setsneedtofeed

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I’m not sure what plane of irony we’re on but I hope that unironically we all actually know why the sights are raised here.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

I’m uncertain how a Glock in a holster that covers the trigger will just go off.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

It’s an IWB holster, which is a very normal style. Nothing says it needs to be appendix carried, and it actually is referenced as designed mainly for side carry. I don’t see anything inherently more dangerous about it than other holsters, it just has an optics cut out.

I’m still unsure what accidents will cause a trigger guarded and thumb strap secured Glock to go off.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

Carrying at balls

As I said, not an inherent part of the design. It is recommended for a 1-3 carry, not appendix. I’m going to respond to the rest, but from the POV of carrying in a manufacturer recommended position.

bump on things

The trigger is covered by the holster. The Glock won’t bump out of the holster, mainly by gravity and extra secured by thumb strap. I’m unsure how it would go off while covered and secured

Drawing

Finger on the trigger during a draw is negligent rather than accidental. I’m not sure how any given holster design is more or less safe when the factor is somebody improperly grabbing the trigger way too early.

Replacing in belt, in a hurry

Not sure why this would be hurried. If the Glock needs to be removed, it can come off with the whole holster, so putting it back in the holster in a hurry can be entirely avoided.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

An IWB carried at the same position as an OWB has a barrel pointed the same direction. Both carried at appendix will be the same as both carried at 3-o-clock. The original comment (not you) has really clamped onto the gun-pointed-at-balls as if that is an insurmountable issue, when the holster’s manufacturer recommended it not to be carried that way.

Not sure what the difference of pant material being over or under makes for deflecting anything.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

Ayoob has done a lot, but yes sometimes his opinions should be regarded only as opinions. I haven’t seen what you’re talking about but I’ve seen him talk about other things where I was kind of pulling my hair out.

OWB is certainly viable if you’re willing to wear shirts to cover it. Comfort is a reasonable factor. I do think IWB limits the size of what is comfortable to carry. Even a Glock 19 I find too big for IWB for my own comfort. I have gone into carrying “pocket guns” IWB, and anything bigger OWB. “Pocket guns” IWB also eliminated having to size up pants for carry as much, because yes that’s annoying.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

Whew. I want to only post good stuff here. Your first bit made me second guess the post.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

Okay, now you’re just playing FATAL.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

Haha. Yeah.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/00b5a585-f713-40ed-9bff-4d823e9d8b62.jpeg

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

I dunno, both designations do use letters in them.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago)

I think it’s pretty thin personally. I don’t know how they claim the two are pronounced “similarly”, as it seems intuitive most people would pronounce SFAR as “S-far” or “S-F-A-R”.

The kicker is the SFAR is a pretty routine AR-15 derivative compared to the more unique SCAR. I think it’s a hard sell to tell a court customers would be deceived into mixing the two up.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

That’s what I was thinking but forgot to add in another comment. If it was the name in addition to the rifle physically resembling a SCAR, I could see an actual case where FN wins.

As it is, my understanding is that trademarks are required to be vigorously protected (as opposed to copywrite, where the holder can suffer no penalty for not caring about some knockoffs while suing others) so it may be a case of FN pursuing the lawsuit while knowing it will lose. The goal being to establish a record of vigorous protection so that when they sue the maker of the hypothetical “S-CAR” the courts have no question about their protectiveness of trademark. But that’s my non-law understanding from watching YouTube lawyers.

setsneedtofeed, 2 months ago

Thanks. I’m really fumbling through it. This project is more NMM than I’ve ever done and on much more complex shapes.