JAB

People in the comments section of the article - like many, in general - assume that because someone is a Democrat they are automatically anti gun.  This is as much a fallacy as assuming someone to be pro gun simply because they are Republican (and Haslam, Harwell and Ramsey have clearly demonstrated the fallacy of that line of thinking.)   Rather than automatically assuming that Flynn (a former security guard, according to the article) is an anti-gun hypocrite, I thought I'd do something really silly and actually look at his voting record.  Project Vote Smart only lists one 'gun related' issue in his voting record.  This is what Project Vote Smart said about that bill:       Flynn voted in favor of the bill.  In other words, he voted for a bill that opens the door for a locality's gun laws to be legally challenged.  Not much of a track record to go on, to be sure, but that doesn't sound like someone who votes 'anti gun', to me.   That same bill was also the only 'gun' issue that showed up on Project Vote Smart under Bizzarro's record.  He also voted in favor of the bill.

I also used to mainly carry a .380 - a Kel Tec P3AT - when pocket carry was the order of the day.  The thing is, I bought it brand new as a first generation but had it a few years before I got my HCP.  Once I got ready to carry, I could never get it to be reliable.  I sent it back to Kel Tec (where the customer service is awesome.)  By then the second generation was out and they pretty much built me a brand new, second gen pistol on my original frame.  It has been 100% reliable ever since and I actually shoot it pretty well but the whole experience - and reading others' experiences with various .380 pocket rockets - made me realize that even in .380 these small, lightweight pistols are riding the ragged edge for reliability and function.  That is why I would never even bother with such a small gun in 9mm.   Anyhow, I kept the P3AT but added a S&W 642.  I simply believe that - in such small packages in anything above .32acp - small, light revolvers are and likely will always be more reliable than small, light semiautos.  The 642 has become my most carried gun - usually in a pocket but sometimes OWB (as it still conceals easily.)  I replaced the factory grips with Pachmayr Compacs that cover the backstrap and give a little more to hold on to which made a world of difference it shootability and my accuracy with it.  I usually carry a speed strip in the watch pocket of my pants in case I have a need/opportunity for a reload.   The 642 has an internal hammer rather than a shrouded hammer.  That means it doesn't have the 'humpback' look of shrouded hammer versions but also means that it is DAO with no option for manually cocking the hammer.  For a revolver doing mostly pocket duty I think that is the way to go.  A model with a regular, non-shrouded hammer would be likely to snag, I would think, and I would also be concerned about the possibility of pocket lint and other debris getting into the gun through the channel that the hammer 'switch' rides in with a shrouded hammer version.  I've looked at a shrouded hammer version and think that it would be awkward to cock or decock under stress.  Besides, for up close SD you probably aren't going to be shooting in anything but double action, anyhow.   I would still advise that, if possible, you keep the little .380 around.  I find that there are occasions, although rare, where the thin/flat nature of the P3AT allows me to carry it in situations where the 642 wouldn't work as well or maybe not at all.

  Not saying that I don't believe quickload data.  Just saying that the data shows the greatest, possible difference in two theoretical loads.  I tend to give more weight to the numbers gained from firing real ammo from real guns which is why I lean toward the info I got from BBtI.  :2cents:

  Do you want to see pics of my butt that badly?  :rofl:     Kidding.  I'll see what I can manage.

  And that, to me, would be the strongest argument in favor of a 9mm snub.  If my 642 were the only .38/.357 revolver I had then ditching it in favor of a 9mm snub would make perfect sense - not because I believe the real world ballistics to be that much better but because it would mean stocking one fewer caliber of ammo.  As it is, though, I have other .38/.357 guns and would be more prone to getting rid of my 9mm guns (which also isn't likely to happen) than to get rid of the .38s and .357s.

  I see the value in what you are saying but that is still theoretical, max load numbers.  I looked at Ballistics by the Inch because I was interested in real world loads fired from real world guns.  Besides, I once again doubt that anyone is going to want to fire a max load 9mm +P from a lightweight, snubnosed revolver.  Not trying to be argumentative - and I recognize that 9mm has more velocity and energy potential than .38 Special or .38 +P - but in a real world load that the average shooter is going to 1) be willing to practice with in a lightweight, snubnosed revolver and 2) be able to shoot accurately with fast follow up shots in that same revolver I remain unconvinced that there would be much difference in 9mm and .38.  Personally, if I did want a snubnose with that big a jump in velocity/energy and were willing to pay the resultant price in recoil and manageability then I'd just go with a .357 Mag and be done with it without being restricted to using moon clips.  As I said before, though, I am not everyone.

In another thread (the one Spots started about the really cool leather sheath he got for carrying one of his Bowie style knives) I mentioned that I wanted to come up with a way to carry a fixed blade knife other than having it on my hip. I wanted to carry a smallish blade in a horizontal position, probably SOB. This post discusses my solution. This is my first attempt at a Kydex sheath. I have played around with Kydex, before and even made a hybrid holster but not a sheath. The Kydex I had before was purchased at a leather shop in Knoxville that has since closed and the Tandy store in K-town doesn't sell Kydex so I ordered from Amazon. I was trying to get the same thickness as I had before but the sheets I ordered are thicker than I wanted making them a bit more difficult to form and to get them to really take definition as nicely as the thinner stuff I had before. In the future, I will order the next thickness down but for now I have eight squares of this stuff and so I will use it. The knife I chose to use is a Buck Paklite. I felt it would work well for this purpose because it is fairly thin overall (even with the paracord handle that I added) but has a blade that - although not long - has both a nice breadth and thickness. The texture on the sheath was actually an accident. I heated the Kydex in my oven in a baking pan and wanted to not ruin the pan so I put a piece of clean but previously used aluminum foil in the bottom of the pan. Despite being a bit difficult to form to the knife, the kydex (which stuck to the foil a little and had to be coaxed loose) had no trouble picking up the texture of the previously somewhat crumpled piece of foil. At first I was annoyed by this but as I looked more at the sheath I decided that I like it. So, pics: At first I thought about making a Kydex belt clip but ended up going with a leather belt loop, instead. The middle of the sheath is the only place it was wide enough to allow a belt loop wide enough to accommodate my belt so it only got the one loop. That loop is nice and tight, though, and does a fine job keeping the knife in place. The knife, itself, wasn't very sharp out of the box despite being a beveled blade with an obvious secondary bevel. It took me a few hours spread over two days but I 'adjusted' the secondary bevel a little and put a real edge on it. I managed to get it literally 'razor sharp'. It remains to be seen how well the edge will hold. The above pics were taken before I sharpened it.

  Okay, you fellahs made me curious so I looked on Ballistics by the Inch to try and find 'real world' differences.  I chose the .38 Special and 9mm barrel length and bullet weight from their tests that most closely matched.  Using that criteria, I compared their results using 125 grain Federal Hydra-Shok in a Colt Detective Special with a 2.125 inch barrel to their results using 124 grain Federal Hydra-Shok in a Rohrbach R9 with a 2.9 inch barrel (which already gives a slight barrel length advantage to the 9mm.)  According to their data, the velocity for the .38 was 858 feet per second and the velocity for the 9mm was 927 feet per second.  According to the muzzle energy calculator I found online at http://www.georgia-arms.com/mecalc.html that adds up to 204.4 ft lbs of energy for the .38 and 236.7 ft lbs for the 9mm when comparing loads and barrel lengths that are as similar as possible given the results available.  That comes out to be 32.3 ft lbs difference.  That seems, to me, like a pretty negligible difference and, IMO not really worth increased chamber pressures (and the accompanying increased recoil.)  With modern ammo designed for their respective chamberings I would think that the 'end results' in penetration and expansion would be pretty close to the same.  Given the trade-off between having to carry moon clips or having the option of reloading from a speed strip or even loose cartridges (without encountering difficulties in ejecting spent cartridges), I'd still prefer the .38 - but everyone isn't me.   In fact, I would hazard a guess that going from .38 Special to .38+P would increase velocity (and muzzle energy) more than going from .38 Special to 9mm.  Of course there are also +P loads available in 9mm but I would think that shooting a 9mm +P load in a lightweight, snubnosed, partly polymer revolver would start getting pretty harsh in the recoil department as well as making accuracy and quick follow up shots more difficult.  Also, the Ruger website doesn't say whether or not the 9mm version is +P rated (although I found an article or two, not published by Ruger, claiming that it is.)   I do hope that the 9mm chambering sells well because it is still an interesting idea and it is always good to have options.

Three or four years ago, when 9mm range ammo was less than $10 for Federal at Walmart and I wasn't set up to reload, I was kind of excited about the idea of a 9mm snubbie.  Charter kept talking about how they were going to come out with one (and I think they finally did) and I would have looked really hard at an LCR version.  I don't carry my P95 a whole lot but I do carry it sometimes and ammo compatibility would have been a nice thing but as I have other .38/.357 guns it really would not have meant being able to stop buying .38 Special, anyhow.  Mostly the attraction, for me, was just that 9mm ammo was a good bit cheaper (five or six dollars per box of 50) than .38 and 9mm ammo was as plentiful as fleas on a dog.   Now, however, even a lot of the 'cheap' 9mm ammo costs as much as .38 ammo cost back then (if you can find either one.)  I am also now set up to reload and so far have only reloaded for .38 and can load a box of range ammo slightly cheaper than even the price of 9mm back when it was 'cheap'.  I plan to stick with revolver cartridges for reloading and have no plans or intentions, at this point, to reload for anything in semiauto.  So, for me, there is no longer anything really all that exciting about a revolver chambered in a semiauto cartridge although it would still be pretty cool to have a convertible Blackhawk that could fire .38/.357 and 9mm..       At the 'power' level these guns operate at - as in not 'mouse' gun chamberings but not 'magnum' chamberings, either - my guess is that getting shot is, basically, getting shot.  Getting shot with 9mm from a snubnosed revolver probably isn't going to be all that noticeably different, on the receiving end, than getting shot with a .38 Special or, especially, a .38 +P from a snubnosed revolver, IMO.   Keep in mind, too, that most 9mm ammo tests are probably from semiauto pistols (unless you have found a test using a snubnosed revolver in 9mm.)  Semiauto pistols don't have cylinder gaps where pressure (and, consequently, velocity) can be lost.  Further, it seems that many tests use longer barrels than a snubnosed revolver would have.  Therefore, I have to wonder how much more 'snort' a 9mm fired from a snubnosed, LCR sized revolver would have over a .38 (or .38 +P especially) fired from the same platform.   For those seeking ammo compatibility I can see that a 9mm snub would be an attractive option.

  I have worked in fast food (briefly). at a grocery store (for years), in retail and in other jobs that involved interaction with the public.  I worked at the front (Circulation) desk of the downtown branch of the Knox County Public Library (talk about crazies) and as manager of one of the branches.  I currently work at a private college, still dealing with 'the public'.  So most of my working life has been spent dealing with the public.  In other words, I have walked in their shoes.  I try to cut as much slack as possible for slow service and the like.  I also don't take my frustration with their corporate policies out on the workers, themselves (like when you walk into a pizza place to take advantage of an advertised, special offer and are told that you can only get that deal if you order via the Internet.)  I have actually, once or twice, pointed out when fellow customers in line at fast food joints were being rude to the staff for no reason to that fellow customer's face.  That said, I don't care how 'bad a day' someone has had, when it comes right down to it that isn't my problem and at no point did I sign up to be a target of their frustration.  No, I'm not going to fight some stupid Yahoo but I will call and complain to supervisors and/or refuse to ever give my business to that establishment (or at least that location) again.  Possibly both.

I have BK9 (Barking Dog) security.  She isn't monitored but she sure is loud and I don't have to worry about power outages or wires being cut disabling her.  She is a mixed breed but I think there must be some kind of hound in her woodpile as that is what her 'serious' bark often sounds like.  As I indicated before, having monitored security wouldn't do me any good, anyhow and would probably just be a waste of money because, as the old saying goes, it would all be over but the crying by the time police could arrive, anyhow.

  I believe that most baseball bats are made from ash.

  The thing there is that the Tennessee State Constitution seems to go even further to clearly guarantee the right to 'keep and bear arms' than does the Federal Constitution.  The Tennessee Constitution contains none of the language relating to 'militias' and states that the citizens of the state have the right to keep and bear arms.  It only gives legislators the right to regulate the wearing of arms 'with a view to prevent crime'.  The actual language reads:       So, as keeping a firearm inside a vehicle, for example in a console or in the glove compartment, does not constitute 'wearing' said firearm it would seem to me - a layman who can read words as they are written - that the Legislature had no right under the Constitution of the State of Tennessee to prohibit anyone who can legally own a firearm from having it in their vehicle in the first place.  In other words, there should never have been a need for a change in the law to allow 'car carry' because the State Constitution forbade any law restricting such action in the first place.   Further, I would think that an honest reading (vs. a politician's reading) of the Tennessee Constitution would severely limit the Legislature's ability to regulate even the 'wearing' of arms.  As the language clearly limits the scope of that ability to situations where doing so would 'prevent crime' and as allowing honest citizens to carry firearms is obviously not thought of as 'promoting crime' (else we wouldn't have the ability to carry with a permit) it seems to me that laws requiring a permit to carry are in violation of the Tennessee Constitution.   So, it isn't really about state's rights as the State of Tennessee, via its Constitution, acknowledges that the citizens have a right to keep and to bear arms.  There is no need to go to the Federal level to guarantee that right because the State has done so, as well.  So, then, it is not a states' rights issue.  It is an issue of dishonest, greedy, power-hungry politicians (both Democrat and Republican) overstepping their legal bounds and violating the state constitution and, therefore, the very rights of the state to determine the scope of laws within the boundaries of that state via said constitution.

  Or a shock collar. :pleased:   Truthfully, I think it conditions the dog to be happy with whatever scraps it gets (a bone), lick it's master's hand (or give him/her it's vote) for being so 'good' to it and shut up barking/begging for any, real meat.

  I agree.  Based on what the article said, I think the lady's statement that:         is probably a little over the top.  I doubt that she was in a great deal of real danger.  That said, there was no way of knowing that until after the fact and even then there is no way to be sure that something 'might' not have set the guy off and caused him to attack her and/or her child.  I believe that a homeowner in such a situation should be considered to have been in reasonable fear of death or serious, bodily injury to herself and/or her child and should be 100% justified in using deadly force.   At home, when in bed, I keep my cell phone close but I keep my HD firearms closer.  Where I live is in a rural area just inside the county line and several miles of secondary and country roads from the Sheriff's office and regularly patrolled areas.  In fact, about once every six months or so, a deputy will leave a printed card in my mailbox to let me know that my neighborhood was patrolled that day.  That is how infrequent a police presence is in my area - it is remarkable enough that they leave a card to let us know they were there.  So, then, a police response time of 30 to 45 minutes would probably be considered 'quick'.  I would certainly call 911 at the outset if it were possible to do so without increasing the risk to myself.  However, I also have to be aware that doing so might not be feasible and the 911 call might have to wait until the confrontation is over.  All this means I have to be ready, willing and able to defend myself and that police intervention saving my bacon isn't really even a realistic consideration, for me.   Whatever they decide is the best way for their family to handle a similar situation in the future I hope this lady and her husband will at least make some kind of plan for the future and then make preparations to carry out that plan.  I know that this may be an odd thing to say on a gun board but I think that getting a gun might or might not be a good part of such a plan.  If the lady (or her husband or anyone else) doesn't at least really and truly believe that she (or he) could shoot someone in defense of themselves and their family then perhaps having a gun is not such a good idea.   Personally, I don't want to shoot anyone but believe that - if necessary - I would be able to do so without hesitation.  Therefore, I include HD firearms as part of my 'plan'.  Of course, no one knows how they would react in such a situation - some of us who believe wholeheartedly that we could shoot might not be able to pull the trigger while some who think they could not might find themselves surprisingly able to do so.  I also imagine that, when faced with the situation 'for real' that there might be some hesitation even among those who 'could' shoot based on doubts regarding whether or not shooting is really 'necessary'.  However, if one is predisposed to believing that one could not take such a measure then one is potentially just opening up the possibility that the gun will be used on them, instead.  Just a thought.

  As 'good' a thing as that was, I think of it more in terms of throwing a dog a bone to keep it from barking than anything else.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Because the Republican leadership who begged gun owners to help them gain control in the state government, claiming they are 'on our side,' aren't really 'on our side' any more than are their Democrat counterparts.  Haslam was a member of Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Guns" group (oops, that's supposed to be Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  Yeah, right.)  Harwell seems have done everything she can to see that many pro gun bills don't even come to a vote and Ramsey got the so-called 'parking lot bill' gutted at the behest of his big business puppet masters (such as Fed Ex.)  Quite the track record for people who claimed to be 'on our side' and whined that if we would just put them in charge they would support and advance our gun rights.   I think that the money probably did have at least a little to do with it, too.  It isn't like politicians have to choose between 'being greedy' and 'backstabbing the voters'.  They can simultaneously do both quite efficiently.  

  That does seem a little odd.  I mean, one of the major arguments for open carry is that it is faster to get to it if needed.  Carrying with an empty chamber - especially with a safety engaged - pretty well negates that, possible advantage.  As you say, that almost sounds more like the CC gun is really their 'primary' and the OC gun is a decoy (at best) or bait (at worst.)

  They are simple and they work.  With not much practice you can load two at a time so reloading is comparatively quick, although a speed loader - as long as they work well with your, particular revolver - is still probably faster.  Speed loaders are more bulky to carry, however.

My first thought upon reading the article was that if I were going to make a habit of open carry then I'd make sure to carry a concealed BUG, as well.   Theoretically, the purpose of the BUG would be to make sure that you didn't end up going up against your own primary and could stop an unexpected attempt at taking the primary from you.  As in, "You like the gun I've got here on my hip?  BANG!  BANG! BANG! Well, what do you think of the one I had in my pocket?"     Well, it could have been a stainless steel revolver.  Or a TC Contender in hot pink. :)  Personally, I'm not so sure they should have mentioned that the pistol was black.  Sounds like handgun racial profiling, to me.   The description does kind of reinforce your theory that the robbery victim wasn't very experienced with guns.  I don't think I would necessarily remember the make and model of pistol used by an assailant in such a high stress situation but I hope that I could do better than that.  I can imagine the scene with an officer interviewing the victim and filling out a report, now.   Officer:  "What kind of gun did the assailant have, sir?"    William Coleman III:  "It's a Walther P-22.  I just bought it today."   Officer:  "No, I meant what kind of gun did he have before he took yours."   William Coleman III:  "Well, it might have been a semiautomatic."   Officer:  "It might have been a semiautomatic?"   William Coleman III:  "Yeah.  I'm not sure."   Officer:  "Think hard.  Did it have a cylinder?"   William Coleman III:  "A what?   Officer:  "Ooookaaay.  Can you give us any further details?"   William Coleman III:  "Sorry, I'm afraid n...oh, wait!  I just remembered - I think it was black.  Does that help?"   Officer:  "Oh, um, yeah.  Sure.  That helps."       I personally believe that open carry should be legal without a permit in all 50 states.  Heck, concealed too, for that matter.  I know some folks make an informed and considered decision to carry openly and that is their choice.  At the same time, a person should probably take some time to build at least a little familiarity with firearms, in general, and handguns, in particular before strapping a gun on one's hip and going out into public.  Of course, having a little situational awareness and being cautious when some stranger walks up and askes for a cigarette in the middle of the night probably wouldn't be a bad idea, either.     Of course, the article referred to the stolen gun as a 'Walter-brand P22."  Either they got the "Walther" name wrong or Jeff Dunham is really getting creative in his marketing and licensing ideas.  I can imagine how that would work into his act (I even did a mock-up picture but I won't post it to avoid hi-jacking the thread.)

Is it one of the types that comes with a securing cable?  I have a security lockbox that I use to keep a couple of handguns and a couple of other things under the bed and it has such a cable, sort of like the handgun safes that are intended to use in cars..  Where I lived, before, I mounted an eye loop like you would use with a padlock hasp to the wall at the baseboard level with fairly long wood screws in a spot that would require moving the bed to get to it.  I used it to secure the cable.  Where I live, now, I just passed the cable around the bed frame in a manner that would require taking the bed apart to get it loose.  Not perfect and it wouldn't stop a determined thief (but then again, a $5,000 safe probably won't stop a determined thief given enough time) but I believe it would deter a 'grab and go'.   If you had a nightstand with multiple drawers and you put the safe in the bottom drawer with a cable that runs over/out the back of the drawer and is secured to an eye loop that is screwed to the baseboard or floor behind or under the night stand (with enough slack that the drawer can be opened and the safe accessed when needed) then that would probably be about as 'aggravating' to a grab and go burglar as you could get, I imagine.  I suppose you could also find some way to reinforce the bottom of the drawer and bolt the safe down in the drawer as well as using the cable (if it has a cable - or if there is some way you could add one.)   Of course, having seen your wife shoot, maybe you could just post a couple of her targets over the night stand with a sign reading, "Do you really want to steal this lady's jewelry?"

I decided I wanted a braided leather sling for my Marlin .44 Mag lever action. I thought a three-tone braid would look good. I had leather thongs in brown and white so I used some black shoe dye on a couple of the white ones. I braided them in pairs to make the strap wider. I used some leather strap material - also dyed black - and some buckles I had on hand to make adjustable 'connector straps'. I made a shoulder pad for the strap out of two pieces of leather. I cut a cheap mouse pad into three strips and stacked those inside the shoulder pad for extra padding. You can't see it in the pics below but I put the leather on the back of the shoulder pad rough side out to help keep it from slipping around on my shoulder. I also decided to put spare cartridge loops on the shoulder pad. I have made a braided leather sling before but this is the first adjustable sling I have attempted, the first sling I have made with a shoulder pad and the first time I have tried this method for making spare cartridge loops. So, I started out with this: and ended up with this: There were definitely some lessons learned from this project. If I make another one, I would change a few things. For one, I would use some kind of jump rings or d-rings to attach the sling to the connector straps rather than tying directly to it (I actually punched holes in the straps, passed the thongs through the holes and tied a knot in the end of each.) I think that D-rings or jump rings would give a better fit and finish as well as allowing me to make the connector straps shorter while having the same level of adjustment. I also figured out how to make the spare cartridge loops come out nice, straight and neat - about halfway through making them (which is why half of them are nice and straight and the other half - well - not so much.) I would also probably braid three of each color rather than just two, if I can, in order to make the strap, itself, wider. All in all, though, I think it turned out looking pretty good and I also think it will work well and so I am pleased with it. I have an SKS that is wearing plastic, Monte Carlo type furniture so the next project will probably be making a paracord sling for it. Well, that and making a Kydex sheath to carry my Buck Paklite in a horizontal position.

  For most of my life, my average body temperature has been 99.9 degrees.  I am very warm natured.  I keep the heat at home set on 68 degrees in the coldest part of winter and run the air conditioner in my bedroom full blast at night in the warm months.  I think sometimes I freeze even my poor dog out when it is just cool enough for me to be comfortable (and she isn't a little dog.)  So in the hottest parts of the year, it is pocket carry all the way, for me.  When it is just 'warm' and not 'hot', however - like this time of year - I can stand a thin t-shirt (especially if it is a sleeveless t-shirt or a tank type shirt) under a thin, short sleeved shirt.  Hawaiian type shirts, for instance, aren't heavy.  Often, cotton or cotton blend (such as short-sleeved denim) shirts work well, too.  In winter unless I am going to be outside for an extended period I often don't even wear a jacket so an unbuttoned, long sleeved denim shirt over a tucked in t-shirt works well and is comfortable.   With that setup, people who know me and know I am carrying still say that they can't tell.  I am also not fanatical about occasional printing or the odd, incidental exposure in most situations.

  Can't speak to the comfort of purpose-built 'gun belts' as I have never owned one.  Instead, I make sure to select good, stiff leather belts that will support a handgun/holster.  The secret is to place the thumb and forefinger or the thumb and first, two fingers on opposite sides of the belt (across the width of the belt) and try to pinch them together.  If the belt folds easily, it will sag when you use it to strap a holster to your side.  If it is thick enough and stiff enough that it doesn't fold or have much 'give' then it should work okay for carry.  You pretty much have to look at work type belts to find one thick/stiff enough and not even all work belts are thick/stiff enough.   I have been wearing a particular type of Dickie's work belt pretty much since I started carrying.  In fact, it is the type of belt that I am wearing in the pics I posted earlier.  After a couple or even a few years of wearing the belt pretty much every day, carrying or not (I can't carry at work but wear the same belt most of the time), the leather will get really 'broken in' which means it starts to get soft and lose some of the stiffness.  The belt usually isn't even 'worn out' by the time that becomes an issue.  When this happens, I go to the Dickie's outlet and buy another one.  They generally cost about $12.  I'll be really annoyed if they ever discontinue this style.  Strangely, Walmart used to stock a Dickie's belt that looked exactly like the one I use but the ones at Wally weren't nearly as rigid - which is why mine come from the Dickie's outlet.   I like fooling with leather work and am planning to eventually make myself a good, stiff belt - possibly even with strips of Kydex sandwiched between two layers of leather for extra support (I believe that is how some carry belts are made,)  Until then, though, the style of Dickie's belt I wear does a pretty good job.