Printable View
I've been researching IWB holsters for a while. I have a Kahr CW40. I'm really not sure if I can carry IWB. I've come up with these two options to try. Would like opinions on each one. I'll be ordering one of these tommorrow. I'd appreciate any input on these.
Thanks Wayne
I believe I've missed your two options?:confused::confused::confused:
yeap, i also missed em. :smoke23:
I'm looking at those two holsters as well (Bare Asset, Stow-N-Go) and will be curious to see the responses.
He was referencing the title of his post - asking for opinions on the "Bare Asset" versus the "Stow N Go" IWB holsters.
For those who missed it, the two options were in the subject line. The Bare Asset (from High Noon) and the Stow-N-Go (Galco).
I'd highly recommend you go a little less "minimalist", though I think I see where you're heading. These two are really very barely "holsters" IMO.
I own the "Mr. Softy" from High Noon, it is exactly as the Bare Asset, with the exception that is it straight instead of canted. It is very thin, I bought it because of that. Got it right handed though I'm a lefty, for a 3 inch 1911 (lightweight frame). My intention was as an SOB at 7:00 with palm out draw (I like that mode of carry from time to time) and as an option for weak side carry (always good to possess in case of some sort of injury to the strong side, for use while recovering).
This holster will not allow re holstering one handed. It will move around a little sometimes, (change angles) and though it is thin, is not always the most comfortable or present the best draw. It's very much akin to the cheap "clip on" suede holsters sold by the well known mass marketers of holsters (perhaps a small step above).
The Galco is essentially the same as a Galco pocket holster I bought (for the same lightweight 3 inch 1911). I'll predict some of the same issues as with the Bare Asset here, though it does have a reinforced top to allow easier re holstering. My pocket holster has only seen minimal pocket use.
Really, I think you can do much better with either brand (or others). Just because the firearm is a nice small package is no reason to keep the holster to an absolute minimum. I'd highly suggest something molded to your specific firearm. By buying the proper holster, a firearm like that will be comfortable and easily hidden 100% of the time. That's the best of both worlds IMHO.
Thanks T Bone, for your input. I'm looking at these two cause I'm 5'10" and 240. I wear t shirts and shorts or jeans most of the time. I 've had my ccw for a couple years now, but never carried all the time. I had a Kel-tec P11 before the Kahr CW40. When I felt the need to carry, I'd just slip the P11 in my pocket. I never tried any concealment holsters before. Now that I have the Kahr, it being a single stack, I would like to start carring it most of the time. I've been reading here for a while now, and thought I would try something.OWB is really not an option, though. I will not be carrying all day as my job won't allow. It will be mostly in the evening and on weekends.
Thanks Wayne
I have a "bare asset" and I do not like it. It has no slide "body" protector and is too thin. Me...I am now going for the FIST #1 holster.
I guess I'll confuse you some more here, but I have used both of the holsters you listed for my CW9 and Glock 19. I currently use a "Bare Asset" for both my CW9 and Glock 19 when I carry IWB. I like them. They hold the gun securely and the clip hooks securely to a 1 3/4" belt. I personally do not have any trouble reholstering one handed with the Bare Asset but I did with the Galco. Someone with more girth to their waist could have a problem since they are thin holsters. Overall I like the Bare Asset a lot better than the Galco but carry IWB most often now.
Thanks for the replies. Yesterday I ordered a "clipper" from Mitch Rosen. I had been looking at this holster for some time, but just didn't want to spend that much. I read some good things about it anyway. Well they told me 2 weeks at most. Hope it's worth it.
Thanks Wayne
We tried the slide "body" protector in the orginal R&D work on that holster. The leather is to thin and it flopped back and forth. You have to go to a much thicker leather for that and we do make many IWB"s with that feature. Also,thin is what we were going for when we designed it. Its hard to be uncomfortable wearing a Bare Asset.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgfvr
Take Care
Alex
It is, indeed, thin...I ordered one for my "thicker" pistol: PT145. It does work well...I just have to wear a T-shirt or something to keep the slide off my skin.
I actually have been using my new Glock 26 in the same holster...it seems to work well (having similar dimensions as the PT145 and also thick). I do have to be careful reholstering as the holster is so thin, it is difficult at times finding the mouth with the G26.
Dawgfvr -- if you're looking to sell that Bare Asset, please let me know. I'd like to try one out to see if it is what I'm looking for with my PM9, but am concerned about buying one and not liking it. We all have a drawer filled with holsters that didn't meet our needs in the long run.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgfvr
Thanks.
alnitak: They are fairly inexpensive and not actually form fitted to a particular weapon...I do think you will need to get one that actually fits your particular "size" weapon in order to make a good assessment. I wore mine yesterday, size 27, which I ordered for my PT145...and which fits my G26 as well...and it really seemed quite comfortable. You need to wear a T-shirt, the bare assest and an outer shirt for good comfort. It is very thin...difficult to reholster without looking...but then, I'm not a LEO and I am more concerned about carrying concealed with comfort and the actual weapon presentation.
Thanks Dawgfvr. I will check out the site for the appropriate size.
I'm with you...it's not a range pistol, so I'm not too worried about reholstering it. I intend to shoot it if drawn -- not just flashed around and put back. :smile: If I have to look down and use two hands to reholster, should be no problem -- the threat will have evaporated by then.