didn't want to have to buy new clothes just for carry purposes. I was looking at some not so conventional systems.

http://tactipac.com/fusionpac-iwb-holst ... formation/

http://www.remoraholsterstore.com/Produ ... eries-6ART

http://stickyholsters.com/products-page ... y-holster/

And the one i just ordered [ Image ]

http://3speedholster.com/ I will offer review after receiving it and breaking it in.

No way ever am I sticking a loaded gun down the front of my pants.

Posted: **Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:16 pm**

jmra wrote:
kde71450 wrote:I am new to guns and conceal carry. (62 and somewhat bulging middle) My first carry weapon is a Ruger R40C. I specifically wanted something easy and didn't want to have to buy new clothes just for carry purposes. I was looking at some not so conventional systems.

http://tactipac.com/fusionpac-iwb-holst ... formation/

http://www.remoraholsterstore.com/Produ ... eries-6ART

http://stickyholsters.com/products-page ... y-holster/

And the one i just ordered [ Image ]

http://3speedholster.com/ I will offer review after receiving it and breaking it in.
No way ever am I sticking a loaded gun down the front of my pants.

I have a Smart Carry, which I rarely use but is nice to have if dress requires deep concealment. It sits on top of other critical "equipment" down there, so the muzzle at least isn't pointing at you -- any more than IWB or OWB carry might have the muzzle directed at your leg at a given point in your gait.

Posted: **Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:28 am**

hpcatx wrote:
jmra wrote:
kde71450 wrote:I am new to guns and conceal carry. (62 and somewhat bulging middle) My first carry weapon is a Ruger R40C. I specifically wanted something easy and didn't want to have to buy new clothes just for carry purposes. I was looking at some not so conventional systems.

http://tactipac.com/fusionpac-iwb-holst ... formation/

http://www.remoraholsterstore.com/Produ ... eries-6ART

http://stickyholsters.com/products-page ... y-holster/

And the one i just ordered [ Image ]

http://3speedholster.com/ I will offer review after receiving it and breaking it in.
No way ever am I sticking a loaded gun down the front of my pants.
I have a Smart Carry, which I rarely use but is nice to have if dress requires deep concealment. It sits on top of other critical "equipment" down there, so the muzzle at least isn't pointing at you -- any more than IWB or OWB carry might have the muzzle directed at your leg at a given point in your gait.

I'll opt to disagree with that.

A SmartCarry pretty much points the muzzle of your carry gun at your opposite-leg femoral artery. Carrying on the hip at three-o'clock potentially endangers only one small artery, if that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thigh ... mbered.svg

TexasCHLforum.com

DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB

Re: DEEPER than IWB