I’m looking for a Kydex owb holster for M&P9FS/X300 for training/league/first line belt use. Not iwb, as I have a holster that I’m happy with for this purpose. Has anyone been able to use both the Spada and the Phantom and come up with a fave? I’d like an option of using this holster with both 1.5" loops as well as a molle strap set-up for a belt/chest-rig use. I’ve also considered the blade-tech, but am a little unclear on the mounting options for loops/molle straps. If the Phantom LC would secure my M&P without a light, It would probably sell me. I was told that the peters would not perform this function.
My phantom will not secure my M&P 9 FS without my X300.
MookNW-
The RCS Phantom LC does not retain the weapon with the light removed. I get asked that question on a daily basis, and my response is always the same:
Why would you want to take the light off? If you have a holster that gives you the ability to conceal and rapidly deploy a pistol with a weapon-mounted light, what would be your motivation to remove such a valuable tool?
If there IS some overwhelming, unavoidable purpose for taking the light off, I advise simply buying a second holster to fulfill this need.
With regard to MOLLE/PALS mounting, I generally advise against it with our products. We are Raven CONCEALMENT Systems. Our products are designed and manufactured to be very concealable, and very fast. Mounting our holsters on war belts and chest rigs strikes me as a sub-optimal use of a specialized item…kinda like using a Corvette to haul mulch.
I use my time in training classes and competition to hone my “real world” skills. Very few people on this forum walk around in a chest rig or with a war belt on in their day-to-day lives; therefore, I advocate utilizing your daily carry gear in class/competition rather than building a specialized rig.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Thanks for your input Michael.
Competition.
In IDPA you cannot compete with a light attached to the gun. Some clubs will simply let you shoot anyway and give you a bunch of penalties, some will outright bar you from competing, and obviously you’re not going to be able to participate in a sanctioned or state match that way.
If there IS some overwhelming, unavoidable purpose for taking the light off, I advise simply buying a second holster to fulfill this need.
While this is what most of us (myself included) do, at a 3+ month wait time and $75 for the second holster, surely you can see why some might want to avoid having to do that.
I think it’s a testament to your product that people want to press it into service in applications that you may not necessarily think fit it.
Bladetech has a wide variety of mounting systems, including MOLLE and loops. Bladetech makes a nice holster, as does Raven. Personally, I don’t need concealment, don’t need light accommodation, and didn’t want to wait 13 weeks, so I ended up with the Bladetech. It’s working out very well for me - no regrets.
We understand that there are a lot of armed individuals who use various competitive circuits to keep themselves sharp. I’ll defer back to Michael’s point, we build gear to carry on the street, not to shoot competitions with. While our holster works well in a competition environment, that is not our primary objective.
Furthermore, there are some circuits out there who do allow lighted pistols. To me, that would be more realistic practice for someone who carries with a light, but likes to shoot competitively for fun and/or to stay on their game. I shoot in one such circuit in Michigan.
I would like to see the shooting sports evolve to allow these tools, especially the ones with ‘defensive’ or ‘practical’ in their name. Lighted guns are here to stay, it would be nice for the big names in the competition world to recognize them.
It would be equally nice if manufacturers didn’t use their limitations and current backlog as justification of a position or hole in their product line.
I like Raven’s products, use them, and recommend them, but I have to say both your post and Michael’s come across as condescending, and as little more than excuses at best. Tone is hard to convey on the internut, but FWIW the tone I’m getting reading these posts is pretty insulting.
Rather than innovate and find ways to make holsters that do what you already do, AND accommodate the other wishes of the customer you instead talk down to them as if what they are asking is a silly request. I know you guys are busy right now thanks to a quality product and some fortuitous product placement and endorsements, but I wouldn’t let that get to the point that it’s causing stagnation, otherwise one or more of the various upstarts that get pegged as “Raven knockoffs” will figure out a way to fill those needs and requests and find themselves on the next trendy DVD.
There are segments of the shooting community who would see a value in a holster that can be utilized both with and without a light, and the fact that people are asking the best ways to attach your holsters to the various types of MOLLE load carriage indicates to me that there are not a lot of options out there for doing that and that they want to utilize the features they’ve come to appreciate from Raven in additional applications. Instead of brow-beating the customers and falling back to “we don’t do that and you’re stupid if you want to” I would think finding a way to meet their needs to keep up that popularity would be a better approach. ARMS was hot shit and selling everything they made on the commercial market at one time, but they didn’t listen, Mark Larue did, and now ARMS is lucky to have their govt. contracts as I can’t remember the last time I saw one of their products on a civilian gun.
Food for thought.
Yikes. I think you took the tone of my post completely opposite of how it was intended. I am here to stay current on the happenings in this industry, and to interact with our current/potential customers. I am certainly not here to cause static or enter debates. I have much too little time for that.
Likewise, you are making some pretty bold assumptions as to what may or may not be in our prototype stages at the moment.
Apologies if I offended you, it was not my intention.
Take care,
FWIW, the local indoor range started IDPA & USPSA matches that run in the evenings. They created a separtate class in IDPA for those that use weaponlights. I compete in it (though I’m master in SSP) using my everyday carry gear; Phantom LC for G19/X300, RC mag pouches and some kind of button up shirt.
The kicker is one of the stages is shot in the dark.
Jealous feelings erupt then…
Rob, are you and I reading the same thread? I did not pick up the condescending tone you did.
Would it be nice if there was a holster that accommodated the same pistol with or without a light? Heck yeah! Is there one that does? Not that I know of.
The Safariland 6004 is the gold standard for drop leg holsters but I wouldn’t think of using my Glock 17 without a light, in a 6004 that was made for pistol+light. Do I have two 6004’s for my Glock 17? Yes. Last time I checked, they cost more than a Phantom.
I don’t see how Tom and Michael’s explanations and advocating using a pistol with a light is connected to their backlog. Frankly that was a cheap shot.
I do happen to use a Phantom on a duty belt, but my mission parameters dictate that I role heavy, yet concealed.
I do find it interesting that when the reps for a company take the time to respond to their customers on a public forum, somehow some people manage to twist and miscontrure it into excuse making and looking down upon those very same customers to whom they are responding.
Before I go any further, let me apologize to anyone who interpreted the tone of my comments as being condescending. That was not what I intended.
I will attempt to respond to a few points here, but I suspect that this thread might be branching off enough to warrant a topic of its own soon.
There is a reason why we do not/will not make certain items, and that reason has nothing to do with our current order backlog. My response would have been the same if I had NO backlog. As a manufacturer, we constantly have to balance meeting customer expectations while still adhering to our core design principles.
A good example of this is the “front-break” holster. Once or twice a month, I get a request for a holster that would enable the shooter to seat his firing grip, and then commence his “bowling league” draw stroke straight out the front of the holster. Therein lies my dilemma: Do I assume “the customer is always right” and make the holster per his request? Or do I instead take the time to politely explain that there are perhaps better ways to draw a firearm and that a LOT of thought and research went into designing our holster the way it is currently?
We are not mercenaries who simply bend Kydex into any shape requested by any person willing to pay us. We have a great deal of expertise within the realm of concealed carry, and with that base of knowledge comes the responsibility to know when to say “we don’t think that’s a good idea, and here’s why.”
Rob, in my original post, I didn’t say “that’s stupid.” I asked “why would you?” It was a fair question, and so far, the only reason that has been offered is “IDPA rules.” To that end, all I can say is: We aren’t a competition holster company. We make holsters for people who need to be able to conceal a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. If my product HAPPENS to also work well for some people within the competitive shooting world, great. But I am not going to increase the complexity of my product to appease a market share that is outside our target demographic.
Your statement implies that we are somehow not innovating simply because we have chosen to tailor our product for a specific consumer segment. That is a rediculous assertion. I can assure you that the coming months will prove that the innovation we have brought to the holster industry thus far was just the tip of the iceberg.
Curiously, I don’t see you calling out Race Master to make their rigs more concealable and to cover more of the weapon, or for Milt Sparks to offer more designs in Kydex. And I certainly don’t see you addressing this problem at the source by taking the IDPA rules committee to task over the absurdity of banning weapon mounted lights.
Over the years, I’ve heard many a tale of guys field stripping their Glocks and putting them in the dishwasher to clean them. Despite how effective the dishwasher might be for cleaning firearms with minimal work, I doubt anyone would email Whirlpool to tell them “hey, you guys really need to make special racks for your dishwashers so I can put my AR uppers and my Glock frames in the same wash cycle.” And truthfully, Whirlpool would be doing the right thing to respond with something along the lines of “Ummm…it’s a DISHwasher. It’s not designed for that. Have you ever considered just getting an ultrasonic parts cleaner?”
It’s ironic that you cite Mark LaRue as an example. It is public knowledge that the driving force behind LaRue’s product development is to equip the warfighter; the civilian market doesn’t even enter the equation. It’s also public knowledge that he makes no apologies for his products, and frequently tells people to go fuck themselves if they don’t like how he does things. I respect him for what he makes, how he stands behind his products, and stands up for his philosophy of business. I don’t see you posting any internet warnings to him that he might lose his market share.
There are many ways to skin a cat if you’re trying to make money in the firearms industry. The hardest, but most rewarding way, is to be a top tier manufacturer that focuses on equipping the guys who are on the tip of the spear. Once word gets out that CAG or DEVGRU or the Rangers or HRT or the Secret Service uses “XYZ” product, the civilian market will line up to buy it as well. That’s how LaRue did it. That’s how we have done it.
I know a LOT of people have used our products on various MOLLE/PALS platforms using zip ties, 550 cord, kydex strips, home-made Natick straps, etc. That doesn’t mean I advise it. Due to the way we set retention on our holsters, you can’t get the same “just right” retention strapping a Phantom to your chest rig or war belt as you can by wearing it on a quality gun belt. People can use our products how they see fit. But if they ask for advice on an open forum that I frequent, I’d be negligent to not chime in and try to steer them toward a better solution. I don’t think that makes me an asshole, and I seriously think you’re being a bit melodramatic by trying to insinuate that we’re going to lose our hard-earned market share by telling guys “hey dudes, it’s a concealment holster and we don’t advise you using it outside that scope of mission.”
Rob, you go to a lot of classes. You shoot in a lot of competitions. You post a lot on the forums, and you operate a blog website. That presence gives you a bully pulpit of sorts, which gets you a lot of free and discounted gear from people in the industry. Many times I agree with your posts, but there are times (like this) you stray so far outside your lane that you’re not even on the pavement anymore.
Everyone at RCS attends training on a regular basis (not just the owners). In fact, we pay the tuition and travel costs for our employees when they attend classes. This keeps everyone’s skills sharp, and also gets us valuable face-time with our customers. We are active on the forums. We even manage to set up at gun shows once in a while. Anyone who would insinuate that we are not responsive to our customers’ needs isn’t looking at the whole picture.
I never said “we WON’T make a Phantom LC that can retain the weapon with the light removed,” I asked WHY we should. You’re just going to have to give me a more compelling reason than to appease the rulebook of the IDPA. Two of the founders of IDPA use my gear, so I think I’m on pretty solid ground on this one.
Rob, sometime we should meet for drinks or a range day so we can talk in person again (it’s been almost 2 years since that brief intro at SHOT). I’d be happy to give you more insight into what we do, why we do it, and where our company and products are headed. And I’d be happy to hear your ideas for gear for the civilian shooter.
Again, my apologies for the “thread-drift,” and for anyone I may have offended with the perceived tone of my posts.
Personally, I though Rob_s made some valid points, and I thought Michael provided an excellent rebuttal. And all very respectful…I appreciate that.
Michael,
A very tactful reply sir.
I personally did not find anything condescending in either your or Tom’s posts.
That being said, I DO run a seperate LC for my M&P on my BatBelt
(trying to get away from the dropleg Safariland 6004), and I find it
works well…just threaded the kydex loops thru the Molle and a couple
of Ty-raps and GTG. Do I wear a Molle belt daily? No, Wilderness
5 stitch w/insert. But long training days necessitate a padded belt for me ,so I adapt and overcome…
thanks for a great product line and continued customer support.
WD
I am relatively new to this forum and do not think Tom or Michael were meaning to express any condescension. There is no reason for doing so as it is counter productive to their goal here. However, I sensed some frustration in Michael’s post so I can see how someone might interpret the post in such a way. Just reading Micheal’s post a voice in my head said “oh no I do not like where this could be going.” I am just glad someone as senior as Rob stepped up with a response so we could keep this civil and respectful. Personally, I understand the limitations of currently available holsters and have purchased a separate holster that will accept my G17 without a light mounted. Even given the option I would still elect to have a separate holster but I could understand the desire for some to save the money.
Sorry for not clarifying that I did not need concealment as job 1 from this holster. For a guy my size, there’s no concealing a carbine slung around my neck and 3 p-mags on a belt- these are the league/training conditions of which I plan to use said holster.
My handgun wears a light in the nightstand and at the range. I have a very comfortable and functional IWB for carrying in public, and do not wish to carry with a weaponlight attached.
I may wish to shoot w/o a weaponlight on occasion, to better my skill with nightsights or shooting in a lit environment. All-in-all, I wanna shoot my gun with/without a light attached. This would make a light/no-light holster beneficial.
If RCS holsters don’t perform the function I was hoping for… oh well, neither does anyone else. By the time anyone does come out with a holster like this, I’m sure surefire will have some sick-ass light that is 1/2 as long and wide as my x300 and twice as bright. Then I’ll carry a weaponlight, then I may buy a concealment holster for it.
If RCS isn’t recommended for the belt system that I hope to use it for, then an RCS is the wrong choice for me. It’s not a big deal. I’m glad I got the info I did, because with the wait involved for both contenders, I would be upset to have gotten the wrong one for my purposes. Thanks.
The only holster that I’m aware of that will hold a gun with or without light is the Safariland ALS, and it conceals like a brick. If you’re running competitions to beat the competitors, buy a competition rig. If you’re running competitions to improve yourself, run your normal rig and take the penalties…it’s just a game.
That’s just my two cents; worth exactly what you paid for it.
It would be nice if the RCS Phantom worked with and without the light attached. It would be nice if they could devote the time to R & D a new design. I’m a glass half full guy; I appreciate that they even make a holster that will allow a light, even though their business is concealment gear. Their owner stated his reasons and they were good for me.
I find an OWB Phantom fully concealable and like the one I have W/O light capability. I am going to borrow my friends WITH light capability to see if I like it before ordering and waiting.