Grip Length vs Overall Height

[jimbear]

I've been looking at getting a new concealed carry gun and have been narrowing selection based on overall height of the gun. It got me to thinking about which stat matters more, the overall height or the grip length. Basically, is a 5" height gun really going to conceal better than a 5.25" gun, if the quarter inch difference is in the slide height?

[TunnelRat]

That will depend also on the holster. If the side is taller that typically means a larger shell if we are talking a kydex/leather hybrid. Now depending on how that larger shell attaches it could have the same effect if the grip was longer and it forced the pistol to shift more rearward rather than forward.

[Dragline45]

As far as concealability goes, for me at least, grip length makes the biggest difference in how a gun conceals, next to grip width. Standing still I can conceal just abut anything, when I am moving around or especially bending over, guns with larger grips poke out the back of my shirt.

[tirod]

Grip width seems to have more attention, and more than one maker is also offering a curved grip to sit closer to the body. With the pistol in a holster at 90 degrees, the butt seems to be the problem child sticking out past our hip - when carried above the waist.

We've cut the grips down to two fingers and still have problems. There's only so much you can do. Tilting the carry forward to a 45 degree position seems to be the better answer. How far behind the hip also has some influence. Drop the holster and not so much. The anatomy widens out front to back and we get better concealment.

Cue Sir Mix-a-lot.

Hence, the IWB low carry. But your pants have to go up another size.

Barrel height over the receiver seems to influence perceived recoil, along with the caliber. The softer shooting guns we've seen seem to be the P7 type gas delayed with extremely low bore lines. Carry it high and vertical, the butt still sticks out, and the width has some influence. Double stack mag guns are more prone to printing than single stack, but it's still an issue. If they stick out they print.

Angle the carry in the holster and the problem is mitigated.

[g.willikers]

It seems to me that it's far more important to choose the size and shape gun that you shoot the best.
And deal with other considerations as needed.
With all the choices of clothes, holsters, and belts, there's always ways to better conceal things.

[AK103K]

Ive found its not so much the size or shape of the gun that matters, as much as its how you choose to carry it, the gear you use, and youre whole attitude about doing so.

IWB type holsters that position the gun properly, and hold the butt in tight, usually work the best. Where you carry it on your body, also can make a major difference.

Ive carried handguns in just about any manner you can come up with, and have found that two work the best, for full sized handguns. AIWB at 12:30-1:00, and IWB, with a forward cant, in that knook under your ribs, at 4-4:30.

AIWB is hands down, the best, but you need to be in reasonably good shape, for the best results. I can easily carry a Glock 17, a reload, and a fixed blade knife, under an untucked, normal sized tee shirt, and wearing my normal size (measured size) pants. No need to go up in size, shirt or pants.

IWB at 4:30 works well, even with a gut, but even better still (and as with most things), if youre in shape. With this position, you do still need to watch how you bend, sit, etc, and are more open to bump frisks, or accidental discovery, if youre not paying attention, and allow people to get close. AIWB eliminates 99% of that worry.

If you want deep concealment, in any mode of dress, and with guns that are bigger than many would consider for normal belt carry, the Smart Carry, is what you want. You can easily carry a Glcok 19 sized handgun, in nothing more than a pair of shorts, or any office dress attire you can come up with.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by ak103

I can easily carry a Glock 17, a reload, and a fixed blade knife, under an untucked, normal sized tee shirt, and wearing my normal size (measured size) pants. No need to go up in size, shirt or pants.

The secret to the "ak103 technique" of being able to cram all kinds of crap into the waistband of your normal size (measured waistband) pants is knowing where to measure your "waist" size:

[AK103K]

What I was getting at is, you can wear the pants you "normally" wear (assuming of course, youre not trying to jam a "Dunlop" in them as well ), you dont dont have to size up to carry IWB. Its actually a mistake to do so, and for a couple of reasons.

For one, your pants dont look like they fit, mainly because they dont. The waist isnt the only part they make bigger.

Two, the holster and gun will move around a lot more, causing you to constantly be fiddling with it. If you wear your normal size, they will feel snug when you first put the gun in, but within a minute or so, will quickly stretch, and your body will adjust, and the gun will stay in place. Once youre accustomed to the gun being there, they are perfectly comfortable.


The pic above clearly shows pants that arent the proper size,and why you dont want to size up. Although the plus there is, the skivies would be a distraction from your gun.


Oh, and my measured waist size, is just at or just above my hip bones, where my pants normally ride, and its a 32. No Dunlop, spare tire, tool shed roof, or muffin tops.

[iMagUdspEllr]

You have to use the overall height measurement because you are concealing the full height of the gun. The last 1/4" still counts whether it is in the slide or the frame. If that last 1/4" wasn't there then your clothing could fall a little bit closer to your body without causing the gun to print.

Of course it is easier to conceal a shorter gun than a taller gun. But, it is usually easier to conceal a thinner gun that is longer than a wider gun that is shorter. I find that the top, outermost corner of the magazine likes to print even in "compact" guns (like a G19) while an XDS, PPS, or Shield with an extended magazine doesn't print in the same position.

[JohnKSa]

The things that matter to me are:

Grip length. That's what sticks out and shows when I move.

Cross-sectional area of the frame/slide. That's what makes a bulge and makes pants fit tighter if you carry IWB.

A shorter grip is good, but if the slide is taller that means more cross-sectional area to deal with, all else being equal. Might have to go up a size on my waistband to accommodate the extra bulk if it's too large.

So far I've resisted having to buy two sizes of pants by not buying pants that are tight in the waistband and by not letting my carry guns get too large.

I can easily carry a Glock 17, a reload, and a fixed blade knife, under an untucked, normal sized tee shirt, and wearing my normal size (measured size) pants.

Do you ever wear these "normal size" pants without all that gear? My experimentation indicates that carrying a G17 IWB requires a 2" larger waistband than normal and that seems to be consistent with what I'm seeing from others who IWB carry guns that large.

[AK103K]

Do you ever wear these "normal size" pants without all that gear?

I do, and they fit properly. Do your 2" larger pants fit properly when the gun isnt there?

I dont buy larger pants because I carry IWB. As I said earlier, its not necessary.

Like the constant din you hear on the internet, that you "cant" possibly carry a full sized gun without everyone knowing, the "you have to wear larger pants" thing is constantly, and almost immediately thrown out there when IWB is discussed. If your normal, properly sized pants are too tight to do so, then they probably werent sized right from the start.

[tirod]

Don't forget that this discussion on the waist measurement of pants depends on who's waist.

If you are trim and buff, the pants fit the hips often enough, the waist may well be a tad loose.

And for those of us with "mature" physiques, the pants hang just below the jelly roll, barely onto the hips, and the whole profile is a funnel (cake powered) shape.

If one poster can tuck a bunch of junk into his waistband after he zips up, more power to him. For a lot others, we zip a lot of junk into the waistband and their aint no mo room.

Regardless of what we carry we will be hitching up our pants as we desperately try to keep the funnel from working against us. And this is part of what is powering two trends - pocket carry, with a light gun that can conceal in those pleats hiding the pockets of slacks known as 'Plus fours" because that's how many there are, and secondly, shoulder holster carry, which is demonized by the duty gun shooters as being somehow so dangerous that it's victims litter the streets. Ok - it's not competition carry. Get over it.

There very much are alternatives to waistband carry. And the vendors are abundant.

It doesn't alleviate the grip length and overall slide height issues, tho. It just transfers them to a different location, and the issues still need to be addressed.

One serious design artifact I see needing correction is the use of spiral wound magazine springs that force more loaded length. The use of clock springs that allow more ammo in the magazine could help. Even so there is a minimum usable length and we very well have approached it with guns like the LCP. You can only go so far. After that you downsize caliber and quantity to the point where .22 Derringers are considered. But - they do solve the size problems, don't they?

How low do you go?

[iMagUdspEllr]

@AK103K:

It isn't true that pants that precisely fit you can somehow magically hold several more items.

There is some slack in pants, people often fall between sizes, and the material can sometimes stretch to some degree. However, if you wear suit pants that are perfectly tailored they aren't going to accommodate nearly the amount of stuff you claim. I think your experience comes from not wearing pants that are precisely tailored, but off-the-shelf pants that are "close enough" but not your exact size. Or perhaps you have a belt that helps you cinch up excess fabric.

I don't understand how this is even up for debate.

[AK103K]

It isn't true that pants that precisely fit you can somehow magically hold several more items.

There is some slack in pants, people often fall between sizes, and the material can sometimes stretch to some degree. However, if you wear suit pants that are perfectly tailored they aren't going to accommodate nearly the amount of stuff you claim. I think your experience comes from not wearing pants that are precisely tailored, but off-the-shelf pants that are "close enough" but not your exact size. Or perhaps you have a belt that helps you cinch up excess fabric.

Nothing magical about it, and I dont believe I said there was.

Im also kind of amazed that carrying three items, IWB, is a lot of "stuff". Then again, I dont have a lot of "extra me" crammed in there either, although I have carried the same items, at 60 pounds and 8" in waist size bigger, for a year or two. It wasnt an issue then either, but I was wearing pants then, that fit my measured size, and not pants vanity led me to "believe" fit.

I do wear off the shelf, and I normally wear the size I measure, and they are very close, at least in the pants I normally wear. I measure 32, I wear 32. They fit properly with out anything stuck in the them, and they are not "tight" when there is something stuck in them. Material and your body do "give" too.

From what I see at work, out and about, and with a couple of friends, a lot of people dont want to admit, that they arent the figure they once were, and "try" to jam their excess, into pants they wore when they were "less". If thats the case and youre trying to carry IWB, then yes, it probably wont work to well for you. Wear the "proper" size, and it shouldnt be an issue.

I don't understand how this is even up for debate.

I dont either, but we are constantly told (as pointed out in a couple of posts above), you must go up a size or two, if you want to carry IWB. Im simply saying, you dont. I base that on 40+ years of actually doing so daily too.

Then again, Ive always carried full size handguns, and from what we constantly hear from the internet experts, we all know that cant be possible. They are way more than a 1/4" to big, in any direction.

[iMagUdspEllr]

@AK103K:

Please forgive me. I wasn't saying that it was actually magic. My point is that if you have a circle with a 32" circumference and you wrap a piece of fabric with a 32" length around it, you can't fit anything else between those two items.

Off the shelf items don't fit precisely. Just because the waist size says "32" doesn't mean they are actually a 32" size. Women know this more than anyone. From one company to the next the same size clothing isn't the same. A "32" isn't really a 32. Combine that with what we both mentioned about fabric stretching and that is how you can manage to fit some stuff in your pants. But, this isn't what tends to happen if you wear fitted suit pants or other clothing that more precisely fits your body. So, it is something people should keep in mind if they aren't wearing off-the-shelf clothing or if they are closer to the upper limit of whatever size they are wearing.

[JohnKSa]

I do, and they fit properly.

The normal definition of “fit properly” does not generally include pants that are 2” larger (or larger) in the waistband than they need to be. I know, from experience, that if I put a full-sized pistol & IWB holster in my waistband my pants don’t fit properly anymore. It can be done, but it’s not feasible for any length of time.

Do your 2" larger pants fit properly when the gun isnt there?

I won’t buy pants 2” too large, that’s why I don’t carry a full-sized pistol IWB. I have experimented with carrying a full-sized pistol IWB and found that I needed pants 2” larger than what I normally wear. With a subcompact the size difference is small enough that I can manage it—but only because I don’t wear my pants tight in the waistband.

I don’t buy larger pants because I carry IWB. As I said earlier, its not necessary.

If you can carry a full-sized pistol IWB then one of two things is true. You're sacrificing a level of comfort that you don't really need to, or you are buying larger pants than really fit you whether you realize it or not. The idea that pants can fit the same both with and without a full-sized pistol inside them doesn’t begin to make sense.

If your normal, properly sized pants are too tight to do so, then they probably weren’t sized right from the start.

The normal definition of “sized right” doesn’t mean that you can comfortably put an additional 2” of full-sized pistol (plus a couple of other items in your case) inside your waistband. If you can do that and your pants aren’t too tight with the gear in there with you then they aren’t “sized right”. By definition they’re at least 2” larger in the waistband then they need to be.

Don't forget that this discussion on the waist measurement of pants depends on who's waist.

Well, sorta… From what I can see it’s more of an issue of attempting to redefine “fit properly” than it is an issue of body type. If someone normally wears pants with a loose fit then they will obviously be able to accommodate more gear inside the waistband than someone who buys pants with a waistband that actually matches their waist size.

I suspect it also has a lot to do with how often people carry. A person who actually carries all the time probably has a very different perspective than someone who has to switch between carrying and not carrying. If I carried all the time, I wouldn’t have a problem buying pants with more room in the waistband and my perception of what was a proper fit might be different than what it is now. Unfortunately I can’t legally carry at work so I have to switch between carrying and not carrying on a fairly frequent basis. So I buy my pants so that they fit without anything stuffed inside the waistband and that definitely limits how much I can put in there without causing undue discomfort.

It may also have to do with how much discomfort a person is able to, or is willing to tolerate.

Im also kind of amazed that carrying three items, IWB, is a lot of "stuff". Then again, I dont have a lot of "extra me" crammed in there either...

It's not so much that it's a lot of stuff, it's that if the pants fit right without the stuff in there then they won't fit right with the stuff in there. It shouldn't be difficult to understand that pants can't fit right both with and without large objects sharing the space with the wearer.

How much of you is crammed in there is irrelevant. Unless the pants are larger than they need to be when you're wearing them without gear, then even if you're rail thin, they will still be too tight once you put a full-sized pistol in there with you.

Material and your body do "give" too.

Ok, so maybe what we're talking about here is about personal tolerance for having one's waistband effectively be a couple inches smaller than it really should be when carrying. People definitely have different tolerances for how tight their waistband can be and I imagine that a determined person without any back problems and with better than average tolerance for discomfort could carry a lot of gear IWB even with pants that were sized properly initially.

...we are constantly told (as pointed out in a couple of posts above), you must go up a size or two, if you want to carry IWB.

That's not what I said. I carry IWB with my normal sized pants, I just have to limit the size of the gun I can carry that way.

And I guess anyone can carry without going up a size or two if they are willing to endure the discomfort of wearing pants that are effectively a couple of sizes too small when carrying. It is certainly true that if a person wants their pants fit like they normally do, it's not going to happen with the same size pants while there's a full-sized pistol and a couple of other items sharing the space. It's not really rocket science.

Then again, I've always carried full size handguns, and from what we constantly hear from the internet experts, we all know that can't be possible.

I don't hear people saying it's not possible. I carry a full size handgun from time to time, just not IWB, and only in fairly limited circumstances as I can't guarantee concealment without altering my dress more substantially than I'm willing to. If I were willing to buy larger pants and to tolerate a bit more printing when I move around normally then I could carry a full sized handgun all the time--at least when wearing the larger pants.

[dakota1911]

It is your body, how you carry and your holsters more than just the size of the gun.

[David9X19P]

What he is saying is a decent EDC, comfort-wise. I do the same thing. He is utterly correct about one thing - AIWB is best when you aren't carrying a belly. I probably am size 30, but go to a 32 when packing the gear. That way things drape naturally under a light garment, and you aren't constrained in normal movement (kneeling, sitting, tying shoes, etc.), your belt doesn't have to be that tight. Full size 1911, G21, or HK45 is not really a problem, but you DO have to shop holsters.

[HighValleyRanch]

It also depend on body shape.
Someone with a 32 waist might be flatter across side to side and narrow front to back, like a long rectangle. But someone with a 36 inch waist might be almost round.

Because I am more the former, I find AIWB easier. Thus the length of the grip is not as critical as if I wore IWB at 3 o'clock. So length of grip to barrel length depends a great deal on body SHAPE as well as where you carry.

If I was more "mature" in my shape, then 3 o'clock might be easier.

Tirod hit it on the head when he said that for those with the former shapes, the pants ride on the hips, so there is more give in the front area with the same size pants. After all, we are not hard shell mannequins, but hard and soft bodies.

[vyse.04]

I also think it is harder to conceal grip length, but carrying AIWB slide length comes into play as well. If I carried on my hip or behind it, the extra barrel length would be less noticeable. I use a RCS Vanguard 2 most of the time, and my Glock 26 disappears under a normal sized t-shirt. If I want to carry at the 4 o'clock position, I have to wear a loose button up/polo, and there is some printing when I bend over if the material isn't as thick. If you want to carry OWB, you will obviously need a longer shirt if you are trying to carry a full sized 1911.

Slide width is the next consideration for me, but two of my holsters are more of the minimalist kydex style, and I use those holsters for my PPS and Glock 42 (which end up being almost as wide as my G26 in a vanguard). Also I will say that I wear the same pants and shorts, whether I am carrying a handgun or not. Some fit a little bit tighter, but I can go without a belt (when not carrying) and they still stay up.