A student recently e-mailed asking for my opinion of a snap-on kydex trigger cover called ‘the Original MIC (Minimal Inside Carry) Holster’ You can see it here: GlockTech. It’s a clever thing, but I have trouble calling it a holster.
From our CWP curriculum, the ideal holster has these attributes:
1. It retains the gun
2. It covers the trigger
3. It stays in place
4. It allows a firing grip while the gun is completely inserted
5. It stays open when the gun is removed
If you watch the video at the link above, you’ll see at the 3:15 mark that a MIC holstered gun can be ‘shifted’ however much slack the string allows. It seems the presenter considers it a plus.
This would seem to violate Item 3 above to some degree. Now, we teach that an ideal holster has all five attributes, but also acknowledge that sometimes compromise is necessary. So, how important might it be that the holster / gun stay in place?
Watch this video: MallKill
We show this video in some classes because it contains so many teaching points. For our discussion here, notice how many attempts the victim has to make before he finally acquires a grip on his pistol… three? Also, notice what his attacker is doing while that’s going on: Clearing a stoppage.
Okay, ‘clearing a stoppage’ is actually being generous… he’s really looking at the gun as if it’s the first time he’s ever seen it, but that’s another discussion. The point here is, had the victim carried his pistol in a way that kept his gun where he expected it to be, he had at least three seconds to shoot his attacker without any fire being returned. Unfortunately, by the time he finally obtains a grip on the gun, his attacker wakes up and retakes the initiative.
How important was Item 3 in this situation? In my opinion it was the difference between life and death. I don’t know if the first hit the victim took was survivable, but I’m pretty sure getting shot 11 more times didn’t help his situation any.
So, this is my concern with the MIC ‘holster’: It may keep the gun in place during normal activities, but I expect my actions during a fight to be anything but ‘normal’. I expect I’ll be engaged in some sort of dynamic, aggressive behavior, probably fighting from some unconventional position*, perhaps after great exertion. Now, where’s that gun??
Having said all that, using a MIC certainly beats the ‘Plaxco Burress’ method of gun carry (sticking the thing in the waistband of your pants) favored by the overwhelming majority of thugs. If you have to carry in deep cover and it’s either use a MIC or leave the gun at home, then use it, but just remember this shortcoming.
Two Final Points…
First, I’m not suggesting the victim in the second video was using a MIC. Odds are he wasn’t using a holster at all. My point is that, in terms of keeping the gun in place, a MIC is little better than no holster at all. At least it covers the trigger (very important!) and limits movement somewhat.
Last, I hope you noticed that the guy in the MIC video has terrible gun handling skills.
(*There’s a saying about stance: If you’ve got a good stance, then you’re probably not using cover or movement properly.)