Bravo Concealment (BC) IWB review:
So I wouldn't normally review something only after a couple weeks; however, after a range day yesterday with someone shooting a tracer round that caught fire, I feel I can give a pretty good review.
This rig is solid, comfortable and extremely sturdy (like sturdy during a full out sprint).
For reference, I wear my IWB on my lower right back side and I'm comparing this to my crossbreed holster (combat cut), for your reference.
While leather against your skin will always be more comfortable vs kydex just because of the material itself, I find the BC actually more comfortable, let me explain. I believe I notice this because the BC actually holds the weapon more upright/true, rather than the Crossbreed, which allows the weapon to essentially "lean in" against the leather, into my skin. The CrossBreed, for those that don't own one, is part kydex affixed to a leather cutout. While leather is comfortable, it is also extremely giving and flexible (after you sweat in it and actually form it to you...think baseball glove". This lack of rigidity allows the weapon during movement to lean away from kydex and belt, which makes it dig into your skin through the leather....if that makes any sense.
BC gave some great thought into this design. The two separate belt clips are adjustable and allow you to change height in relation to your belt; I left in neutral/normal to test out. I've played with several kydex holsters and have found that many are formed too tightly, which makes it less than easy to extract and replace the weapon. Not so with BC...they seem to have found the perfect groove for keeping the weapon secure, but also allowing the weapon to be removed without having to yank/snap it out. It was smooth removal and re-insertion.
What is my reference for the above statements if I've only worn it a few weeks? I had normal everyday wear and it was already a great performer, but I had a range day yesterday with several buddies at a friends farm (20+ acres). We were shooting from his second story barn loft....awesome setup...when a fire broke out.
It involved AR-10, AR-15, M1A1 and pistol engagement. 50 and 100 yard paper and steel targets along with steel pistol targets. Sooooooo, before we finished the rifle firing, a 5.56 tracer round was shot at the 50 yard paper target..the round when through and continued traveling a few yards. I then I saw a lick of flame as it burned out in the field. I sprinted down the stairs, clearing 5 stairs at a time and went into a full on sprint out to the 75 yard area where the fire had gone from 4" diameter, into a 3ft diameter ring of fire! I stomped it all out before the wind caught it, so it was contained, but you want to talk about pucker factor!
It was only when I got back to the barn that I realized I was still carrying my EDC in the BC holster. It hadn't moved an inch during that entire event...full sprint and hopping and stomping out fire. It was still secure and I hadn't felt the weight of it at all. I cannot say the same thing for the crossbreed, as I've attempted a few short steps in a jog and felt it at every step.
So, if you're ever considering a Bravo Concealment holster, I'd go for it....I'm very impressed thus far.
Same here. It's probably gonna be my carry, which I plan to finally get in 2019. The 43X looks like a significant upgrade to the 43(more freedom seed capacity) without a mentionable gain in size.So glad I waited to pick up a 43, I'll be picking up a 43X instead.
Ok, here's my 2 cents on this... In terms of performance, the .40 has the edge. When comparing apples to apples (same brand/bullet design across the calibers) bigger calibers will almost always expand to a larger diameter and penetrate a little further. The bigger the bullet, the bigger the hole it makes. Sometimes, the 9mm will do better in penetration because of its high sectional density and because it easier to push a smaller frontal area through the tissue simulator.The ballistic advantage of .40 over 9mm is insignificant. The capacity, recoil reduction, and cost advantage of 9mm is significant. This is why all my carry guns are 9mm (and one pocket rocket .380).
If I can't kill it with a 9mm I don't need a .40, I need a rifle.
Sold my .40s years ago, don't miss them. When I want more pop than 9mm I'll shoot 10mm handloads.
Love cowboy guns. Been wanting a lever action for a while they're all just so expensive. Just picked up a heritage arms rough rider 22lr with a 22 mag cylinder. Probabaly the best 150 I spent on a gun lol that thing is so damn fun to shoot. Pretty much a colt peacemaker replicaMarlin 336
Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk
I own both, shoot both, and would pick my 9mils all day. I shoot smaller groups, have more rounds(+4 in some cases), shoot more for same price, and have more ammo availability. .40 is never on the pallets at the gun store for $9.99 a box, Federal 9mm is.Ok, here's my 2 cents on this... In terms of performance, the .40 has the edge. When comparing apples to apples (same brand/bullet design across the calibers) bigger calibers will almost always expand to a larger diameter and penetrate a little further. The bigger the bullet, the bigger the hole it makes. Sometimes, the 9mm will do better in penetration because of its high sectional density and because it easier to push a smaller frontal area through the tissue simulator.
When it comes to performance after barrier penetration (particularly auto glass in the FBI eight-part test) the bigger bullets will typically get more mass through the glass to do more damage to the target.
All that having been said, the margins between the performance of .40 cal vs. 9mm are close enough that in a real world situation, the damage done by each round is — for practical purposes — about the same.
People are not comprised merely of muscle (which ballistics gelatin simulates). People have bones and vital organs, which affect the lethality of gunshot wounds. Consequently, shot placement and accuracy are far more important determining factors of a round’s lethality than how the gel looks after the test.
Finally, with bullet designs continuing to evolve, there may come a point in time where the performances practically intersect. So on balance, the “bigger hole” argument is a little, well, hollow.
So, which is better?
The short answer is, “It depends.” It depends on whether or not you have difficulty with the heavier, “snappier” felt recoil of the .40 caliber. It depends on whether or not you want to save money while shooting more in training with the 9mm. It depends on whether or not you want to drill slightly larger holes with a slightly smaller number of bullets. It depends on the load you choose in either cartridge. Do yourself a favor and shoot both, a lot, and then decide which is better for you.
Why do you think the Army uses the Beretta 9mm for conventional forces? It's cheap and cost effective. On the SOF side we use Glock 17's and 19's which are also 9mm. But when I am home, I CC a Glock 23 compact because I prefer the stopping power of a .40.
Again, that's because 9mm is cheaper. Does 9mm take the crown because the majority of the guns used in that study fire 9mm? Anyways, to each their own. I like my .40 more than the 9mm.I own both, shoot both, and would pick my 9mils all day. I shoot smaller groups, have more rounds(+4 in some cases), shoot more for same price, and have more ammo availability. .40 is never on the pallets at the gun store for $9.99 a box, Federal 9mm is.
As for the ballistics, well, factor in lady luck and a .380 might stop a guy just as much. I suggest everyone review the 1700+ cases the FBI released a study on regarding armed encounters where a suspect was shot. States whether or not it was a one shot incapacitate, what cartridge, and if fatal. Anyways, 9mm takes the crown. By a very very wide margin. Lucky Ammo Gunner on YouTube has a good simple video on it. It's informative as hell. I should mention the cases are all armed civilian cases, not law enforcement.