GJM
12-20-14, 14:53
I asked the following question:
If you carry AIWB, do you also use another position? The two choices were essentially, yes (meaning they carry appendix exclusively) or no (meaning they carry or train in other positions).
I didn't provide further guidance on what or what not constituted "exclusive." The poll ran ten days on three leading forums -- PF, M4 and TPI.
Here were the results:
On PF, 74 people responded, and it was split 37/37, or 50/50.
On TPI 76 people responded, and it was split 46/30, with 60.53% carrying in multiple positions and 39.47 % reporting they carried appendix exclusively.
On M4, 89 people responded, and it was split 60/29 with 67.42% carrying in multiple expositions and 32.58% carrying appendix exclusively.
I was frankly surprised how many people reported carrying appendix exclusively, as much of the world, as typified by LE, IDPA and USPSA Production, is not appendix friendly. Conversely, I suspect a number of appendix devotees might also be surprised by how little of the appendix world carries appendix exclusively.
In a number of conversations, I have come to realize that this is an extremely controversial subject. Here are some variations:
Many people believe that carrying a pistol in more than one position is likely to lead to drawing to the wrong position in a fight.
Many people who carry appendix and OWB, equally believe that they will not have a problem finding their pistol.
Folks who think appendix is dangerous, and wouldn't use it, but are equally committed to only carrying in one position.
Folks who think open versus concealed in the same position is really two different positions.
Folks that, for example, carry in a fanny pack, considering that a different carry method. Other folks not considering fanny pack a different position than, for example, appendix.
When you try to drill down into whether carrying two positions is an issue, there isn't much hard data, and much of what you hear is anecdotal. It would be interesting to try to test this. Then when you have that data, quantify the penalty in time to the extent there is one, and then figure out if it is something that can be trained.
If you carry AIWB, do you also use another position? The two choices were essentially, yes (meaning they carry appendix exclusively) or no (meaning they carry or train in other positions).
I didn't provide further guidance on what or what not constituted "exclusive." The poll ran ten days on three leading forums -- PF, M4 and TPI.
Here were the results:
On PF, 74 people responded, and it was split 37/37, or 50/50.
On TPI 76 people responded, and it was split 46/30, with 60.53% carrying in multiple positions and 39.47 % reporting they carried appendix exclusively.
On M4, 89 people responded, and it was split 60/29 with 67.42% carrying in multiple expositions and 32.58% carrying appendix exclusively.
I was frankly surprised how many people reported carrying appendix exclusively, as much of the world, as typified by LE, IDPA and USPSA Production, is not appendix friendly. Conversely, I suspect a number of appendix devotees might also be surprised by how little of the appendix world carries appendix exclusively.
In a number of conversations, I have come to realize that this is an extremely controversial subject. Here are some variations:
Many people believe that carrying a pistol in more than one position is likely to lead to drawing to the wrong position in a fight.
Many people who carry appendix and OWB, equally believe that they will not have a problem finding their pistol.
Folks who think appendix is dangerous, and wouldn't use it, but are equally committed to only carrying in one position.
Folks who think open versus concealed in the same position is really two different positions.
Folks that, for example, carry in a fanny pack, considering that a different carry method. Other folks not considering fanny pack a different position than, for example, appendix.
When you try to drill down into whether carrying two positions is an issue, there isn't much hard data, and much of what you hear is anecdotal. It would be interesting to try to test this. Then when you have that data, quantify the penalty in time to the extent there is one, and then figure out if it is something that can be trained.