Years ago I bought a Bianchi Tuxedo shoulder rig... fully reversible as far as I can remember, and very well made as far as nylon holsters go, though I have no idea what has happened to their level of quality since Bianchi was purchased by Safariland (personally I simply won't buy Safariland products). It's a horizontal rig and I'm on the skinny side, so the muzzle tended to press out the back of my jacket if I moved my arm forward at all, the result being that I never carried it much unless I was going on a road trip (shoulder rigs do tend to shine when seated in a vehicle).
My personal preference for shoulder holsters has shifted towards a more classic vertical rig, as I find these tend to conceal better. However, as has already been pointed out it is difficult to draw from a shoulder rig without muzzle sweeping half the room so my personal policy is to only carry in a shoulder rig with the chamber empty. Oh the horror! Or maybe not - shoulder rigs already make quick draws unlikely, so the time it takes to rack a round into the chamber is fractional. Additionally, if I carry in a shoulder rig when out and about then I usually have another pistol on my hip with a round in the chamber that can be deployed more quickly, and the gun in the shoulder rig acts as backup. This is simply my personal preference, and may or may not work for other individuals.
By the way, what type of pistol are you planning to shoulder carry?
Nathan wrote:Stop trying to buy quality and save money; it just doesn't happen.
I take a bit of crap whenever I bring up to spend more to get more, but at the end of the day its the dang truth. If you want quality, pony up. If you can't pony up, wait and save up so that when you do get what you want, you actually have what you want and you're not settling for crap. You wear your holster daily; something that intimate isn't the time to try to save money.
I have to disagree with that statement. I own several holsters from Galco, a Bianchi, a custom made Bladetech, an Israel Military Industries Defense, and several "off brand" holsters. The Bladetech was the most expensive holster I bought and along with the IMI Defense has proven to be of the lowest functional quality. The "off brand" holsters, none of which cost me more than $25 if I remember correctly, are just as good as the ones from Galco and are just as likely to get carried - they might not have the same level of finishing, but from a functionality and durability standpoint, they are every bit as good at about a third the price.
Nathan wrote:It's relative to the level of quality you are referencing. Glock has more quality than Taurus. Glock has less quality than HK. Glock has equal quality as Springfield or S&W. Glock has less quality than Dan Wesson. Glock has more quality than KelTec. All this despite that I believe Glock is superior to all in reliability but reliability is only one factor of quality.
What do you mean by "quality"? Which "quality" of the firearm are you referring to? Do you mean fine craftsmanship? Do you mean consistency in manufacturing? Or do you mean functionality (reliability, durability, accuracy, ergonomics, etc.)? If your Glocks perform
better than your HKs and Dan Wessons, then from a pragmatic standpoint how are they of lower quality?
Nathan wrote:Again, it depends on the level of quality your are seeking. Quality guns tend to start around $400 (in polymer). I can think of no <$400 guns I've ever considered for carry, and very few @$400. In this case, I don't believe quality shoulder holsters exist below $200 (new). You can buy them as low as $30 (Uncle Mikes) but I don't believe you'll find quality until you pass $200. You pay more for more quality within each classification. In 1911s you won't find real quality until you pass the $800-$900 mark. Quality is relative to the user, the need and the classification of product.
Again I can't quite agree here... When Sig Sauer first started bring P226s into the US they were very inexpensive but were still "quality" guns. There are plenty of functionally excellent guns on the market for low prices.
One of the first handguns I ever bought was worth about $2500, so I'm not a "cheapskate" at all when it comes to firearms. Can't say how many top dollar guns I've had the pleasure of shooting. Despite this I've found that some of the less expensive guns match or exceed the competition in functional terms - side by side against Kimbers, Glocks, Sigs or Rugers, I've found that my "cheap" roughly made and poorly finished Bulgarian Hi Power clones and Makarov (none of which cost me over $300) shoot as well or better than any of them. The only one I've managed to jam was from the use of a higher tension recoil spring with light practice ammo, without even first breaking the gun in. The only parts failure I've experienced was a trigger spring breaking after a very long time of spending about an hour (sometimes more) every day
on dry fire drills. They're not made like jewelry, but from the standpoint of what I need in a weapon that I carry for pragmatic reasons, I find them to be extremely
I've personally witnessed Glocks, Berettas, Walthers, Rugers, $1500 1911s, and other quality, reliable
firearms malfunction... and yet have never had a single solitary jam out of any of the four "cheap Beretta clone" PT 92s I've had over the years, with no idea how many rounds of cheap practice ammo and oddly shaped hollow points I've sent down range through them over the years. I can't say the same about every Taurus model, but there's one that performs extremely well, despite the fact that they can be found for under $400 and come from a less prestigious manufacturer. The first one I bought was never intended as a carry gun - in fact it was bought more as an "experiment" than anything, but as they say "you live and learn" - and I found out very quickly that I had underestimated that awesome piece of equipment due to the fact that it was inexpensive and was a Taurus. Lesson learned. I wouldn't trade any of my 92s for a Wilson Combat.
Seen lots of "mouse gun" failures, but never even heard
of the slightest problem with a CZ 82 or 83. Compared to higher priced Sig, Walther and Beretta .380s, these guns are "cheap", but seem to be as accurate and reliable as can be.
I've also done some long range shooting with some very nice hunting rifles equipped with high dollar scopes and loaded with match ammo. I've also shot military surplus guns with open sights and old military surplus ammo that outperformed the expensive hunting rifles... So which was the "higher quality" gun? The one that had the beautiful bluing and precise craftsmanship, or the one that was cheaply turned out with a lousy Parkerizing job but shot much
I'm not suggesting that quality should be skimped on in the slightest in a firearm that is owned for serious purposes, but simply highlighting the fact that it is
possible to find firearms on the market that are of low cost but high functional
quality. Usually these guns don't have the same level of attention to detail in craftsmanship, and they usually have a poor finish from the factory. As long as they shoot straight, shoot every time I need them to, and are built to last I don't particularly care. Life is too short to worry about the superficial.
Nathan wrote:I personally love the rugged simplicity of my Glocks. I'm currently struggling with carrying my Glock 23 or my HK P30.
If you like the Glock then carry the damn Glock. Yours are obviously running reliably if you've reported to have never had a single failure out of any of them... I'm guessing you shoot them well. So what if the HK is more "prestigious"? If you are most comfortable with Glock, then carry Glock. It's a weapon, not a piece of jewelry.