LaserMax: a report on communication and customer service

Ruger SR9c with LaserMax Micro

As I reported here earlier, I have been experiencing communications issues with LaserMax regarding my request to acquire a review unit for testing and evaluation for this blog. After a few misfires, I sent a note to a different individual with LaserMax explaining the issue and requesting a reply. That reply came the next day.

LaserMax has engaged an experienced person to take charge of their customer relations activities and she is actively working to improve standards and response times for the company. She has a great deal of experience in the firearms industry and, from what I can judge of her actions to date, is dedicated, responsive and helpful.

Sometimes, especially in periods of rapid growth, organizations become overwhelmed and drop the ball on a few things. The good ones take a step back, listen to their customers and make adjustments and organizational changes as necessary to get back on track. I think LaserMax is doing this, and focused on improving as a company especially in terms of listening to and satisfying their customers. I am very pleased to have an open line of communication and expect to be able to review some of their products and report my findings here.

Stay tuned.

Actual Facts

I have been in correspondence with many of my state and national legislators, and have written my views directly to the White House. In response, and in some stories I have read in various media, people who are pushing an agenda often quote supposed "facts" in order to substantiate their claims and viewpoints. Now, there is nothing wrong with using facts to oppose or support a given topic, but often what are presented as "facts" are not objective and real. Many statistics and so-called facts are not without bias, sometimes extreme. One example I have seen references a study that if a certain measure were to be passed by the legislature, it would cost the average person over $700 per year more to pay their basic expenses - food, utilities, rent, etc. While this may be true in the aggregate, the study failed to take into consideration a projected $300 per year general cost of living increase, whether the measure under discussion passed or not. The real fact was a $400 increase, not $700.

There is an organization of researchers who find and publish actual factual data, regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not. It is really not a matter of debate, but of provable fact derived from actual data. Studies with a high degree of objectivity and integrity. Statutes. Laws. Regulations. See them at http://www.justfacts.com

The, of course, have a section on gun control. It is quite extensive, even containing relevant state and federal statutes. At the beginning, there is a very interesting section of facts that anyone engaging in reasonable and rational discussions about firearms and violence should be familiar with. There are frequently 'facts' quoted in the media that seem to indicate that guns in the hands of citizens don't deter crime. However, the statistics and facts compiled by this organization speak otherwise.

I encourage you all to visit www.justfacts.com and see for yourself, but I am also quoting the beginning part of their section on gun control that I think can serve as good information to educate those who are opposed to gun ownership out of fear, misunderstanding and reliance on biased 'facts'.

From www.justfacts.com

"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12. http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Finding What You Want » Click on the footnote numbers for meticulous documentation of each fact. Introductory Notes This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available. Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results. Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility. Ownership * As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5] * Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7] * Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:  Households With a Gun  Adults Owning a Gun  Adults Owning a Handgun Percentage  40-45%  30-34%  17-19% Number  47-53 million  70-80 million  40-45 million [8] * A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership: Category  Percentage Owning a Firearm Households  42% Individuals  30% Male  47% Female  13% White  33% Nonwhite  18% Republican  41% Independent  27% Democrat  23% [9] * In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons: Protection Against Crime  67% Target Shooting  66% Hunting  41% [10] Crime and Self-Defense * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12] * Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16] * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19] * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20] * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] * Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."

pjholsters Update

A few months ago I received a new IWB holster for the Ruger LC9 from Paul Giannaula, owner and chief bottle washer at phjolsters.com  I reviewed it here. I was very impressed with the workmanship Paul managed to put into this holster. Kydex holsters can be pretty perfunctory - basic, get the job done, but nothing special. But, Paul's creations are different. The holsters he produces are thin, smooth, well moulded and effective. They are also becoming more popular and with good reason. I hope to highlight some of those reasons here.

A few weeks back I got another pjholster, this time an OWB straight drop belt clip for the LC9.

pjholster OWB for the Ruger LC9 belt clip view
There is a slight cant built into the clip, but not enough to matter for my purposes.

pjholster OWB for the Ruger LC9 end-on view

pjholster OWB for the Ruger LC9 front (outside) view

As I expected it was made to the same high standards as the IWB holster. I adjusted the tension with the single screw on the holster to my liking and slipped it over my belt. First thing I noticed is that it is an exact fit to my 1 1/2" Bear Creek gun belt. The belt clip on this holster is made an integral part of the holster and it's wide enough to solidly lock the holster onto the belt.

The second thing I noticed is that this holster sits tight to the belt and snug to the body. That, combined with the thin kydex Paul uses on this model makes for excellent concealment. There is very little width added to the gun by this holster, and the LC9 is a pretty thin pistol for a 9 mm - one of it's characteristics that makes it an outstanding carry gun - and that, combined with being kept close to the body and locked firmly to the belt gives me the peace of mind to know that it's going to stay where I put it, and it's not going to show under a proper cover garment. Even a loose T-shirt is sufficient to conceal this setup.

Strong side

Showing the thinness of the kydex and how close the holster rides.

Very snug.

Another characteristic of note is the combination of the tension screw with the expertly moulded shape of the holster. The gun snaps in with authority, held securely by the moulded shape of the holster. I played a bit with the tension. With the screw set to a loose tension, the pistol still was grasped securely by the kydex. With the tension screw cranked down, it was somewhat tighter of course, but still easy and smooth to draw. I'm not sure how Paul manages this, but I suspect it is a characteristic of a process that requires time and attention to detail when he makes a holster for a specific gun.

Most of the time, I prefer to carry in the cross draw position, especially when I'm going to get in a lot of car time or sitting around in public time. I always experiment with a new holster to see how it will perform as a cross draw rig. I moved the pjholster and the LC9 around to the cross draw spot. It was like it was made for it. Being a relatively straight drop design, the holster was locked onto the belt and pulled in close. Importantly, it stayed that way.

Moved to the cross draw position.

Same position, showing how it remains close to the body.

Another shot in the same position.

This is more important with a cross draw setup since the butt of the pistol points forward, toward the midline, and if it cants out a bit, you'll have a sharp poky shape pushing out the front of your shirt. Not a good thing.

I have tried a number of holsters made for cross draw and none are completely satisfactory. They have all been leather of various designs intended to keep the holster close and upright, but leather, being what it is, will get some flexibility with wear and I've found that when this happens, the weight of the gun, being mostly above the belt line, will pull it out and away from the body. To counter this you have to cinch your belt tight, tight enough that it is just damn uncomfortable after a while.

I've now come to the conclusion that an effective OWB cross draw holster made for concealment will likely have to be made from kydex. Kydex does not get loose or soft over time. It can be thin enough to not add bulk, and with the right design can be made to stay firm and upright all of the time. I haven't seen one yet, but I'm hopeful. For now, Paul's OWB, belt clip, straight drop is doing the job just fine.

If you are in the market for an OWB design, I suggest you give Paul a try. He has an unconditional 30-day guarantee so you won't have anything to lose and you might find he has the setup for you.

Hays Cross Draw Holster

As you will know if you've read the entries in this blog, I favor cross draw for concealed carry. If you don't and are interested in why, check the prior blog post on that here.

I contacted Jeff Hays of Colorado about his cross draw holsters for the LCP after reading complimentary postings on the forums I frequent and moderate. I like to carry OWB when I can, especially around the house with the LCP, but I had not been able to locate a really good holster for that. The other OWB holsters I have tried have one issue in common: they don't keep the gun tight to the body, which is essential if you don't want the grip to print. Those holsters work well if you will be wearing a coat, jacket or vest, but with a light shirt, which is what I normally wear in the summer, they do not adequately keep the gun from printing.

Jeff sent a cross draw holster made for the LCP with Crimson Trace Laserguard. I have been wearing it for most of the day and evenings for about a week now and can report that it works, and works very well. In addition to keeping the LCP reasonably tight to the body the holster is made to ride high on the belt, keeping the vast majority of leather out of sight. Now, these are characteristics of a concealed holster that work against one another - tight is compromised by the fact that the majority of weight of holster and gun is above the belt. This will promote a tendency for the top of the gun to lean out away from the body. Some makers may use very thick and stiff leather to counter this, but Jeff has chosen to do this by the way in which the belt slots are placed and designed. They spread the force across a wide area which, so far, has worked very well. He uses quality leather, but not overly thick, which can be uncomfortable for daily wear.

Overall, I am very pleased with Jeff's holster design for the LCP cross draw. As I continue to wear it daily I will be able to report on how well it holds up over time. His prices are very reasonable and the quality of workmanship is first rate. If you are at all interested in a good cross draw holster, or the OWB pancake design of Jeff's other offerings, contact him at: www.haysholsters.com (hayesholsters will get you to a different site, so don't add an "e" to hays...)

Here are a few initial photos. More and better ones will follow.

Under a basic cold-weather shirt.

Note how high the holster rides above the belt top. My pocket is still accessible.

A close, tight fit but the grip is still readily accessible.

There is still room to adjust where the pistol rides on the side.

After Christmas Update, and bad propaganda

I took time away from writing and blogging over Christmas and New Years to spend time with family. During that break I stumbled across a blatantly biased propaganda video on YouTube which I need to vent about a little here. It was advertised as a rebuttal to those people who believe in carrying arms for self defense. Unfortunately, it is not an objective, well-reasoned argument that is open for rebuttal, rather it is a pretty obvious attempt to push an agenda with a biased argument.

The video, which was produced, allegedly, by a national news organization, is based around the following scenario: an average person is given some basic target practice training with a handgun built to resemble a Glock-type semiautomatic weapon but that fires a paint projectile. This person is taught how to carry the weapon in a strong-side concealment holster, with a thumb break and then put in a mock classroom with other 'students' (who happen to be police officers if I remember correctly).  The trainee is the only one in the room with a weapon. Everyone in the classroom is dressed in protective clothing, with helmets and face shields. They pretend they are in a class with someone instructing at the podium when a 'gunman', actually the officer who trained the young man with the gun who is acting a student, enters and begins to shoot.

The trainee jumps up, tries to get to his gun, which hangs up with his shirt as he tries to free it, he is shot twice by the 'gunman'.

Wow. That's proof that the average person is incapable of handling a firearm and protecting even himself, forget about others.

But.... Not so fast. Here is what really happened.

The young man was experienced at shooting an airsoft gun at a paper target. He was given basically the same 'training' with his Glock-like paint gun. No other self-defense handgun training, just stand there and shoot paint pellets at a target for a while.

He was given a concealment holster with a thumb break. Now, most of us don't use a thumb break on a concealment holster because it is concealed, and a good holster doesn't need a thumb break to secure the weapon.

He was dressed with a tight-fitting, long bodied and long sleeved heavy T-shirt which fit snugly around the gun and holster. This is something that one normally would not wear with a concealed weapon. First of all, it prints badly. Second, it can be an impediment to getting access to your weapon.

The "gunman". Here is where it gets really biased. At some point in the 'lecture', the gunman entered, raised his gun and started shooting. Who did he target first? Our trainee of course. The officer who had trained our subject knew exactly where he was sitting and who he was. So, while our subject attempted to free his gun from his t-shirt and thumb break holster, while being targeted immediately by the gunman, he was shot twice. The gunman did not bother to shoot at anyone else.

Sound like a setup to you? Did to me too.

While there is no guarantee that a legally-armed individual sitting in a lecture hall could stop a sudden attack by a gunman, it is almost certain that in a real situation the legally-armed student would not be at the same disadvantages as our trainee was burdened with. For example, my handgun is carried in such a position and with a good holster such that I can access it pretty quickly without worrying about hanging up in clothing or dealing with a thumb break holster. There is also little chance that a gunman would pick me out as the only armed individual in the room and open fire on me right away. Possible that I might be the first one targeted, but highly unlikely. Even so, the gunman would have to be accurate and be able to put a round or two into me right away. Also unlikely.

I think little more needs to be said about this with a couple of exceptions.

If you carry for self defense (a category that, for me, includes the defense of innocent people who happen to be involved) you must be able to react realistically and accurately. You must so equip yourself that your carry system is reliable - you can quickly get to your gun from almost any position, especially sitting -, your gun is reliable - it shoots when you pull the trigger -, and that you can absolutely hit what you aim at. This is especially true when there are innocent people and bystanders involved.

A final point. I would rather have a citizen struggling to access their gun in a situation like that than for everyone to be unarmed and totally at the mercy of a killer with a gun.