Concealed Carry (CCW), Undercover Holsters, Holdout, IWB and real-world models

[Icelander]

I was wondering about the realistic maximum of bonuses that one could get to Holdout from using clothing and holsters designed to conceal smallarms.

Undercover Clothing (High-Tech p. 64) exists in Good and Fine varieties, which give +1 and +2 (quality) bonus to Holdout, respectively, cumulative with the bonuses for concealable holsters.

On High-Tech p. 154 we have the Undercover Holster, which gives a +1 Holdout bonus. On Tactical Shooting p. 73 there is Concealed Carry Clothing and the Shoulder Rig.

The Concealed LBW on Tactical Shooting p. 72 is especially noted as existing in a more expensive version that is x5 Cost and gives +1 (quality) bonus to Holdout.

I was wondering if there were Good and Fine versions of Undercover Holsters, for x5 and x20 Cost. If they exist, what real-world models of holster would qualify for these levels of quality?

I strongly suspect that Fine-quality is something that would have to be specially made, if that level of bonus is even possible, but is Good-quality commercially available?

That would give a +2 Holdout bonus in total, which would be cumulative with a maximum of +2 bonus for a very expensive tailored suit designed to hide a weapon.

What would be the inclination of other forumites? Are there real-world Undercover Holsters that are much more expensive than $125 and actually offer an improvement in performance that would justify a +1 or +2 to Holdout in GURPS terms? If so, which models?

[Icelander]

A related issue is how to modify Holdout for the amount of clothing worn. We've canonical examples of the extremes of the range, but that leaves a lot of interpretation to do at the +/- 3 range to Holdout, which is practically speaking going to be the most common situation.

Here's a horrifically formatted table, with the canonical values bolded and with some suggestions slotted in:

• +5 --- Carmelite nun, full habit (Basic Set p. 200)
• +4 --- Long coat (HT p. 64, Trench coat, overcoat, duster); Wet-Weather Gear (HT. p. 64, poncho)
• +3 --- ?Bomber jacket?; ?Gore-Tex anorak?
• +2 --- ?Suit-and-tie?; ?Blazer or jacket buttoned up? [would also give -1 or -2 to Fast-Draw]
• +1 --- ?Open jacket?; ?Business-casual?; ?Cargo pants and untucked thick shirt?
• 0 ---- ?Khakis and thick long-sleeve shirt tucked in?
• -1 --- ?Tight jeans and summer shirt/blouse?; ?Nice elaborate dress?
• -2 --- ?Little black dress?; ?Jeans and t-shirt?
• -3 --- ?Comfy-fit shorts and bare-chested?; ?Skimpy skirt/form fitting tights and top?
• -4 --- ?Zardoz Sean Connery costume?
• -5 --- Las Vegas showgirl costume (B200)
• -6 --- ?Skimpy thong or mankini?
• -7 --- Full nudity (B200).

I dunno, I'm not really comfortable with the examples near the middle. I want to better establish what outfits give no modifier to Holdout and what typical +/- 2 outfits are.

[Icelander]

Are the Fast-Draw and Holdout modifiers for Concealed Carry Clothing (Tactical Shooting p. 73) and Undercover Holster (High-Tech p. 154) cumulative?

That is, do you get +3 Holdout and -3 Fast-Draw for carrying your sidearm in an Undercover Holster in Concealed Carry Clothing?

Are Fast-Draw modifiers for awkward locations (small of back, ankle, etc.) assumed to be a part of the -2 Fast-Draw you get for typical Concealed Carry Clothing or are those penalties added on top of them?

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Icelander

A related issue is how to modify Holdout for the amount of clothing worn. We've canonical examples of the extremes of the range, but that leaves a lot of interpretation to do at the +/- 3 range to Holdout, which is practically speaking going to be the most common situation.

Here's a horrifically formatted table, with the canonical values bolded and with some suggestions slotted in:

• +5 --- Carmelite nun, full habit (Basic Set p. 200)
• +4 --- Long coat (HT p. 64, Trench coat, overcoat, duster); Wet-Weather Gear (HT. p. 64, poncho)
• +3 --- ?Bomber jacket?; ?Gore-Tex anorak?
• +2 --- ?Suit-and-tie?; ?Blazer or jacket buttoned up? [would also give -1 or -2 to Fast-Draw]
• +1 --- ?Open jacket?; ?Business-casual?; ?Cargo pants and untucked thick shirt?
• 0 ---- ?Khakis and thick long-sleeve shirt tucked in?
• -1 --- ?Tight jeans and summer shirt/blouse?; ?Nice elaborate dress?
• -2 --- ?Little black dress?; ?Jeans and t-shirt?
• -3 --- ?Comfy-fit shorts and bare-chested?; ?Skimpy skirt/form fitting tights and top?
• -4 --- ?Zardoz Sean Connery costume?
• -5 --- Las Vegas showgirl costume (B200)
• -6 --- ?Skimpy thong or mankini?
• -7 --- Full nudity (B200).

I dunno, I'm not really comfortable with the examples near the middle. I want to better establish what outfits give no modifier to Holdout and what typical +/- 2 outfits are.

I would think the standard get-up (for a modifier of 0) would be for a shirt that wasn't tucked in to the belt, but rather hanging over it. That tends to be the most common concealed carry clothes I see around here (other than perhaps women keeping a gun in their purse), so that suggests no modifier.

Luke

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

I would think the standard get-up (for a modifier of 0) would be for a shirt that wasn't tucked in to the belt, but rather hanging over it. That tends to be the most common concealed carry clothes I see around here (other than perhaps women keeping a gun in their purse), so that suggests no modifier.

Luke

It might mean no modifier, but it's just as likely that it is the most effective way to carry concealed, for a positive TDM.

I imagine that Holdout 0 modifier clothing is something that neither suggests an outfit chosen especially to make it easier to conceal a weapon nor an outfit that would make it harder.

Personally, I regard outfits with untucked shirts as much less 'regular' or 'normal' than an outfit with the shirt cleanly tucked in the pants. Untucked shirts, to me, suggest 'lumberjack' or 'Seattle-based grunge musician'. But that might be a consequence of expecting Status 1 clothing in a professional setting or something.

[lwcamp]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It might mean no modifier, but it's just as likely that it is the most effective way to carry concealed, for a positive TDM.

I imagine that Holdout 0 modifier clothing is something that neither suggests an outfit chosen especially to make it easier to conceal a weapon nor an outfit that would make it harder.

Personally, I regard outfits with untucked shirts as much less 'regular' or 'normal' than an outfit with the shirt cleanly tucked in the pants. Untucked shirts, to me, suggest 'lumberjack' or 'Seattle-based grunge musician'. But that might be a consequence of expecting Status 1 clothing in a professional setting or something.

Untucked shirts are fairly normal where I live, at least among people not trying to look professional.

Of course, if you know what to look for, you give people with untucked shirts an extra glance to see if there are suspicious bulges at their belt-line. This may be an argument for reducing any bonus for wearing this kind of clothing, because it can draw extra scrutiny.

Also, an untucked shirt is good for concealing a pistol on your hip, but wouldn't do much for concealing a weapon elsewhere. So basic dress for concealing a weapon on your hip may be a jacket, vest, or untucked shirt; for concealing a pistol in a shoulder holster would be a jacket; for concealing a weapon on the ankle would be long pants; for concealing a pistol in a purse would be a purse; for concealing a pistol in a pocket would be a large pocket; and so on. If it were me, I would give all of these situations a zero modifier for holdout - they are good for concealing the weapon, but someone who is looking for a concealed weapon would know where to look and/or search.

There could be other situational modifiers, of course. A white guy looking like a redneck wearing an untucked Smith & Wesson t-shirt is likely to draw one's attention to his waist for assymetric bulges, for example (this from real life. I mean come on, Washington is an open carry state - if you are going to be that blatant about it you might as well just show the gun 'cause I doubt many people were fooled and there would have been no annoyances of police asking to see your concealed carry permit all the time).

Luke

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

Untucked shirts are fairly normal where I live, at least among people not trying to look professional.

Of course, if you know what to look for, you give people with untucked shirts an extra glance to see if there are suspicious bulges at their belt-line. This may be an argument for reducing any bonus for wearing this kind of clothing, because it can draw extra scrutiny.

Yep.

I'm thinking about a high bonus TDM to Observation (or if the other party is an NPC, a Reaction Roll with modifiers) to determine which members of a crowd are wearing clothing which makes it likely they could conceal whatever you are looking for (usually a weapon, but not necessarily) and note that a lot of routine checks will focus the majority of limited attention spans on scanning those who could theoretically be hiding a weapon.

Wearing clothing that gives -2 or more to Holdout, because it doesn't offer any obvious hiding places, ought to be something that reduces the chances that a professional user of Observation devotes any significant time to checking you out.

Originally Posted by lwcamp

Also, an untucked shirt is good for concealing a pistol on your hip, but wouldn't do much for concealing a weapon elsewhere. So basic dress for concealing a weapon on your hip may be a jacket, vest, or untucked shirt; for concealing a pistol in a shoulder holster would be a jacket; for concealing a weapon on the ankle would be long pants; for concealing a pistol in a purse would be a purse; for concealing a pistol in a pocket would be a large pocket; and so on. If it were me, I would give all of these situations a zero modifier for holdout - they are good for concealing the weapon, but someone who is looking for a concealed weapon would know where to look and/or search.

That's a very good point. Clothing ought to give a Holdout modifiers to conceal a handgun (or something else) in a given place on the body.

I'd say that anything that is both thicker than a thin shirt and consists of more than one layer ought to give a positive TDM unless it is specifically very closely fit to your body.

Given that a trench coat (presumably assumed to be worn over normal clothing) is +4 to Holdout, a lot of jackets that are worn over shirts over undershirts are probably +2 to +3 to hide anything under them.

Even a thick 'lumberjack' shirt that is wide in fit ought to be +1, I reckon, given that it is significantly less useful for concealing things than a jacket, but still an improvement over a more 'regular' type shirt.

Originally Posted by lwcamp

There could be other situational modifiers, of course. A white guy looking like a redneck wearing an untucked Smith & Wesson t-shirt is likely to draw one's attention to his waist for assymetric bulges, for example (this from real life. I mean come on, Washington is an open carry state - if you are going to be that blatant about it you might as well just show the gun 'cause I doubt many people were fooled and there would have been no annoyances of police asking to see your concealed carry permit all the time).

I'd say tthat these weren't actually modifiers to your Holdout skill as much as they were Reaction modifiers that significantly increase the chances that a bodyguard, cop or security guard will use Observation to check if you are armed, very possibly even taking the trouble to get a positive TDM for Taking Extra Time or even patting you down.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It might
Personally, I regard outfits with untucked shirts as much less 'regular' or 'normal' than an outfit with the shirt cleanly tucked in the pants. Untucked shirts, to me, suggest 'lumberjack' or 'Seattle-based grunge musician'. But that might be a consequence of expecting Status 1 clothing in a professional setting or something.

I agree with Lwcamp that it's normal.

Of course, this is Florida and the last time I tucked my shirt in was for a funeral. It's the guy in suit and tie that's conspicuous. There were only 3 at said funeral and one was the preacher and another was the music director. Some of the men didn't even wear button-front shirts.

Suit and tie would mean Lawyer, Pharmceutical sales rep, preacher or plainclothes detective to me.

You might also consider some newish types of clothing like cargo pants. A .380 can fit in one of the big front pockets of those and bulge no more than a wallet. Not even a fat wallet either. It's not even a bad place to draw from. If I was a cop I'd worry about things like this.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I agree with Lwcamp that it's normal.

Of course, this is Florida and the last time I tucked my shirt in was for a funeral. It's the guy in suit and tie that's conspicuous. There were only 3 at said funeral and one was the preacher and another was the music director. Some of the men didn't even wear button-front shirts.

Suit and tie would mean Lawyer, Pharmceutical sales rep, preacher or plainclothes detective to me.

On the humid mid-to-lower East Coast in summer, I wore a suit for one wedding and I prayed for death. Reasonable clothing is a t-shirt and shorts, at most.

But in that kind of weather, characters probably ought to accept looking out of place (and suffering discomfort and possibly even higher FP costs) if they want to carry concealed weapons without a significant challenge in the form of Holdout penalties.

I'm pretty sure that my standard outfit during my sojourn in Virginia, DC, Maryland and slightly less hellish places a few hours north would impose Holdout -2 to most common CCW methods.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

You might also consider some newish types of clothing like cargo pants. A .380 can fit in one of the big front pockets of those and bulge no more than a wallet. Not even a fat wallet either. It's not even a bad place to draw from. If I was a cop I'd worry about things like this.

Yep, cargo pants are definitely useful Holdout clothing and combined with a thick untucked shirt might rate Holdout +2 for IWB carry and +1 for OWB carry, as well as being +1 Holdout for keeping a suitably gun in your pocket (purpose-designed models exist with an additional Holdout +2 and the possibility of a full-sized handgun, as per Tactical Shooting p. 73).

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Icelander

• +5 --- Carmelite nun, full habit (Basic Set p. 200)
• +4 --- Long coat (HT p. 64, Trench coat, overcoat, duster); Wet-Weather Gear (HT. p. 64, poncho)
• +3 --- ?Bomber jacket?; ?Gore-Tex anorak?
• +2 --- ?Suit-and-tie?; ?Blazer or jacket buttoned up? [would also give -1 or -2 to Fast-Draw]
• +1 --- ?Open jacket?; ?Business-casual?; ?Cargo pants and untucked thick shirt?
• 0 ---- ?Khakis and thick long-sleeve shirt tucked in?
• -1 --- ?Tight jeans and summer shirt/blouse?; ?Nice elaborate dress?
• -2 --- ?Little black dress?; ?Jeans and t-shirt?
• -3 --- ?Comfy-fit shorts and bare-chested?; ?Skimpy skirt/form fitting tights and top?
• -4 --- ?Zardoz Sean Connery costume?
• -5 --- Las Vegas showgirl costume (B200)
• -6 --- ?Skimpy thong or mankini?
• -7 --- Full nudity (B200).

I dunno, I'm not really comfortable with the examples near the middle. I want to better establish what outfits give no modifier to Holdout and what typical +/- 2 outfits are.

They seem fine to me. I intend to watch this thread closely, and expect I'll make it's conclusions cannon in my games in the future. What this thread is hoping to accomplish is worthy of a Pyramid article, IMHO.