Documented risks of SOB carry

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't believe what you said about springs, and I still don't. Quit hiding behind Wolff Gun Springs.
Click to expand...
Once again yo utoss out a post that has nothing to do with the topic, but since it is here, you are the one who said that the folks at Wolff Gun springs didn't know anything about gun springs.
I'll say again that springs are not weakened by being compressed. They are weakened by the back and forth use. Most everyone knows that, David.
Click to expand...
Apparently the folks at the premier after-market gun spring manufacturer doesn't know that. Now, any chance we can get back to the topic at hand, or do you wish to continue with off-topic attempts to show us all how little you know and to push Hi-Point firearms?
 
I was only responding to what you said, David. You were off topic as well. Show me where I said the folks at Wolff Springs didn't know anything about springs. I said there are employees in every business or work place that may not know what they are talking about. Was every cop on your old police force as smart as you? Why, of course not. Heavens, NO! See, David, that's what I meant.
 
Ok, after pages of reading I'm finally going to chime in here. I wanted to see where this discussion went.

First, let me say that I agree SOB is a bad idea.

Now, what Nigelcorn has been asking/saying is that some of us in the "SOB carry is dangerous" camp have claimed in previous threads that our belief such a method of carry is dangerous is based on well documented evidence.

He has merely asked for this well documented evidence to be presented. He hasn't been arguing that SOB isn't dangerous.

Thus far, some 4 pages in, not a single soul has produced a shred of well documented evidence that SOB carry is dangerous.

I've seen Nigelcorn attacked personally for asking this question and I've seen countless answers that totally avoid addressing his very specific question... but not one post with a single link to any well documented evidence has been presented.

At this point, Nigelcorn is absolutely correct. No documentation can be produced by those of us in the "SOB carry is dangerous to your health" camp.
 
All you have to know is that there is a higher probability of injuring your back carrying SOB than OWB when a 250lb man takes you down and lands on top of you. I received a herniated disk just drawing my weapon and fending off an attacker. injuries happen live with it.
 
I know this isn`t an instance where someone was injured by SOB carry but wasn`t there an issue(seems to me in a library or something) where a guy was carrying SOB and a cop walked up behind guy and took his gun away before he could get turned around. Seems as I remember a thread on it. Just another post,with no documentation. Nigelcorn is right to the fact that people do state 'SOB carry is bad and well documented' and as some have said no documentation given so far, it hasn`t. Some valid examples given here(including my own) but no 'written in stone' documentation. People carry as they wish but does common sense always have to be documented. Lawyers have a field day with just such common sense(or lack of) issue`s (example: lady dumping hot coffee on herself,sueing and collecting,also many documented sickening gun related lawsuits):barf:.
 
but not one post with a single link to any well documented evidence has been presented.
Click to expand...

His standard for well documented is impossibly high, by his own admission.

He refuses to accept personal knowledge of injuries as "evidence".

Question: If the standard for "well documented evidence" is impossibly high (again by his own admission) and personal stories don't count, then what exactly would meet the criteria?
 
I guess my problem is that there are also personal examples (given in those thread as well as others) of injury occurring with other types of carry as well, yet nobody goes around saying that carrying OWB is a well documented risk to your health. It is true that spinal cord injury (however unlikely it might be) is more serious than a fractured iliac crest from OWB, or ruptured spleen, etc. These are probably more likely to happen than true spinal cord injury.

There are risks with all types of carry if you fall on a gun. They are all probably very unlikely. Each will have to decide what risk they are comfortable taking, but it isn't fair for somebody to come along and say that anybody who carries differently than them is going against "well documented" evidence.
 
Question: If the standard for "well documented evidence" is impossibly high (again by his own admission) and personal stories don't count, then what exactly would meet the criteria?
Click to expand...
Good question.

I think this could be asked of people on both sides of the discussion. What do those who believe SOB is dangerous consider to be "well documented evidence"?

What does Nigelcorn feel is "well documented" from his perspective?
 
Still going, huh?

I thought of this thread when I came across a link (provided) with the following recommendation in it, "Officers should avoid placing hard objects (typically handcuffs) on the lumbar spine. In case of a fall, the spine could be injured severely by the handcuffs or similar objects. They also could create back pain from constant pressure on the lower back while sitting in a car. It is recommended that a soft pouch (eg, containing latex gloves) be placed over the lumbar spine."
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Czarnecki/ergonomics_and_safety_in_law_enforcement.htm

Anyway, this thread made me remember a piece of equipment I bought a few years ago. It was a custom ASP holster which was designed to carry an ASP SOB in plainclothes work, with the handle angled and positioned for rapid draw and extension. At the end of the first day my lower back was pretty tender (riding around in the car, getting in & out). After the second day, and trying to move the SOB ASP holster within the limits permitted by my weapon holster, my lower back was downright painful. I couldn't find a way to wear it that didn't cause me pain. Glad I didn't fall down while wearing it.

You know, if you browse among some other forums and threads you can occasionally come across a reference where someone claims that a SOB holster is actually like wearing a back brace.

Lots of folks have opinions.

I'd imagine that someone in the health care field would have the ability to ask other health care providers about subjects such as this, as well as insurance companies, risk management & worker's comp folks.

Me? I don't use SOB holsters, or wear other gear SOB, because I find it uncomfortable at best, and more often downright painful ... and I leave it at that. I've had work-related back (and other) injuries, and I've come to appreciate taking reasonable steps to try and minimize my excessive exposure to further injuries.

Not everyone agrees on some subjects, you know ...
 
There are risks with all types of carry if you fall on a gun.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Here's what it comes down to, IMHO. Imagine in your head a list of all the possible dangers in the world. It''s a long list isn't it. Anyway, by our very nature we try to prevent those dangers, starting with the most serious and frequent ones. As each of these dangers in largely eliminated we move on to the next most serious. Eventually, and we have long since arrived at this point in America, we get so far down the list that the remaining "dangers" are not REALLY dangers at all but more like freak accidents. However, since they are the most dangerous things left, we see them as problems. Do we really need news stories about the dangers of sledding? No, we really don't but the list of things killing and injuring our kids is so small now that "evil, dangerous snow sledding" is near enough to the top of our list to be noticed.

I submit that SOB carry is a similar question.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but we we don't run around saying that everything we personally disagree with is a "well documented" risk. We just say that we think it is stupid. THAT is the point.
Click to expand...

It strikes me that your issue is one of semantics rather than substance.

Of course there are not going to be double-blind, peer-reviewed studies of the risks associated with carrying a handgun in the small of the back. Only human studies would be of relevance and it would be completely unethical to conduct such studies on humans.

Would you not concur that it is reasonable and logical to conclude that carrying a handgun at the small of one's back poses a greater risk of back injury in the case of a fall on the back than other means of carry, regardless of "documentation?"
 
It strikes me that your issue is one of semantics rather than substance.

Of course there are not going to be double-blind, peer-reviewed studies of the risks associated with carrying a handgun in the small of the back. Only human studies would be of relevance and it would be completely unethical to conduct such studies on humans.

Would you not concur that it is reasonable and logical to conclude that carrying a handgun at the small of one's back poses a greater risk of back injury in the case of a fall on the back than other means of carry, regardless of "documentation?"
Click to expand...
Once again we deviate from the question. He's asked for evidence of the "well documented" evidence cited by others. He didn't ask for personal opinions or risk assessments.

Poster "A" claims, "SOB carry poses a danger to ones safety based upon well documented evidence."

Poster "B" asks, "Can you provide a link to this well documented evidence?"

It's not a discussion about what the OP thinks might be a safety risk or not. He's asked for this well documented evidence that's been claimed in previous threads.
 
It strikes me that your issue is one of semantics rather than substance.
Click to expand...

You can't communicate the substance without words, so semantics and substance are not separate.

Once again we deviate from the question.
Click to expand...

Indeed. To a reader convinced of neither position, the avoidance of a direct response to the original question is striking.

Judging from this thread, it is not well documented that SOB carry is particularly dangerous, but the intuition of many is that the risk of serious injury is greater than other methods and is an increase in risk better avoided.
 
I was only responding to what you said, David. You were off topic as well.
Click to expand...
Your response ("David A., are you back at it again? Did you order your HiPoint?") was non-responsive to my post and was also irrelevant to this thread, thus it was off-topic. I think that pointing out that you are off-topic is within the bounds of the topic. That you continue to post off-topic doesn't change that at all. If you have a problem with me, you might want to man up, ID yourself, and take it to PM. No need to clutter up a good thread with this nonsense. Again, if you don't think the folks at Wolff know what they are doing that is your privilege. I and most others know better, and there is already a thread going that discusses that, so there is no need for you to bring your personal attacks and insults over to this thread.
 
Last edited:
Would you not concur that it is reasonable and logical to conclude that carrying a handgun at the small of one's back poses a greater risk of back injury in the case of a fall on the back than other means of carry, regardless of "documentation?"
Click to expand...
While accurate, I'm not sure what such a conclusion would be worth. One could also say that it is reasonable and logical to conclude that carrying a handgun on the right side of the body poses a greater risk of right side injury in the case of a fall on the right side than other means of carry. Or the left side, or the front, and so on.
 
For someone who advocates getting back on topic, David, you certainly do like to keep on arguing for the guys. You wouldn't PM for very long because you won't have anyone to show off to, and I'm not too sure you know much about being a man yourself. Now let's get back on topic and shut up with your phoney tough talk. :p
 
A little bird told me since this thread is going nowhere but downhill quickly, it won`t last much longer. Soooo, for those that wish to carry SOB and God-forbid end up with a back injury or some nice plugs of meat missing out of their back do to hammer and dovetail sticking in back(referring to friend in my earlier post), Please don`t be foolish enough to try sueing the gun or holster manufacturer for not stamping your weapon and carry rig in big bold letters, Caution: In case of fall, SOB carry may result in spinal injuries or someone coming up from behind you grabbing your weapon and killing you or someone else. Wow, all that caution would be ugly stamped on the side of a barrel. Goodluck and say goodnight Alice.
 
I am now carrying SOB full time, because a doctor on the internet said since no one on a firearms forum could provide official documentation that injuries ever resulted from falls, it is 100% safe to do so.
Doctors are smart.
:barf:
 
AFshooter, I would appreciate if you could show me where anybody said that. Really, please quote that for me.


Have you read this thread at all?
 
Van55, I purposely haven't said what my full opinion is (and the reasoning behind it) because I get the impression that nobody is interested in hearing others' opinions. Give me a bit, and when I have a few minutes to post a response, I will answer your question.

As far as the evidence goes, it doesn't have to be a double blinded- peer reviewed article to be counted as good evidence.

People have already pointed out that LE agencies formerly carried SOB frequently. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to compare the incidence of spinal cord injury from falls while on active duty back when SOB was popular to the rates now a days. Before somebody says it, I don't have the time or money to do this type of a study). So, the data is out there, I just don't think anybody has taken the time or initiative to compile it. That is why I asked for the documented evidence, I assumed it might have already been done, but I just couldn't find it.

So, decent evidence could be provided, while not necessarily needing human subjects (or even cadaveric studies), yet still being legit and applicable to the general population. Maybe somebody who makes a living writing gun stories and giving advice should take up the torch?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top