Well, I started out with an uncle mike's, found it too be nice and compact, adjustable cant, but when I put my USPcompact in it it seemed to lean to far out from the body, seemed somewhat topheavy, and the holster was damn near impossible to get off! Took it back and traded for the Fobus, this is thinner kydex, somewhat deeper, but pulls the weapon closer in, feels more balanced and is easier to take on/off. My vote is for Fobus!!! It's a great holster for the price 20.00.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fobus vs. Uncle Mikes Kydex
- Thread starter sox
- Start date
9mmepiphany
New member
i've had very good luck with my fobus too. started with one for my smith J-frame and glock 19, then added one for the beretta 92/96 and the hk usp...tried for one for the L-frame but my distributor was out of stock. great but, secure on both the gun and the belt/waistband and "forces a correct draw".
heard some good things about uncle mike's new kydex line and thought i'd give it a try. just (today) got a paddle for my sig 220/226 and will be trying it when i get home.
heard some good things about uncle mike's new kydex line and thought i'd give it a try. just (today) got a paddle for my sig 220/226 and will be trying it when i get home.
9mmepiphany
New member
well i took the uncle mike's out of the package last night and it is VERY different from the fobus. i only had time for a quick inspection last night and thought i would post some initial observations and impressions.
Observations:
it is a paddle model for my sig 220/226 and belt retention is by a undercut block on the paddle which secures under the belt. the big thing is that the holster pouch is a one piece molding which is folded over the front of the gun and wrap around to the back. two screws, with compression tubing, join the pouch at the rear but leave the back open. the mouth of the pouch flares out and the front is cut down to below the ejection port.
there are a lot of adjustments available due to the construction using screws rather than rivets.
1. ride height and cant adjust (it came in vertical draw and low ride) throught 2 holes in the pouch and 4 holes in the paddle
2. the retention block is adjustable, 2 holes in paddle, for belt width
3. trigger guard retention/holster tension are adjusted, independently, by the upper and lower rear screws respectively
the pouch tension/retention can be adjusted from nothing (like a quick draw rig) to somthing that will hold the gun upside down and allow shaking (almost as secure as the fobus). retention is through symmetrical moldings into the triggerguard.
Impressions (i didn't take measurements, they are just guesses):
1. the kydex used in the UM holster is thicker (50%) than the fobus but is also much heavier (x 2+)
2. the UM is prettier with less excess material and more detailed molding
3. the UM is less stable on the belt with it's single point retention than the fobus wide spread fingers/ledge
4. i didn't find that the holster "leaned out", but the holster does "stick out" more due to the flaring of the holster mouth
5. the UM retains the gun securely, when adjusted/screwed down, but lacks the "anti-snatch" feature of the fobus.
i can see the UM's as a great competition holster but feel that the fobus is a better carry piece. at the price, they are both great buys and lightyears ahead of the "one size fits all" leather/nylon pouches.
sorry about the lenght, i tried ti distill it down as much as i could.
Observations:
it is a paddle model for my sig 220/226 and belt retention is by a undercut block on the paddle which secures under the belt. the big thing is that the holster pouch is a one piece molding which is folded over the front of the gun and wrap around to the back. two screws, with compression tubing, join the pouch at the rear but leave the back open. the mouth of the pouch flares out and the front is cut down to below the ejection port.
there are a lot of adjustments available due to the construction using screws rather than rivets.
1. ride height and cant adjust (it came in vertical draw and low ride) throught 2 holes in the pouch and 4 holes in the paddle
2. the retention block is adjustable, 2 holes in paddle, for belt width
3. trigger guard retention/holster tension are adjusted, independently, by the upper and lower rear screws respectively
the pouch tension/retention can be adjusted from nothing (like a quick draw rig) to somthing that will hold the gun upside down and allow shaking (almost as secure as the fobus). retention is through symmetrical moldings into the triggerguard.
Impressions (i didn't take measurements, they are just guesses):
1. the kydex used in the UM holster is thicker (50%) than the fobus but is also much heavier (x 2+)
2. the UM is prettier with less excess material and more detailed molding
3. the UM is less stable on the belt with it's single point retention than the fobus wide spread fingers/ledge
4. i didn't find that the holster "leaned out", but the holster does "stick out" more due to the flaring of the holster mouth
5. the UM retains the gun securely, when adjusted/screwed down, but lacks the "anti-snatch" feature of the fobus.
i can see the UM's as a great competition holster but feel that the fobus is a better carry piece. at the price, they are both great buys and lightyears ahead of the "one size fits all" leather/nylon pouches.
sorry about the lenght, i tried ti distill it down as much as i could.