Why an exposed trigger in a holster?


PDA






Jim PHL
March 8, 2014, 03:07 PM
I was just admiring huntershooter's thread in the Handguns: Auto's forum and admiring his engraved 1911 and beautiful new holster. Rather than hi-jack his thread I thought I'd start a new one here. The holster in his thread is completely cut-away from the gun's trigger guard. I happen to have an older OWB holster that I received some years ago when it came packed along with a used revolver I bought. Nowhere near as fancy as huntershooter's (or a lot of others I've seen for that matter) but also has the trigger guard of the gun completely exposed. Can someone explain the reasoning behind this feature? Against this feature I guess there is the obvious safety issue; a completely exposed trigger guard obviously completely exposes the trigger, but also just the general protection of the gun; covering the trigger guard offers the gun that much more protection from the elements. I guess the BBQ rig in that thread might be made to emulate a speed-draw rig if that has something to do with it but I would still think it always would make more sense to have the trigger guard covered. You don't need to access the trigger until the muzzle clears leather anyway and the covered trigger guard would clear the top of the holster before the muzzle does. (And that holster of mine that is cut this way is certainly no high-speed rig, it's just a general duty holster someone would likely carry a revolver around their farm in or hiking trails or woods.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Why an exposed trigger in a holster?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rcmodel
March 8, 2014, 03:18 PM
That's just they way they made them, pretty much until the Glock & Glock leg came on the scene.

There was no preaching about keeping your finger along side the slide until you were ready to shoot.

Old timers wanted to come out of the holster with all fingers where they belonged to shoot.

The holster shown above is a historic design made famous by those no less safe then the Texas Rangers.
But they didn't carry Glocks or other guns with no safety's back then.

http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-87-12-1930-austin-holster.aspx

http://www.epsaddlery.com/pc-97-12-5-patton-holster.aspx

rc

Old Fuff
March 8, 2014, 05:14 PM
On revolvers it isn't as necessary to cover the trigger and trigger guard as it is on some of today's pistols - especially those that have a safety lever mounted in the trigger fingerpiece.

Going back to the 19th century most holsters did cover the trigger guard, as well as everything else. The idea was to protect ones's revolver from the elements when men rode horses.

Later it was noticed that when carrying concealed one could get a full grip on the gun when the leather was cut away, and the whole rig was easier to hide if the leather was reduced to absolute minimum.

The whole idea got a boost during the 1940's onward when the FBI adopted holsters with exposed trigger guards.

Covering up the trigger guard didn't come back into the picture until Jeff Cooper proposed and pushed the idea.

Personally when carrying a revolver I prefer the open trigger guard style, and I don't have bullet wounds to show because of it.

Heck!! Some of us went so far as cutting away the whole front of the trigger guard. :what:

JTQ
March 8, 2014, 07:22 PM
Here is a Gunblast article with some information.

http://www.gunblast.com/WBell_PoliceHolsterHist.htm

Jenrick
March 14, 2014, 10:04 PM
Historically this style of holster originated with SA and then later DA revolvers. In a SA revolver if the hammers down, your can do pull ups on the trigger and it wont go off. The gradual transition to DA revolvers saw lots of folks sticking with a type of holster that looked similar to what they were used to regardless of whether it met their needs. Additionally with a safety strap around the hammer there was no chance of an AD unless the gun was drawn.

Lastly the SA automatic (the 1911 usually) was normally carried hammer down possibly with an empty chamber (that's what the US Army usually required). Again no danger of the weapon discharging in this condition.

For more info I recommend Bill Jordans wonderful book "No Second Place Winner," Chic Gaylords "Handgunners Guide" (there's a reprint out on Amazon with a soft cover so no need to spend a lot for an original printing), John Bianchi "Blue steel and gun leather," and James Mason "Combat Handgun Shooting" (one hardcover copy on amazon for $5 currently). All have good historical info on holsters and shooting techniques.

-Jenrick

BobWright
March 14, 2014, 10:42 PM
One of the dangers I've seen in covered trigger guards is that the holster is boned around the guard very closely. Grasping your gun butt with the trigger extended alongside the frame can, and does, cause the leather to bind and sort of lock the gun in place, as som slight amount of pressure is placed against the leather.

For this reason I've always liked the old Tom Threepersons holsters.

Bob Wright

mgmorden
March 15, 2014, 02:43 PM
A lot of things have changed over the years. If you remember "Coopers 4 Rules" didn't even exist 100 years ago. Just IMHO those, and eliminating exposed triggers in holsters - are improvements in gun handling discipline we've made over the years.

With a gun like the 1911 (unlike the Glock) it won't go off with the safety applied (and the grip safely unactivated), but it still encourages a dangerous practice of placing your finger inside the trigger guard during the draw. If you're drawing the 1911 common practice is the flick the safety off (and the grip safety will be depressed) and at that point the gun has a shorter, lighter trigger than a Glock.

As a matter of fact, the only ND I've ever witnessed I was RO'ing a USPSA match and it was a guy with a 1911 during the draw. Buzzer went off and as he was drawing he put a bullet in the ground about a foot in front of him - finger in the trigger guard while drawing. Thankfully he had at least cleared the holster so there were no injuries.

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 03:04 PM
If you're drawing the 1911 common practice is the flick the safety off (and the grip safety will be depressed)

In a word, NO. You pull the trigger when you intend to fire. You disengage the thumb safety when on target before you pull the trigger, not during the draw. Until the thumb safety is disengaged, it doesn't matter what you do with the trigger or your trigger finger.

"But you have to remember to disengage the safety and you might forget."

Not if you train with your weapon, and especially not if you tain with one design. I don't own a Glock or any gun with a trigger mounted "safety". I don't forget because I don't have to remember. My thumb wipes off the thumb safety before firing, even on my revolvers (which don't have thrimb safeties).

With a 1911, the trigger is blocked by the grip safety and the sear is blocked by the thumb safety. Neither of which can be disengaged by pressure on the trigger. In addition, when holstered and strapped, the hammer is blocked by the strap. So covering the trigger accomplishes nothing. Though certainly not recommended practice, you could hang the entire rig as pictured on a nail through the trigger guard without any chance of an incident.

A Glock or other firearm with a similar "safe trigger" design, in a similar rig would be completely unsafe. With a Glock especially, the only mechanical safety is on the trigger, which means there is no safety at all when the gun is holstered except what can be provided by covering or blocking access to the trigger.

The Mantra of Glock shooters is "My trigger finger is my safety" My mantra is "My thumb is my safety". In either case, safety must be a habit. It's just different habits.

mgmorden
March 15, 2014, 03:17 PM
I have to say that you're simply practicing a different set of habits than most shooters I know.

I own and shoot a 1911 myself, and know plenty of others who do as well, and the practice for every single person I know is to disengage the safety on the draw, while keeping the trigger finger along side the frame until on target and then move your trigger finger to the trigger and engage the targets. As you move about the finger comes back off the trigger (safety still off) and then it goes back when you reengage more targets. The safety is never reapplied - typically in competition at all (because the hammer is dropped on an empty chamber), but in real life it would not be reapplied until holstering a hot weapon again.

An holster with the trigger guard covered is simply a nice reminder to keep your finger out of there until you're ready to shoot.

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 03:29 PM
I have to say that you're simply practicing a different set of habits than most shooters I know.

I've only been doing it for 40+ years. Apparently the shooters you know never developed safe habits. :uhoh: During competition, while moving, yes, safety is off and finger is off the trigger and muzzle generally follows the eyes while scanning for targets and stays on target once located

The introduction of Glocks into competitions has brought about rules changes that makes it almost a requirement that all shooters develop habits that are appropriate for Glocks. Keeping the finger out of the trigger guard makes learning proper thumb safety habits less critical.

But the question here is the exposed trigger holster, and while moving in competiton as described, the holster is not an issue.

CraigC
March 15, 2014, 05:00 PM
My issue is that it encourages the finger to go in the trigger guard during the draw.
Sorry but this is pure hogwash. Safe handling practices should dictate you keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire, not a holster.

Old Fuff
March 15, 2014, 07:09 PM
The arguments here are much like the one that surrounds Smith & Wesson’s internal lock. Apparently some like it, and a much larger number apparently aren’t concerned. That leaves some mostly senior citizens (such as the Old Fuff) who having no use for it, so they go out and buy older guns that don’t have it. The bottom line is that everyone should be happy, because whatever you want is available one way or another, so you can obtain whatever floats your boat.

I usually prefer exposed trigger guards on holsters made to hold revolvers. Pistols are another matter. If I want a holster for a particular gun I can buy whatever I like, although it’s more likely I’ll stitch up a rig myself. It’s not all that hard to do, and I doubt that anyone will be surprised to learn that when I’m finished it will fit my perspectives perfectly. :D ;)

Others can do the same, and if you feel uneasy about exposed trigger guards simply buy or make a holster that meets your requirements.

Now I ask…. Just why are we having this debate?

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 07:27 PM
Now I ask…. Just why are we having this debate?

That one's easy. I got nothing better to do on a rainy Saturday afternoon. :D

Nom de Forum
March 15, 2014, 07:33 PM
The simplest explanation is that when that style of holster was in vogue there was far less concern and emphasis for safety in our culture. A statement that applies to many procedures and pieces of equipment of the past. When that holster was in vogue, safety doesn't sell was the mantra of automobile makers, and that is just one example on a nearly endless list. Narrowing it down to firearms, just look at the many designs of the past that would never be considered well designed for safe use. The decline in use of the exposed trigger holster has nothing to do with Glocks or "Glock Leg". There was plenty of "Peacemaker Leg", "S&W Model 10 Leg", and "Colt Government Model .45 ACP Leg" before Gaston even knew which end the bullet came out. Just look at some vintage IPSC holsters from the 1970s and you will notice the non-exposed triggers.

Old Fuff
March 15, 2014, 07:35 PM
That one's easy. I got nothing better to do on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

Be glad that rain isn't white, because if it were you would have something too do... :evil:

And if nothing else, you could be practicing making holsters. Save a lot of money that way. ;)

Nom de Forum
March 15, 2014, 07:51 PM
[QUOTE]I have to say that you're simply practicing a different set of habits than most shooters I know.

I agree. I think JRH6856 is in the minority.

I own and shoot a 1911 myself, and know plenty of others who do as well, and the practice for every single person I know is to disengage the safety on the draw, while keeping the trigger finger along side the frame until on target and then move your trigger finger to the trigger and engage the targets. As you move about the finger comes back off the trigger (safety still off) and then it goes back when you reengage more targets. The safety is never reapplied - typically in competition at all (because the hammer is dropped on an empty chamber), but in real life it would not be reapplied until holstering a hot weapon again.

I agree.

An holster with the trigger guard covered is simply a nice reminder to keep your finger out of there until you're ready to shoot.

I agree and but that is an unreliable minor redundancy to well practiced sound techniques of safe gun handling.

BTW, I have only been observing and selecting techniques for 40 years too.

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 07:55 PM
And if nothing else, you could be practicing making holsters. Save a lot of money that way.

But first I'd have to kill a cow, or find a stray kydex...

JRH6856
March 15, 2014, 08:08 PM
I think JRH6856 is in the minority.
:scrutiny: I don't have any doubts about it, but that doesn't invalidate my methods. The way I see it, when you say, "keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire," You are really saying, Keep the firearm in safe condition until ready to fire."

The simple fact is, with a 1911, there are several stages of keeping the firearm in safe condition and trigger finger discipline is just part of the process. With a Glock, it is not a part of the process, it is the process.

Old Fuff
March 15, 2014, 10:47 PM
But first I'd have to kill a cow, or find a stray kydex...

I never found that to be a problem, but one rancher did get a bit upset... :what: :evil:

Nom de Forum
March 16, 2014, 12:07 AM
:scrutiny: I don't have any doubts about it, but that doesn't invalidate my methods. The way I see it, when you say, "keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire," You are really saying, Keep the firearm in safe condition until ready to fire."

The simple fact is, with a 1911, there are several stages of keeping the firearm in safe condition and trigger finger discipline is just part of the process. With a Glock, it is not a part of the process, it is the process.


Your simple fact is, in fact, a fallacy. The moment a finger is placed on the trigger your 1911 can no longer be considered to be in a “safe condition” regardless of how many of “several stages of keeping the firearm in safe condition” have yet to be passed. If you have the thumb-safety engaged, but your finger is on the trigger, your 1911 can no longer be considered to be “in a safe condition”. Keeping your finger off the trigger and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction is the only time a 1911 is “in safe condition”. So what is the safer process for keeping a firearm “in safe condition"? One where the shooter need only to divide the focus of his attention to safety on two sub-processes: muzzle in a safe direction and finger off the trigger until ready to fire, or one where the shooter needs to divide the focus of his attention to safety on the previously mentioned two sub-processes and additional sub-processes? This is especially important because those additional sub-processes have in the past, present, and probably will in the future will result in shooter complacency and assumption resulting in an ND. Then there is the other safety aspect they compromise; they can function when not intended thereby preventing firing when it is essential to do so for the safety of the shooter. Since the intensity of human mental attention on one point of focus cannot be divided between multiple points of focus and still maintain the same level of intensity, your additional “several stages of keeping the firearm in a safe condition” are a hinderance not a benefit to safety. Take the thumb-safety off a 1911 equipped with a firing pin block safety and it is just as mechanically safe, and if your finger is off the trigger and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction it is in a “safe condition”. The thumb-safety is there because someone demanded it not because it is necessary on a 1911 with a firing pin blocking safety.

JRH6856
March 16, 2014, 12:35 AM
Your simple fact is, in fact, a fallacy. The moment a finger is placed on the trigger your 1911 can no longer be considered to be in a “safe condition” regardless of how many of “several stages of keeping the firearm in safe condition” have yet to be passed.

Now you are just being ridiculous. At least, I hope you aren't trying to be serious.

JRH6856
March 16, 2014, 12:59 AM
Take the thumb-safety off a 1911 equipped with a firing pin block safety and it is just as mechanically safe, and if your finger is off the trigger and the muzzle pointed in a safe direction it is in a “safe condition”. The thumb-safety is there because someone demanded it not because it is necessary on a 1911 with a firing pin blocking safety.

That's somewhat true. The 1911 doesn't need a grip safety or a thumb safety to be almost as safe as a Glock It only needs a firing pin block of some kind. The SA trigger might make it little less safe though in that configuration but finger (and anything else) off the trigger covers that as well a possible. But someone wanted to be safer than that so it does have a grip safety and a thumb safety.

I'm about to find out how safe that might be. I injured my strong hand thumb last year and it is still difficult to operate a thumb safety, especially on my BHP so I'm going to have to do something different. I still dislike DA and striker fired pistols, so I am going to look at the new Remington R51. That will change the mantra because once the gun is firmly in hand, the trigger finger is the only safety.

Jim K
March 16, 2014, 01:16 AM
Many years ago, I did a fair amount of fast draw with a Model 19 (actually a Combat Magnum, pre-Model 19). Somewhere, I have an old film strip showing my draw out of a Bucheimer Federal Man holster. I drew with my finger on the trigger, and the film shows the hammer half way back with the gun at about a 45 degree angle coming up on the target. The gun fires as it comes level with the target, but the DA pull started almost before the gun cleared the holster.

A modern range officer would have three heart attacks just watching that!!!

Jim

P.S. Yes, I still have all my toes and nothing else is missing that I know of.

JK

Nom de Forum
March 16, 2014, 02:02 AM
Now you are just being ridiculous. At least, I hope you aren't trying to be serious.

I'm being ridiculous?! Next time you are with a friend and have your 1911 in hand, engage the thumb-safety and point the muzzle at your friend. Please post to THR your friend's reaction to your explanation that your pistol was "in safe condition". No, wait, please don't point your 1911 at your friend. I don't want to be partially responsible for you killing your friend or you getting shot, beaten, arrested, or both of us being parties in a lawsuit, etc. Just ask your friend what his reaction would be to your explanation that your pistol was "in safe condition", then post to THR what it was.:rolleyes:

Nom de Forum
March 16, 2014, 02:11 AM
That's somewhat true. The 1911 doesn't need a grip safety or a thumb safety to be almost as safe as a Glock It only needs a firing pin block of some kind. The SA trigger might make it little less safe though in that configuration but finger (and anything else) off the trigger covers that as well a possible. But someone wanted to be safer than that so it does have a grip safety and a thumb safety.

I'm about to find out how safe that might be. I injured my strong hand thumb last year and it is still difficult to operate a thumb safety, especially on my BHP so I'm going to have to do something different. I still dislike DA and striker fired pistols, so I am going to look at the new Remington R51. That will change the mantra because once the gun is firmly in hand, the trigger finger is the only safety.

I am sincerely sorry to hear about your injury. I suspect even when you pick-up the R51 you will still be attempting to wipe the safety off. I hope you will really concentrate on keeping your finger off the trigger until time to shoot. I fear your years of relying on a manual safety may make you prone to an ND until you recondition yourself. What I really fear is your going back to the 1911 after an extended period of using the R51 and having an even greater chance of an ND. Good luck and may you make a full and speedy recovery.

Nom de Forum
March 16, 2014, 02:17 AM
Many years ago, I did a fair amount of fast draw with a Model 19 (actually a Combat Magnum, pre-Model 19). Somewhere, I have an old film strip showing my draw out of a Bucheimer Federal Man holster. I drew with my finger on the trigger, and the film shows the hammer half way back with the gun at about a 45 degree angle coming up on the target. The gun fires as it comes level with the target, but the DA pull started almost before the gun cleared the holster.

A modern range officer would have three heart attacks just watching that!!!

Jim

P.S. Yes, I still have all my toes and nothing else is missing that I know of.

JK

People are always going on about NDs with Glocks. They definitely happen and are frequent with any poorly trained or irresponsible person. Of course that is true of other pistols. That being said I have witnessed more NDs from people attempting to shoot fast with 1911s than any other pistol. I have also seen the rare ND of a DA revolver, with what would be a very heavy trigger pull in a semiautomatic, on more than one occasion.

JRH6856
March 16, 2014, 02:32 AM
I am sincerely sorry to hear about your injury. I suspect even when you pick-up the R51 you will still be attempting to wipe the safety off. I hope you will really concentrate on keeping your finger off the trigger until time to shoot. I fear your years of relying on a manual safety may make you prone to an ND until you recondition yourself. What I really fear is your going back to the 1911 after an extended period of using the R51 and having an even greater chance of an ND. Good luck and may you make a full and speedy recovery.

Thank you. I'm afraid without more surgery, full function is unlikely so a speedy recovery is not in the cards either way. I too am concerned about reprogramming. Old habits do die hard, but I have always kept my finger off the trigger until ready to fire, even if it is in the guard (never said I didn't do it, just that it wasn't absolutely necessary for safety with my choice of gun). But I can always go the revolver route if I have to.

BTW, Pointing any gun at someone is not a safe practice, even with finger off the trigger, even when the gun itself is in a safe conditon, including unloaded. But I think you know that. ;)

CraigC
March 16, 2014, 12:36 PM
"Safe condition" does not make it okay to point a firearm at somebody, unless you're planning on shooting them and haven't gotten around to it yet.

Nom de Forum
March 16, 2014, 12:50 PM
Thank you. I'm afraid without more surgery, full function is unlikely so a speedy recovery is not in the cards either way. I too am concerned about reprogramming. Old habits do die hard, but I have always kept my finger off the trigger until ready to fire, even if it is in the guard (never said I didn't do it, just that it wasn't absolutely necessary for safety with my choice of gun). But I can always go the revolver route if I have to.

BTW, Pointing any gun at someone is not a safe practice, even with finger off the trigger, even when the gun itself is in a safe conditon, including unloaded. But I think you know that. ;)

I have followed and posted to the R51 threads and made it clear I am hoping it will be a success. That would make a .40 and .45 version more likely to be created. Well, now that I know the seriousness of your injury, I really want the R51 to be even a greater success. You have really gotten yourself a raw deal and I hope you can make the cards dealt to you a winning hand. If the R51 is well done, I am sure, barring problems with your injury, you can successfully reprogram yourself. I did in 1991 when I dropped the 1911 and picked-up the Glock. It took some real change of thinking about being safe, and muscle memory erasure and recording, but I did it and have never had an ND.

My previous post of a hyperbolic, sarcastic, and rhetorical suggestion was intended to be a maximum effort for you and anyone reading it to forever abandon the idea any mechanical manual or automatic safety feature places a firearm in a "safe condition". A "safe condition" does not exist under any circumstances other than when a firearm is pointed in a safe direction and no finger is on the trigger. Obviously we all have handled firearms around people, that have been confirmed by all as unloaded, and muzzles have been pointed in potentially unsafe directions, usually in the act of disassembly. One of the places I worked at had tables full of weapons that made it impossible not to sweep your co-workers. That table full of weapons were all supposed to be cleared before they entered the building. They were 99.999999 percent of the time, but that .000001 percent of the time they were not made things mildly or wildly exciting. Think those firearms were in a "safe condition" when they were 100 percent unloaded? They were not. I cannot adequately describe what a improperly released M2 .50 cal. spring can do to what it hits. Lets just say if it hits you, hospitalization is a definite possibility.

Good luck again and God speed your recovery.

Old Fuff
March 16, 2014, 12:54 PM
While I am more likely to incorporate a covered trigger guard on a holster made for a 1911 style pistol (or a Glock in particular), I will point out that once a gun is lifted anywhere from 1 to 2 inches the holster no longer prevents the trigger finger from being inserted into the trigger guard and/or against the trigger's fingerpiece. At this point it's unlikely that the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction.

The covered trigger guard does insure that nothing can touch the trigger while the gun (revolver or pistol) is fully holstered while being carried, and that's all.

The only solution to preventing an unintended discharge while making a draw ultimately depends on safe handling and procedure, not any holster design.

Vern Humphrey
March 17, 2014, 07:58 PM
Lastly the SA automatic (the 1911 usually) was normally carried hammer down possibly with an empty chamber (that's what the US Army usually required). Again no danger of the weapon discharging in this condition.
The Army considered what we call Condition 3 (hammer down, chamber empty, loaded magazine) the preferred method of carry. In the event a round was chambered and it was necessary to holster the pistol, Condition 1 (cocked and locked) was the standard. The Army specifically forbade what we call Condition 2 (hammer down on a loaded chamber,)

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 02:58 AM
The Army considered what we call Condition 3 (hammer down, chamber empty, loaded magazine) the preferred method of carry. In the event a round was chambered and it was necessary to holster the pistol, Condition 1 (cocked and locked) was the standard. The Army specifically forbade what we call Condition 2 (hammer down on a loaded chamber,)

Yet they were indeed carried in Condition 2. I saw this and alway thought going to Condition 2 was an ND situation waiting to happen. Command was so hostile toward Condition 1, I suspect some local commander's believed Condition 2 to be safer.

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 03:19 AM
I saw this and alway thought going to Condition 2 was an ND situation waiting to happen.

Ok, why?

GLOOB
March 18, 2014, 05:00 AM
Tens of thousands of troops habitually lowering the hammer on a loaded round, manually. What could go wrong?

The official terminology when the spouse is informed is "training accident."

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 06:34 AM
Tens of thousands of troops habitually lowering the hammer on a loaded round, manually. What could go wrong?

I know. As he said going to Condition 2 is the problem, but not carrying it that way (and I know he didn't say it was). The US Cavalry originally intended for the 1911 to be carried in Condition 2 and called for cocking it in the holster before drawing. I don't know how long that lasted.

Old habits do die hard. The 1911 was a semi-auto or self-cocker, but I suspect the major difference in this really didn't sink in to everyone immediately. Up to this point, SA pistols and revolvers had been comparitively easy to de-cock with their large, deeply curved hammers which afforded greater control. When they started de-cocking the 1911, I suspect it was much like when LEOs used to 10-12# pull DA revolvers started holstering their new Glocks.

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 12:31 PM
I know. As he said going to Condition 2 is the problem, but not carrying it that way (and I know he didn't say it was). The US Cavalry originally intended for the 1911 to be carried in Condition 2 and called for cocking it in the holster before drawing. I don't know how long that lasted.

Old habits do die hard. The 1911 was a semi-auto or self-cocker, but I suspect the major difference in this really didn't sink in to everyone immediately. Up to this point, SA pistols and revolvers had been comparitively easy to de-cock with their large, deeply curved hammers which afforded greater control. When they started de-cocking the 1911, I suspect it was much like when LEOs used to 10-12# pull DA revolvers started holstering their new Glocks.

You guys got it right, going to Condition 2 is the ND magnet, not being in Condition 2.

Before going any further; no 1911 ever issued by the U.S. Military was safe in Condition 1 or 2 from an ND. They did not have firing pin blocking safeties to prevent inertia firing from being dropped.

Ah so, someone I believe is thinking about the similarity of the early 1911 use ND experience and the early Glock use ND experience. Something to keep in mind is that the habitual Condition 1 carry we have today was never intended when the 1911 was designed or adopted for use. The ability to carry a 1911 cocked and locked to enable the fast drawing and firing of competition is a serendipitous feature of the design. John Moses Browning did not anticipate people continuously carrying in Condition 1.

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 02:07 PM
Before going any further; no 1911 ever issued by the U.S. Military was safe in Condition 1 or 2. They did not have firing pin blocking safeties.

Before going any further, neither is a gun with a firing pin block safety, "safe". It might be a bit "safer". Of course, if safety is the primary concern, it is safer still to keep the pistol disassembled and the parts stored in different locations under lock and key.

The ability to carry a 1911 cocked and locked to enable the fast drawing and firing of competition is a serendipitous feature of the design. John Moses Browning did not anticipate people continuously carrying in Condition 1.

Like I said, old habits... I seriously doubt anyone wandered around with a cocked (and obviously unlocked) SAA or Schofield, either. Especially in the Army JMB was designing for.

I did see a Brit TV episode of Midsomer Murders where an English village was having an Ameracan Wild West pagaent and the "cowboys" doing the requisite shootout carefully cocked their SAAs in the holster before the fast draw. :scrutiny: :what:

I can almost see the design/eval process. JMB reads specs, submits design. Someone says, "Hmm, I got it cocked, now what? This thing needs some kind of safety device." JMB adds a grip safety, someone else says, "What's that grip thingy for? What this thing needs a thumb actuated safety." JMB adds a thumb safety, someone says "Hey, no one carries a pistol cocked. Don't use that safety thingy." JMB puts a wide spur on the hammer and hopes for the best.

NavyLCDR
March 18, 2014, 02:28 PM
I've only been doing it for 40+ years. Apparently the shooters you know never developed safe habits. :uhoh:

Do you have any real credentials that qualify you to be an expert to state the level of safety of others actions?

There was a post by a truck driver a while back that said he was a truck driver for 40 years and it was absolutely illegal for a driver to carry a loaded firearm in a commercial vehicle - the basis for his erroneous opinion being that he drove trucks for 40 years.

As far as which condition the Army carries their guns in is completely dependent upon the level of danger from hostile forces.

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 03:14 PM
Do you have any real credentials that qualify you to be an expert to state the level of safety of others actions?

Would it matter, either way? As your example of the truck driver shows, all that is needed to qualify someone to post an opinion in an internet forum is...an opinion. I generally don't offer credentialed opinions on the internet for free, and I generally don't question the credentials of people offering me their opinions. But I often may respond in kind. Context is important, as you final example above shows.

NavyLCDR
March 18, 2014, 03:39 PM
Would it matter, either way? As your example of the truck driver shows, all that is needed to qualify someone to post an opinion in an internet forum is...an opinion. I generally don't offer credentialed opinions on the internet for free, and I generally don't question the credentials of people offering me their opinions. But I often may respond in kind. Context is important, as you final example above shows.

Thank you. I was just seeking confirmation as to how much consideration to give to your statement:

In a word, NO. You pull the trigger when you intend to fire. You disengage the thumb safety when on target before you pull the trigger, not during the draw. Until the thumb safety is disengaged, it doesn't matter what you do with the trigger or your trigger finger.

Followed by:

I've only been doing it for 40+ years. Apparently the shooters you know never developed safe habits. :uhoh:

and you have adequately and honestly answered my question.

1911Tuner
March 18, 2014, 04:08 PM
The US Cavalry originally intended for the 1911 to be carried in Condition 2 and called for cocking it in the holster before drawing.

The US Cavalry's protocol was to carry the gun hammer down on an empty chamber, moving it to cocked with the safety engaged when action was imminent. The thumb safety was added for hasty reholstering when the mounted trooper found himself trying to hang onto a frightened, unruly horse and need both hands.

I can almost see the design/eval process. JMB reads specs, submits design. Someone says, "Hmm, I got it cocked, now what? This thing needs some kind of safety device." JMB adds a grip safety, someone else says, "What's that grip thingy for? What this thing needs a thumb actuated safety." JMB adds a thumb safety, someone says "Hey, no one carries a pistol cocked. Don't use that safety thingy." JMB puts a wide spur on the hammer and hopes for the best.

John Browning didn't decide those things. He did what he was asked to do by the people who paid his salary...no more and no less.

The grip safety had been part of the design starting with the Model 1907 and reappeared on the 1909 and 1910. The thumb safety came later, as the final modification.

The grip safety was and is a drop safety...not a cocked carry safety.

The half-cock was Browning's safety position. Says so right there in the 1910 patents, before the manual slide-locking safety rendered it redundant and obsolete. Nevertheless, the half-cock remained unchanged until the appearance of the Series 80 Colts in 1983...so it could still be used as a safety if one so desired.

Colt Model of 1907. The 1907 retained the non-tilting double linked barrel and rear slide dismount of its predecessors.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/Z1907_72a.jpg

Model of 1909. The 1909 was a complete redesign, and featured the single link, tilting barrel, and front slide dismount of the 1910 and 1911 pistols.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/Z1909_45_18a.jpg

Model of 1910. One of only two of the original 8 Model 1910s remaining. Of the 8 submitted, 6 were retrofitted with the manual safety and resubmitted. The modification was accepted, and the pistol adopted the following year as the US Army Model of 1911.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/1910.gif

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 04:20 PM
and you have adequately and honestly answered my question.

You're welcome. As I said, context is key. It is always part of the dialog, and any dialog can be edited and presented in a different light than originally intended. It generally doesn't say much about the author, though it may say a lot about the editor. :scrutiny:

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 04:28 PM
[Quote:
I can almost see the design/eval process. JMB reads specs, submits design. Someone says, "Hmm, I got it cocked, now what? This thing needs some kind of safety device." JMB adds a grip safety, someone else says, "What's that grip thingy for? What this thing needs a thumb actuated safety." JMB adds a thumb safety, someone says "Hey, no one carries a pistol cocked. Don't use that safety thingy." JMB puts a wide spur on the hammer and hopes for the best.]

John Browning didn't decide those things. He did what he was asked to do by the people who paid his salary...no more and no less.

I was afraid my fanciful description of the design process would annoy someone. It wasn't intended as a credentialed statement of fact, just a comment of design processes in general. ;) My bad on the cavalry carry and Condition 2.

Question: Without the thumb safety on the 1910, what kept the hammer and sear pins in place? I'm guessing they were a tighter fit than on the 1911 with the flattened flare heads.

1911Tuner
March 18, 2014, 04:37 PM
Without the thumb safety on the 1910, what kept the hammer and sear pins in place? I'm guessing they were a tighter fit than on the 1911 with the flattened flare heads.

Yep. They were press fit.

And you didn't annoy anyone.

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 04:47 PM
Yep. They were press fit.

And you didn't annoy anyone.
A press fit would make detailed stripping harder, which makes the addition of the thumb safety even more significant from a maintenance perspective. Especially since the original thumb safety can be used as a take down tool to remove the mainspring housing pin. (I'll refrain from another fancification of the design process but I can almost see the light bulb lighting)

1911Tuner
March 18, 2014, 05:29 PM
Back to the topic of exposed triggers in holsters.

Jim K's description of his draw is exactly how Bill Jordan managed a .27 second draw and hit from signal to shot...and he wasn't the only one who practiced that.

He was one of many honest-to-god gunmen who weren't as concerned with Cooper's rules as they were in staying alive.
Jelly Bryce was one. Ed Cantrell...who Jordan described as being "A mite bit faster than me" was another one who started his trigger pull as soon as his hand closed on the gun.

They knew that drawing their guns...lining up the sights...and then reaching for the trigger could very likely result in never getting off a shot...or not getting it off in time to do them any good. In a deadly encounter, seconds don't count. Fractions of seconds count.

This method is part of an automatic firing sequence that...once started...is nearly impossible to stop in time to keep from firing the shot. Usually done with double-action revolvers, it can be modified to work with other platforms, including single-action autopistols such as the 1911. The key is timing the trigger to break the instant the gun is lined up on target. It requires a lot of slow, dry practice, gradually increasing speed until it can be done in a blur of motion. It's risky. One hitch in the getalong means that the gun fires before it's on target. That's why it requires continued practice...or as I read once:

"The amateur practices until he gets it right. The professional practices until he can't get it wrong."

JRH6856
March 18, 2014, 05:54 PM
They knew that drawing their guns...lining up the sights...and then reaching for the trigger could very likely result in never getting off a shot...or not getting it off in time to do them any good. In a deadly encounter, seconds don't count. Fractions of seconds count.

There is a difference between playing games and staying alive.

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 06:33 PM
As far as which condition the Army carries their guns in is completely dependent upon the level of danger from hostile forces.

You didn't spend any time near hostiles while serving in the Army did you? If you had you would know that is not necessarily true.

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 06:41 PM
Back to the topic of exposed triggers in holsters.

Jim K's description of his draw is exactly how Bill Jordan managed a .27 second draw and hit from signal to shot...and he wasn't the only one who practiced that.

He was one of many honest-to-god gunmen who weren't as concerned with Cooper's rules as they were in staying alive.
Jelly Bryce was one. Ed Cantrell...who Jordan described as being "A mite bit faster than me" was another one who started his trigger pull as soon as his hand closed on the gun.

They knew that drawing their guns...lining up the sights...and then reaching for the trigger could very likely result in never getting off a shot...or not getting it off in time to do them any good. In a deadly encounter, seconds don't count. Fractions of seconds count.

This method is part of an automatic firing sequence that...once started...is nearly impossible to stop in time to keep from firing the shot. Usually done with double-action revolvers, it can be modified to work with other platforms, including single-action autopistols such as the 1911. The key is timing the trigger to break the instant the gun is lined up on target. It requires a lot of slow, dry practice, gradually increasing speed until it can be done in a blur of motion. It's risky. One hitch in the getalong means that the gun fires before it's on target. That's why it requires continued practice...or as I read once:

"The amateur practices until he gets it right. The professional practices until he can't get it wrong."

I'm not so sure starting the trigger pull that early in the draw was necessary to attain those firing from a draw speeds. What is your source for that information? I don't recall anything like that in Jordan's book or any comment from Bryce or Cantrell.

Old Fuff
March 18, 2014, 06:55 PM
I'll back Tuner's statement concerning Bill Jordan, because Bill personally told me during a conversation that he started to pull the trigger as soon as his draw started, and he didn't "speed draw" unless he intended to shoot, because in the time span of the draw there wasn't time to stop.

If you saw him do it you'd be a believer. :eek:

1911Tuner
March 18, 2014, 06:55 PM
What is your source for that information?

From Jordan himself, after witnessing his fast draw and hearing his explanation as to how he attained those speeds.

And it's described in No Second Place Winners. Read it again.

Cantrell and Jordan were friends and competed together and against each other, and they compared notes and shared tricks and tips. It only stands to reason that they'd use the same methods.

I've seen pictures of Bryce caught in mid-draw. The hammer was moving back as the gun cleared the leather, and in another photo in the sequence...was almost at the break point while the gun was still slightly below point. When he demonstrated his speed without the intent to fire, he didn't pull the trigger.

I'm not so sure starting the trigger pull that early in the draw was necessary to attain those firing from a draw speeds.

Just to fire round...possibly not. To hit aspirin tablets consistently at that speed, you can pretty much bet that it was necessary.

On Jordan:

If you saw him do it you'd be a believer.

If you blinked at the wrong instant, you'd never see him move.

NavyLCDR
March 18, 2014, 07:06 PM
You didn't spend any time near hostiles while serving in the Army did you? If you had you would know that is not necessarily true.
Blanket statements about in what condition the Army carries their firearms are just false. As are blanket statements about what condition any service carries their firearms. We have these things called ROE - Rules of Engagement - that defines when firearms are carried fully unloaded, partially loaded or condition 1.

I went to Army Basic Training at Ft. Dix, NJ in 1984 followed by Unit Supply and Armorer training at Ft. Lee, VA. Then I went back to Army Ground Combat Training at Ft. Dix, NJ in 2008 prior to deploying on the ground in Iraq as an Individual Augmentee (IA) - that's when the Army can't handle things on their own and they have to ask the other services to send people to help them out.

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 07:09 PM
1911Tuner,

I'll pull out my autographed copy and have a look. Thanks. I still have some doubt it was necessary, even to hit asprin tablets.

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 07:16 PM
Blanket statements about in what condition the Army carries their firearms are just false. As are blanket statements about what condition any service carries their firearms. We have this things called ROE - Rules of Engagement - that defines when firearms are carried fully unloaded, partially loaded or condition 1.

I went to Army Basic Training at Ft. Dix, NJ in 1984 followed by Unit Supply and Armorer training at Ft. Lee, VA. Then I went back to Army Ground Combat Training at Ft. Dix, NJ in 2008 prior to deploying on the ground in Iraq as an Individual Augmentee (IA) - that's when the Army can't handle things on their own and they have to ask the other services to send people to help them out.

We may have crossed paths. I am surprised you think Rules of Engagement defining weapon status are rationally adopted based on threat. They are often heavily influenced by Command personality and politics.

1911Tuner
March 18, 2014, 07:43 PM
I still have some doubt it was necessary, even to hit asprin tablets.

*shrug*

Regardless...that's how he did it...and he wasn't the only one. Since his technique was about staying alive...he felt that it was necessary, or he'd have never gone to the trouble to perfect it and take it to that level.

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 07:51 PM
1911Tuner,

I'll pull out my autographed copy and have a look. Thanks. I still have some doubt it was necessary, even to hit asprin tablets.

You are indeed correct 1911Tuner, it is on page 61 of No Second Place Winner. On the same page he mentions how dangerous this technique is to learn. He warns about shooting oneself in the leg. To me this technique is one of those things that can be done, but really should not be done because the need for it is so remote it does not warrant the consequences of the worst case scenario. I still doubt it was necessary to achieve that speed. Even if it was, how many milliseconds of delay would have been incurred if the trigger pull was delayed until the muzzle was pointed down and forward of any body part? Anyone know a modern DA revolver fastdraw expert who could comment on this?

1911Tuner
March 18, 2014, 07:56 PM
To me this technique is one of those things that can be done, but really should not be done because the need for it is so remote it does not warrant the consequences of the worst case scenario. I still doubt it was necessary to achieve that speed. Even if it was, how many milliseconds of delay would have been incurred if the trigger pull was delayed until the muzzle was pointed down and forward of any body part?

Jordan perfected it specifically for the worst case scenario. He understood...as did Bryce and Cantrell...that men live or die in fractions of seconds, and if they could hit first in a fraction...their odds of surviving intact went up.

They understood that they had to be lucky every time the other guy pulled the trigger...and that he only had to get lucky once.

And they just refused to trust it to luck...so they practiced a dangerous move for dangerous situations.

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 08:14 PM
*shrug*

Regardless...that's how he did it...and he wasn't the only one. Since his technique was about staying alive...he felt that it was necessary, or he'd have never gone to the trouble to perfect it and take it to that level.

Shrug? Really?

How about that is how they started to learn not realizing how soon they were pulling the trigger and the risk of doing so? They may have had the extreme confidence of youth that arrogantly believes nothing bad can happen to them. They may have been lucky during the steep and dangerous learning curve to have not shot themselves. When near the top of the curve muscle memory may have finally reduce the possibility of error to insignificance. Do you really think they perfected this technique to that level of performance just out of belief it was necessary to staying alive. Yeah, I don't think so. I have known too many cocky young men with guns both with and without badges. Nobody with an ounce of sense today would adopt this technique except for self-aggrandizement. Training time is far better spent on learning how to recognize and avoid situations where Bill Jordan level speed of draw is needed than spent training to use a hazardous technique for a very remote possibility that a safer technique would not be fast enough. Do you really think a safer technique that may be .01 of second slower isn't going to be fast enough?

Nom de Forum
March 18, 2014, 08:29 PM
Jordan perfected it specifically for the worst case scenario. He understood...as did Bryce and Cantrell...that men live or die in fractions of seconds, and if they could hit first in a fraction...their odds of surviving intact went up.

They understood that they had to be lucky every time the other guy pulled the trigger...and that he only had to get lucky once.

And they just refused to trust it to luck...so they practiced a dangerous move for dangerous situations.

They probably did think this even if it was unrealistic. Unlike competition, pistol gunfights are rarely won by hundreths or thousandths of a second. Perhaps if the technique was foolproof in hitting the brainstem of your adversary it would be an acceptable hazard to learn it.

NavyLCDR
March 18, 2014, 08:30 PM
We may have crossed paths. I am surprised you think Rules of Engagement defining weapon status are rationally adopted based on threat. They are often heavily influenced by Command personality and politics. I do agree that ROEs are more (if not solely) influenced by politics. However, within each ROE for a specific region/zone, there are usually differing levels of weapons readiness depending (somewhat) on the threat level.

For example, in garrison in the green zone (Camp Liberty and Camp Victory in Baghdad) we carried firearms completely unloaded. On personnel movement convoys along relatively safe routes (such as between Camp Libery and Baghdad International Airport), we carried M-4s that were magazine loaded only, with no round chambered.

Inside the United States, DEFCONs set the level of weapons readiness - at least when I was OIC of remote aircraft maintenance locations during exercises.

farm23
March 18, 2014, 08:41 PM
Way back in the 50's a class mate and I were practicing fast draw with SA 45's at the city dump. I ended up taking him to the emergence room with a 45 thru his thigh. Fortunately it was a clean thru shot and he recovered fully. I carry my SA revolvers in Threeperson type holsters but do not put my finger on the trigger till it is cleared. I have no need to be any faster.

Sergei Mosin
March 18, 2014, 11:37 PM
Shrug? Really?

How about that is how they started to learn not realizing how soon they were pulling the trigger and the risk of doing so? They may have had the extreme confidence of youth that arrogantly believes nothing bad can happen to them. They may have been lucky during the steep and dangerous learning curve to have not shot themselves. When near the top of the curve muscle memory may have finally reduce the possibility of error to insignificance. Do you really think they perfected this technique to that level of performance just out of belief it was necessary to staying alive. Yeah, I don't think so. I have known too many cocky young men with guns both with and without badges. Nobody with an ounce of sense today would adopt this technique except for self-aggrandizement. Training time is far better spent on learning how to recognize and avoid situations where Bill Jordan level speed of draw is needed than spent training to use a hazardous technique for a very remote possibility that a safer technique would not be fast enough. Do you really think a safer technique that may be .01 of second slower isn't going to be fast enough?

Men like Jordan knew that they were going to be in gunfights. Avoidance isn't much use when you wear a badge. Knowing that they were going to be in gunfights, they trained to gain every possible advantage.

Does .01 second make a difference? Well...consider that the venerable .45 ACP travels at 830 feet per second. In a hundredth of a second, it will travel 8.3 feet. Fast draw technique is most useful in sudden encounters at close range, so an advantage of .01 second may very well mean that your opponent won't ever get his shot off.

Iggy
March 19, 2014, 12:10 AM
Cantrell and I were in the same Patrol Division before he quit. Scary SOB, nuff sed.

I shot with both guys at different times. What I learned from Bill got me home more than once. He was dang sure faster than Cantrell.

Jim K
March 19, 2014, 12:13 AM
Golly, folks, let me know when you invent a time machine and I will go back and make sure I never take less than 32 minutes to get my gun into action. Oh, and get permission from the FBI, CIA, NSA, EPA and my sainted grandmother.

"There is a difference between playing games and staying alive." Yep, but how do you learn the skills to stay alive if you never "play games", aka, practice?

Jim

Iggy
March 19, 2014, 12:33 AM
Bill said work on smooth, fast will come.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:21 AM
[QUOTE]Men like Jordan knew that they were going to be in gunfights.

Of course they did.

Avoidance isn't much use when you wear a badge.

Avoidance is HUGELY of use when you wear a badge. Your comment is so silly, I hope you rethink and retract to save me the time in explaining. While you are doing that rethink, research the phrase “situational awareness”.

Knowing that they were going to be in gunfights, they trained to gain every possible advantage.

I am sure they did. We all know the techniques they used are still considered state of the art in law enforcement and fast gun handling.:rolleyes:

Does .01 second make a difference? Well...consider that the venerable .45 ACP travels at 830 feet per second. In a hundredth of a second, it will travel 8.3 feet. Fast draw technique is most useful in sudden encounters at close range, so an advantage of .01 second may very well mean that your opponent won't ever get his shot off.

Then and now people shot with pistols, no matter how fast the shot is delivered, are almost never incapacitated to the point it would interrupt an already initiated, determined attempt to fire. When we all start using phasers, that instantly begin the vaporization of assailants, .01 of a second will be an insurmountable advantage and it will perhaps be worth adopting very hazardous to your safety fastdraw techniques.

Bill Jordan was as an incredibly talented shooter and great law enforcement officer. I very much appreciate and respect this. If he were starting out today I don't think his technique would be considered by law enforcement for even a millisecond as appropriate training for anyone other than civilian exhibition shooters.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:27 AM
....... What I learned from Bill got me home more than once.

I don't doubt for a second that it did. I am sure much of what Jordan knew and did to stay alive are still very good practices.

I hope nobody thinks I am attacking Bill Jordan's reputation. I am merely applying critical analysis to one of his techniques.

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 01:32 AM
"There is a difference between playing games and staying alive." Yep, but how do you learn the skills to stay alive if you never "play games", aka, practice?

Nope. But the difference I was referring to is if you only practice to win games by playing within the rules and staying safe, you may not learn enough to stay alive. (YMMV)

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:40 AM
Golly, folks, let me know when you invent a time machine and I will go back and make sure I never take less than 32 minutes to get my gun into action. Oh, and get permission from the FBI, CIA, NSA, EPA and my sainted grandmother.

"There is a difference between playing games and staying alive." Yep, but how do you learn the skills to stay alive if you never "play games", aka, practice?

Jim

You already have a time machine. It is called your memory. How many times when using that technique at full speed did you fire into the ground or before being on target? How much practice time did it take before your never fired into the ground or before being on target? The problem with Jordan's technique is that to be safe it requires practicing until you can't get it wrong but that first requires a very hazardous period of time practicing just to get it right.

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 01:42 AM
I hope nobody thinks I am attacking Bill Jordan's reputation. I am merely applying critical analysis to one of his techniques.

You've got the critical part down pat.

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 01:46 AM
The problem with Jordan's technique is that to be safe it requires practicing until you can't get it wrong but that first requires a very hazardous period of time practicing just to get it right.

It appears you expect 100% safety and 0% risk at every stage of any experience. :scrutiny:

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:56 AM
You've got the critical part down pat.

I sure do. I think it is very critical when training people to shoot that we do not let them start pulling the trigger until on target and I know you feel the same way because of your numerous citations of Cooper's Four Rules.:neener:

Old Fuff
March 19, 2014, 01:59 AM
The problem with Jordan's technique is that to be safe it requires practicing until you can't get it wrong but that first requires a very hazardous period of time practicing just to get it right.

Not really. His usual procedure was to first explain the "what and how" part followed by practice drawing with an unloaded revolver. When the necessary skill was perfected the next step was shooting using cartridges that were loaded with wax bullets propelled by a primer, and no powder. The last step, after the others were mastered was to advance to regular ammunition. I have never heard of a student shooting themselves while Bill was doing the tutoring.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 02:11 AM
It appears you expect 100% safety and 0% risk at every stage of any experience. :scrutiny:

How can you possibly write that with a straight face. Nothing I have posted supports that perception. I have never expected that. You think I would have jumped out of so many perfectly good airplanes if I expected "0% risk at every stage of any experience"? I am a very strong believer in calculating risk to prevent actions that the consequence of error is catastrophic. With regard to Jordan's draw technique; just how many extra thousandths of a second would be added by delaying the trigger pull until the muzzle is pointed a few degrees away from the body?

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 02:28 AM
I sure do. I think it is very critical when training people to shoot that we do not let them start pulling the trigger until on target and I know you feel the same way because of your numerous citations of Cooper's Four Rules.:neener:
When training people in current times to shoot at paper targets in hopes of getting high scores and/or playing a game that might give them some skills that might improve their chances of surviving an unlikely but possible encounter with an armed assailant, a risk/reward analysis mitigates towards prioritizing safety at every stage of training and practice because the likelihood of the high risk encounter is low and the risk of injury or death is higher during training.

But that is not the same as an experienced Border Patrol Agent in an earlier time period preparing for an anticipated, violently dangerous, and life-threatening work experience that has a high probability of occurring each and every day. A risk/reward analysis mitigates towards taking higher risks in training to develop peak skills because the likelihood of an even higher risk encounter where those skills will be needed is very high. The goal is to take greater risk in a controlled situation (practice) in order to have greater control in the high risk encounter and increasing the chances of survival.

The goal in both cases is to increase the chances of survival where the risk is the greatest by lowering the risk. Sometimes this may allow a reduction in overall risk. Sometimes it only allows spreading the risk. In Jordan's case, he probably felt it it was worth increasing the risk of shooting the ground to reduce the risk of being shot himself.

And that part about a very hazardous period practicing just to get it right? i wonder if he did that with live ammo or dry-fire until he was confident of being on target? :scrutiny: (I see Old Fuff has answered that).

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 02:31 AM
Not really. His usual procedure was to first explain the "what and how" part followed by practice drawing with an unloaded revolver. When the necessary skill was perfected the next step was shooting using cartridges that were loaded with wax bullets propelled by a primer, and no powder. The last step, after the others were mastered was to advance to regular ammunition. I have never heard of a student shooting themselves while Bill was doing the tutoring.

That last step is an enormous step and is that hazardous period of learning to get it right before you can't get it wrong. Hey I believe you that you "never heard of a student shooting themselves while Bill was doing the tutoring". But that in no way means it didn't happen or happened at a later date after the tutoring. With the passage of so much time, little incentive for Jordan or anyone else to document such an event, and the relatively small number of people tutored by Jordan, confirming the success of preventing NDs using his technique is very difficult. If we apply what we know today about what causes NDs, it is very plausible to conclude that Jordan's technique makes users very susceptible to having NDs.

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 02:32 AM
With regard to Jordan's draw technique; just how many extra thousandths of a second would be added by delaying the trigger pull until the muzzle is pointed a few degrees away from the body?

Don't ask me. Ask the guys he faced who did wait. Oh, nevermind. There are No Second Place Winners. :neener:

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 02:42 AM
If we apply what we know today about what causes NDs, it is very plausible to conclude that Jordan's technique makes users very susceptible to having NDs.

No, it isn't. If we apply what we know today of Jordan's technique, it is plausible to conclude that users following the technique were not very susceptible to having NDs.

However, your conclusion applies if we engage in speculation about what we may or may not know of Jordan's technique. The problem with speculation, is that it is speculative.

1911Tuner
March 19, 2014, 02:46 AM
I hope nobody thinks I am attacking Bill Jordan's reputation. I am merely applying critical analysis to one of his techniques.

You're analyzing his techniques based on your own thoughts and experiences...not his. He may have had some very good reasons for his methods...and probably did. As the man said: "Walk a mile in my shoes."

How many times when using that technique at full speed did you fire into the ground or before being on target? The problem with Jordan's technique is that to be safe it requires practicing until you can't get it wrong but that first requires a very hazardous period of time practicing just to get it right.

Go back and re-read his descriptions on how he arrived at his level of speed and skill. The move is done smoothly and slowly, timing the hammer break precisely. The move is repeated exactly the same way...over and over before stepping up the speed. Lather/rinse/repeat before taking it to the next level...practicing it until he couldn't get it wrong. It takes an incredible amount of time and discipline...and after thinking about what he'd been doing, he never practiced or did exhibitions with live ammunition.

Bottom line? Is gun. Gun not safe.

He dang sure was faster than Cantrell

Not according to Jordan. He was called as an expert witness at Cantrell's murder trial, and was asked to do a demonstration for the jury with blanks in which the baliff was handed a cocked revolver...pointed it at Bill, who had his hands at his sides...and instructed to fire when he saw him twitch. Bill drew and fired, and left a stunned, wide-eyed baliff standing there with his gun still cocked.

Cantrell's lawyer Jerry Spence then put Jordan back in the witness chair. The conversation went like this:

"Mr Jordan, do you know my client?"

"Oh, yes. I know Ed very well."

"Is he as fast with a gun as you are?"

"Well...I reckon Ed's a mite bit faster than me."

Cantrell was acquitted.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 02:49 AM
When training people in current times to shoot at paper targets in hopes of getting high scores and/or playing a game that might give them some skills that might improve their chances of surviving an unlikely but possible encounter with an armed assailant, a risk/reward analysis mitigates towards prioritizing safety at every stage of training and practice because the likelihood of the high risk encounter is low and the risk of injury or death is higher during training.

But that is not the same as an experienced Border Patrol Agent in an earlier time period preparing for an anticipated, violently dangerous, and life-threatening work experience that has a high probability of occurring each and every day. A risk/reward analysis mitigates towards taking higher risks in training to develop peak skills because the likelihood of an even higher risk encounter where those skills will be needed is very high. The goal is to take greater risk in a controlled situation (practice) in order to have greater control in the high risk encounter and increasing the chances of survival.

The goal in both cases is to increase the chances of survival where the risk is the greatest by lowering the risk. Sometimes this may allow a reduction in overall risk. Sometimes it only allows spreading the risk. In Jordan's case, he probably felt it it was worth increasing the risk of shooting the ground to reduce the risk of being shot himself.

And that part about a very hazardous period practicing just to get it right? i wonder if he did that with live ammo or dry-fire until he was confident of being on target? :scrutiny: (I see Old Fuff has answered that).

I understand what you are writing about reduced safety standards. Every soldier who has ever deployed knows peace time safety standards are not the same as wartime standards.

Jordan actually stresses in his book the need to not rush and have a shot into the ground. He has no belief it will effectively distract the assailant.

My point is that Jordan could have had it both ways, safe and fast enough, without initiating trigger pull before the pistol was in a safe direction. He just did not acknowledge that. Just because you have never had a mistake it does not mean you will never have a mistake if conditions make it a possibility. Very skilled individuals often forget this and believe if they can do something they can teach it to anyone.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 02:50 AM
Don't ask me. Ask the guys he faced who did wait. Oh, nevermind. There are No Second Place Winners. :neener:

Very hilarious.:rolleyes:

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 02:59 AM
[QUOTE]No, it isn't. If we apply what we know today of Jordan's technique, it is plausible to conclude that users following the technique were not very susceptible to having NDs.

Give it a rest JRH! Nobody does this today because it is too prone to causing NDs. It is more of a stunt than a practical technique. A stunt an expert like Jordan could get away with.

However, your conclusion applies if we engage in speculation about what we may or may not know of Jordan's technique. The problem with speculation, is that it is speculative.

It is not speculation when you have first hand experience observing NDs caused by pulling the trigger too soon on DA revolvers.

It is getting late. If we keep going at it I will never get to bed!

1911Tuner
March 19, 2014, 03:08 AM
My point is that Jordan could have had it both ways, safe and fast enough.

And you're still trying to make someone else's decision. That's very close to the anti's argument with the private citizen questioning his need to carry a gun. i.e. How the hell do you know what I need to do?" ("You" used generically rather than personally.)

Jordan's technique...and he wasn't the only one who worked with it...wasn't something that he took lightly, nor was it anything that he intended to use unless and until the situation called for it. It was a move that would allow him to "Beat the Drop" when his opponent already had his gun in play, or actually pointed at him.

It was an extreme measure that was only to be used in the most extreme circumstances. Could it go wrong? Of course it could. That's why he never stopped practicing it. Any time we handle loaded weapons, there's always the chance that it could go wrong. That's why we practice safe gun handling every time we pick one up.

Can anyone be trained to match his speed and accuracy? Of course not. Neither can every aspiring pro baseball player match the batting average of Hank Aaron or Lou Gherig. There will always be prodigies in any field, but everyone strives to be the best that they can be. Jordan's specialty was fast draw with a double-action revolver. That's part of why he lobbied for a K-Frame .357 Magnum. Its weight allowed him to be...in his words...A mite bit faster. He had his own reasons for desiring to be "A mite bit faster" and they had nothing to do with showing off.

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 03:08 AM
Give it a rest JRH! Nobody does this today

We aren't talking about somone doing this today, we're talking about Jordan doing it.

It is getting late. If we keep going at it I will never get to bed!

Goodnight, Gracie.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 03:19 AM
You're analyzing his techniques based on your own thoughts and experiences...not his. He may have had some very good reasons for his methods...and probably did. As the man said: "Walk a mile in my shoes."

Sure he thought he had very good reasons for his methods, I just don't believe his method (singular reference to early trigger pull) was the best method regardless of how successful he was using it. It is a ND waiting to happen.

[QUOTE]Go back and re-read his descriptions on how he arrived at his level of speed and skill. The move is done smoothly and slowly, timing the hammer break precisely. The move is repeated exactly the same way...over and over before stepping up the speed. Lather/rinse/repeat before taking it to the next level...practicing it until he couldn't get it wrong. It takes an incredible amount of time and discipline...and after thinking about what he'd been doing, he never practiced or did exhibitions with live ammunition.

When a type of action has the potential for a specific type of error if a sequence mistake is made, you can only delay the inevitable occurrence of that type of error through practice. When any gain from a more hazardous action is so small as to be trivial compared to using a different type of action that is less prone to error, it is reasonable to choose the latter type of action as S.O.P.

1911Tuner how many people have you trained in SD shooting to start pulling the trigger before the sights are on target?

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 03:22 AM
Good night JRH6856 and 1911Tuner. I will reply tomorrow.

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 06:39 AM
It is not speculation when you have first hand experience observing NDs caused by pulling the trigger too soon on DA revolvers.

We are talking about Jordan, right? I didn't realize you had first hand experience observing NDs by Jordan or his students. Where and when did these observations occur? OTOH, if you had no direct first-hand observations of Jordan, you are just speculating and I'll leave you to it.

Blueduck
March 19, 2014, 08:51 AM
"Why an exposed trigger in a holster?"

For the same reason we used to tote kids around in the bed of a pickup as opposed to a car seat. :rolleyes:

Combat Engineer
March 19, 2014, 10:50 AM
My daily runner is still a 1948 Chevy pickup, and back when they were kids you couldn't get them to ride anywhere else.

As for exposed trigger guard holsters, my edc is a custom Tom Threepersons style holster.

"Why...?" [ Jim PHL ]

Because bad guys like to ambush good guys.



PS: Never had a ND with it.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 12:13 PM
1911Tuner - And you're still trying to make someone else's decision. That's very close to the anti's argument with the private citizen questioning his need to carry a gun. i.e. How the hell do you know what I need to do?" ("You" used generically rather than personally.)


This is an unwarranted and unfair analogy. One I am sure if I applied to you would cause great personal offense.

1911Tuner - Jordan's technique...and he wasn't the only one who worked with it...wasn't something that he took lightly, nor was it anything that he intended to use unless and until the situation called for it. It was a move that would allow him to "Beat the Drop" when his opponent already had his gun in play, or actually pointed at him.

It was an extreme measure that was only to be used in the most extreme circumstances. Could it go wrong? Of course it could. That's why he never stopped practicing it. Any time we handle loaded weapons, there's always the chance that it could go wrong. That's why we practice safe gun handling every time we pick one up.

No doubt he did not take using this technique lightly. But, even if you increase the speed at which you “Beat the Drop” by a few thousands of a second it does not realistically decrease the possibility your adversary will not return fire a fatal hit. Without making a devastating CNS hit there is little chance that trivial amount of extra speed will make any difference. Why use a hazardous draw technique if there is no practical benefit?

1911Tuner - Can anyone be trained to match his speed and accuracy? Of course not. Neither can every aspiring pro baseball player match the batting average of Hank Aaron or Lou Gherig. There will always be prodigies in any field, but everyone strives to be the best that they can be. Jordan's specialty was fast draw with a double-action revolver. That's part of why he lobbied for a K-Frame .357 Magnum. Its weight allowed him to be...in his words...A mite bit faster. He had his own reasons for desiring to be "A mite bit faster" and they had nothing to do with showing off.

Today you would be hard pressed to find a trainer that would agree Jordan’s “reasons” validate using his trigger pull while drawing technique because the ends do not justify the means. No matter how successful Jordan was at using the technique, it is an unnecessary and inappropriate technique to use today.


JRH6856 - We aren't talking about someone doing this today, we're talking about Jordan doing it.

We are talking about Jordan, right? I didn't realize you had first hand experience observing NDs by Jordan or his students. Where and when did these observations occur? OTOH, if you had no direct first-hand observations of Jordan, you are just speculating and I'll leave you to it.

“We” are not. You may be talking about what Jordan did. I am discussing aspects of a Jordan technique and made some not implausible comments about it based on personal experience and current norms of gun handling. If you want to call that speculating, fine. The definition of the word speculate correctly applied to this discussion is: to ponder. The definition of ponder is: to weigh in the mind, appraise, to deliberate about, to review mentally. There is nothing inappropriate or disrespectful in doing that. Never did I indicate I had personal experience with Jordan.

Gentlemen, judging by the tone of your recent posts my impression is I am annoying you because you think one of your personal heros is under attack. My comments are not a personal attack on Bill Jordan’s character, only a criticism of an outdated technique he used.

Greg528iT
March 19, 2014, 12:24 PM
Moderators, it's probably time to lock this thread, it's gone way off the rails.

Question asked and answered. Why open trigger? Cause back in the day with primarily SA revolvers it didn't matter as much. With the advent of DA revolvers and safety in the trigger Autos the gun community as a whole has deemed it better to cover the trigger.

We live in the 21st century not a 1950s Western where one can claim self defense cause they drew 1st. We allow for a police officer to have his weapon out and trained on a suspect and if that suspect decides to suicide by cop, so be it. We want the police to be trained to situation ally aware. If we were on a jury today we would acquit a police officer who already had his gun drawn and HAD to fire. We might also find a police officer guilty if it proved out that he DIDN’T have to fire, but did anyway cause he knew he was faster.

1911Tuner
March 19, 2014, 12:37 PM
This is an unwarranted and unfair analogy.

Why is it unfair? You keep trying to determine what Jordan needed to do. He did it the way he did it for his own reasons. Whether you see a "need" for it or not is irrelevant.

Today you would be hard pressed to find a trainer that would agree Jordan’s “reasons” validate using his trigger pull while drawing technique because the ends do not justify the means.


And what today's trainers would agree or disagree with is also irrelevant. I'd be willing to bet that if Jordan Bryce and Cantrell were alive to hear one of them admonish them for it...they'd probably chuckle and go about their business...and they'd keep doing it while thinking: "Son...who the hell are you to tell me what I ought'nt be a-doin'?"

No matter how successful Jordan was at using the technique, it is an unnecessary and inappropriate technique to use today.

And that's still your personal opinion...and you're still trying to determine what somebody else doesn't "need" to do.

And I'm in ageement with CraigC. This one probably needs to be locked, but it's not my area and not up to me.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2014, 12:56 PM
Yet they were indeed carried in Condition 2. I saw this and alway thought going to Condition 2 was an ND situation waiting to happen. Command was so hostile toward Condition 1, I suspect some local commander's believed Condition 2 to be safer.
What people do and what is officially authorized are two different things. The Army authorized only conditions 1 and 3, and forbade condition 2 -- and for a very good reason.

JRH6856
March 19, 2014, 01:06 PM
“We” are not. You may be talking about what Jordan did. I am discussing aspects of a Jordan technique and made some not implausible comments about it based on personal experience and current norms of gun handling. If you want to call that speculating, fine. The definition of the word speculate correctly applied to this discussion is: to ponder. The definition of ponder is: to weigh in the mind, appraise, to deliberate about, to review mentally. There is nothing inappropriate or disrespectful in doing that. Never did I indicate I had personal experience with Jordan.

Then , as promised, I'll leave you to it.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:33 PM
[QUOTE]Why is it unfair? You keep trying to determine what Jordan needed to do. He did it the way he did it for his own reasons. Whether you see a "need" for it or not is irrelevant.

Why is it unfair? If it isn't readily apparent to you upon reflection I doubt I can make you understand why. I would never use that analogy even if it were accurate. It is like throwing gasoline on a fire when used on a Firearms Forum.

And what today's trainers would agree or disagree with is also irrelevant. I'd be willing to bet that if Jordan Bryce and Cantrell were alive to hear one of them admonish them for it...they'd probably chuckle and go about their business...and they'd keep doing it while thinking: "Son...who the hell are you to tell me what I ought'nt be a-doin'?"

Chuckling all the way to the unemployment office or private security guard job. They would be unemployable in law enforcement today for reasons of liability if it were known they refused to stop using this technique.

And that's still your personal opinion...and you're still trying to determine what somebody else doesn't "need" to do.

Aren't we all, including you, when we discuss appropriate technique for situations?

And I'm in ageement with CraigC. This one probably needs to be locked, but it's not my area and not up to me.

Yeah, the reasons why we don't see many open trigger guard holsters designed now has been answered.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:34 PM
What people do and what is officially authorized are two different things. The Army authorized only conditions 1 and 3, and forbade condition 2 -- and for a very good reason.

Agreed and agreed.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:37 PM
Then , as promised, I'll leave you to it.

Ok. I always enjoy our debates and look forward to future encounters. Until we meet again, my best regards.

Old Fuff
March 19, 2014, 01:39 PM
Again in a conversation, Bill did say – with a grin and twinkle in his eyes – that his style of waist-level shooting became very unpopular when the law enforcement community changed from revolvers to pistols. The problem was that when fired from any position other then eye level they would bounce hot brass off the shooter’s head, arm, and chest.

Law enforcement officers, as well as others, are too often faced with a situation where they suddenly and unexpected find themselves facing someone who has a gun out and pointed at them. Bill’s position was that if one had the skill they could in an extreme emergency draw, fire and hit within a time frame that beat the criminal’s ability to react (aka “reaction time”). His technique for doing this was unquestionably valid, as he often demonstrated. What trainers do today employing entirely different handguns and techniques in no way affects what he did, and why.

Your contention that his method was unsafe – and unnecessary – is a matter of opinion, which you have every right to have. But Bill’s reasoning was based on actual experience as a Border Patrolman working along the sometime risky U.S./Mexican border around El Paso, Texas. On occasion it saved a lawman’s life. Knowing that was enough for him, and me.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 01:52 PM
[QUOTE]...... Bill’s position was that if one had the skill they could in an extreme emergency draw, fire and hit within a time frame that beat the criminal’s ability to react (aka “reaction time”). His technique for doing this was unquestionably valid, as he often demonstrated.


It may beat the criminal's ability to react before being shot, it does not ensure prevention of the criminal firing a fatal shot at you after being hit. You could fire all six rounds from Jordan's revolver into the heart of an adversary and their still oxgenated brain would make it possible to return fatal fire. Mortally wounded people are well known to have fatal shot people.

Your contention that his method was unsafe – and unnecessary – is a matter of opinion, which you have every right to have. But Bill’s reasoning was based on actual experience as a Border Patrolman working along the sometime risky U.S./Mexican border around El Paso, Texas. On occasion it saved a lawman’s life. Knowing that was enough for him, and me.

Yes, it is my opinion. An opinion in alignment with current gun handling techniques. I never wrote it could not work, just that it is not infallible, and too hazardous to be justifiable.

Iggy
March 19, 2014, 03:45 PM
1911tuner,

You had to know Bill and Jerry Spence, and Sweetwater County to appreciate what went down in that trial. *G*

fiftybmg
March 19, 2014, 04:50 PM
I'm coming in on the tail end here, but I do agree that the exposed trigger holsters were designed and made for pistols that had a manual thumb-operated safety.

A semi-auto with a thumb-operated safety is fine with an exposed trigger, as long as the safety is on; remember the old saying 'cocked and locked', which is how most 1911 type pistols were and are carried.

As for mentioning Bill Jordan, any man that can draw his pistol before the ping-pong ball hits the floor is entitled to grab it any way he likes.

Blueduck
March 19, 2014, 05:01 PM
Ehh things change, now days no cop would wear one because some high punk would reach over and send one from his own gun into the officers leg just as a lark to post on YouTube.

I love nostalgia as much as the next guy, but from the thread their are a WHOLE LOT of posters who would be wildly surprised if they researched Bills gun fight record for themselves...

JTQ
March 19, 2014, 09:42 PM
I'm coming in on the tail end here, but I do agree that the exposed trigger holsters were designed and made for pistols that had a manual thumb-operated safety.
Or revolvers with no safety at all.

...now days no cop would wear one because some high punk would reach over and send one from his own gun into the officers leg just as a lark to post on YouTube.
I suspect a revolver's cylinder won't rotate when the gun is holstered, which would make it tough to fire while holstered.

Nom de Forum
March 19, 2014, 10:46 PM
Or revolvers with no safety at all.


I suspect a revolver's cylinder won't rotate when the gun is holstered, which would make it tough to fire while holstered.

With many holsters, past and present, it is possible for the cylinder to rotate. Holster fit has not and sometimes is still not very tight, depending on the design and material.

CraigC
March 20, 2014, 12:22 PM
...it is an unnecessary and inappropriate technique to use today.
Nonsense. It's faster to shoot from the hip, that is a fact. If you need the time between leather and firing the first shot to cycle a double action revolver, then it is not "unnecessary or inappropriate". All easy judgements to make from the comfort of your PC. Jordan was extremely fast and it's stupid to sit here and pass judgement on how he did what he did.

Old Fuff
March 20, 2014, 01:28 PM
...now days no cop would wear one because some high punk would reach over and send one from his own gun into the officers leg just as a lark to post on YouTube.

Now days is probably a moot point, because very few uniformed police officers carry revolvers and it's generally accepted that striker-fired pistols with a safety lever in the trigger's face should be carried in holsters that cover the trigger guard.

But back in the days when revolvers were carried and pistols of any kind were seldom seen, incidents where someone was able to fire an officer's gun while it was still holstered were very, very rare. What was more likely to happen (but still very rare) was that the gun was snatched out of the holster.

I am somewhat amused at some of the arguments that covered trigger guard on holsters used to carry revolvers (not pistols) are necessary, when past experience showed that this wasn’t necessarily the case. If it had been such rigs would have disappeared shortly after World War Two. The fact is that they became more popular, not less.

Another obvious fact is that a covered trigger guard holster ceases to be a deterrent in preventing an unintentional discharge once the handgun is lifted about 1 ½ to 2 inches, and at that point the gun is still pointing in a mostly vertical direction.

This is not to say that those who prefer holsters that cover the trigger guard should have to use one that doesn’t offer this feature. At the same time those that aren’t worried or prefer an exposed trigger guard when carrying a revolver should be equally free to make their choice without being hammered on by Modern Technique of the Pistol advocates who apparently believe it has be their way or no way.

JRH6856
March 20, 2014, 05:21 PM
At the same time those that aren’t worried or prefer an exposed trigger guard when carrying a revolver should be equally free to make their choice without being hammered on by Modern Technique of the Pistol advocates who apparently believe it has be their way or no way.

Extend that to include DA and 1911 style pistols, and I'll say "Ditto"

Old Fuff
March 20, 2014, 06:10 PM
I admit to concentrating on revolvers in my previous posts because that’s where my greater experience lies in so far as holsters designed to expose the trigger guard are concerned. However I am an advocate of free choice where individuals can do whatever they see fit and are comfortable with. I did at one time carry a Walther PPK in an IWB holster that fully exposed the trigger guard, and back during the Viet-Nam war era made an exposed-guard rig for the U.S. .45 Service Pistol for a Marine NCO – who later shot his way out of a situation that would have gotten him killed if he was wearing anything that was issued. Of course the pistol was in Condition One/Cocked & Locked.

1911Tuner
March 20, 2014, 06:26 PM
An opinion in alignment with current gun handling techniques.

And again...what does that have to do with it? This question isn't about gun-handling techniques. It's about doing what he could to insure going home alive.

I never wrote it could not work, just that it is not infallible,

Nobody claimed that it's infallible, including Jordan. He alluded to the risks involved. He was willing to take that risk after doing all that was humanly possible to eliminate the risks. That's why he practiced with wax bullets.

and too hazardous to be justifiable

You're doin' it again.

Too hazardous for you to justify...but it's not just about you.

And as for the "top trainers" who you're so sure would disapprove...If one of them threw down on Jordan or Bryce or Cantrell, they'd be shot before they cleared leather. And if both men went for their guns at the same instant, they'd be shot about the same time their hands hit their pistol butts.

Given that...who's right and who's wrong? If the object of the exercise is surviving a lethal encounter, it seems to me that those old gunmen had the answer.

That's what landed Cantrell in court on a premeditated murder charge. The prosecution couldn't believe that a man with a holstered gun could beat a man who already had his gun drawn. If it hadn't been for Jordan's display, he'd have likely gone to prison...and if he hadn't practiced and mastered the "risky" technique...he'd have died.

Vern Humphrey
March 20, 2014, 06:52 PM
Given that...who's right and who's wrong?
If a car slipped off the jack and pinned a man under it -- and the only witness was an Olympic weightlifter, the right thing to do would be to grab the bumper and lift the car off the victim.

But if an ordinary mortal were the only witness, the right thing to do would be for him to get help.

Similarly, if Bill Jordan asked my advice, I would tell him to use whatever works for him. But if I were training students, I would not recommend they use Jordan's holster or technique.

1911Tuner
March 20, 2014, 07:07 PM
Similarly, if Bill Jordan asked my advice, I would tell him to use whatever works for him.

Bingo.

But if I were training students, I would not recommend they use Jordan's holster or technique.

Nor would I. This isn't something that can be taught. It can only be learned by diligent, repetitious practice....but if a student asked me about it, I'd point him toward Jordan's book and leave it up to him. I can't...and won't...decide what's right for somebody else.

In the final analysis, if a man is 15 feet away, reaching for a gun...you won't be able to draw fast enough to suit ya.

CraigC
March 20, 2014, 08:16 PM
If I were having a conversation with Bill Jordan, I would much more listening than talking. ;)

1911Tuner
March 21, 2014, 01:10 PM
If I were having a conversation with Bill Jordan, I would much more listening than talking.

Yep.

Anyway...the question was: "Why an exposed trigger guard?"

It's been answered. Whether we agree with the technique that gave birth to it is irrelevant.

Nom de Forum
March 21, 2014, 01:33 PM
Nonsense. It's faster to shoot from the hip, that is a fact. If you need the time between leather and firing the first shot to cycle a double action revolver, then it is not "unnecessary or inappropriate". All easy judgements to make from the comfort of your PC. Jordan was extremely fast and it's stupid to sit here and pass judgement on how he did what he did.

I don’t think you are paying close enough attention to what is posted in the thread. No one ever denied shooting from the hip is faster. No one wrote you did not “need the time between leather and firing the first shot to cycle a double action revolver”. The opinion I expressed was it is not necessary to begin pulling the trigger before the muzzle is in a safe direction.

1911Tuner compared me to the Anti-Gun crowd and now you are implying I am stupid. Name calling is not going to intimidate me into changing or silencing my opinion. Name calling often indicates the name-caller is feeling threatened. The expression of my opinion is not intended to, nor should it, threaten you.

Nom de Forum
March 21, 2014, 01:34 PM
Now days is probably a moot point, because very few uniformed police officers carry revolvers and it's generally accepted that striker-fired pistols with a safety lever in the trigger's face should be carried in holsters that cover the trigger guard.

But back in the days when revolvers were carried and pistols of any kind were seldom seen, incidents where someone was able to fire an officer's gun while it was still holstered were very, very rare. What was more likely to happen (but still very rare) was that the gun was snatched out of the holster.

I am somewhat amused at some of the arguments that covered trigger guard on holsters used to carry revolvers (not pistols) are necessary, when past experience showed that this wasn’t necessarily the case. If it had been such rigs would have disappeared shortly after World War Two. The fact is that they became more popular, not less.

Another obvious fact is that a covered trigger guard holster ceases to be a deterrent in preventing an unintentional discharge once the handgun is lifted about 1 ½ to 2 inches, and at that point the gun is still pointing in a mostly vertical direction.

This is not to say that those who prefer holsters that cover the trigger guard should have to use one that doesn’t offer this feature. At the same time those that aren’t worried or prefer an exposed trigger guard when carrying a revolver should be equally free to make their choice without being hammered on by Modern Technique of the Pistol advocates who apparently believe it has be their way or no way.


I don’t see where I or anyone else in this thread has “hammered on” people choosing to use exposed trigger guard holsters. Could you please identify who the “Modern Technique of the Pistol advocates” are in this thread? That is a very specific labeling, one I am sure does not apply to me. I do see what appears to be people behaving as defenders of a personal hero from an attack that only exists in the imagination of those people. No one is attacking Bill Jordan’s honor, reputation, or accomplishments.

Nom de Forum
March 21, 2014, 01:41 PM
[QUOTE]And again...what does that have to do with it? This question isn't about gun-handling techniques. It's about doing what he could to insure going home alive.

The question I am discussing is gun-handling technique. Specifically Jordan’s initiating trigger pull before the muzzle was safely pointed in front of him. I disagree he was doing what was necessary to insure he was going home alive. I am not disagreeing that he thought what he was doing was necessary to insure he was going home alive. It is my opinion few trainers today would think this specific Jordan technique is safe or a necessary to “beat the drop”.

Nobody claimed that it's infallible, including Jordan. He alluded to the risks involved. He was willing to take that risk after doing all that was humanly possible to eliminate the risks. That's why he practiced with wax bullets.

I made no claim that Jordan or anyone claimed it was infallible. It is my opinion he miscalculated the risk to benefit value. I don’t agree with him that the benefit was worth the risk. The reason I disagree is because without beginning the trigger pull until the muzzle was in a safe direction he could have been as fast or at the very least fast enough.

You're doin' it again.

Your repeatedly made mocking and dismissive comment is impressing me as an unsophisticated attempt to silence me. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that.

Too hazardous for you to justify...but it's not just about you.

So are you now implying I am a narcissist who thinks only he can determine what can be justified? There is nothing I posted to justify that bit of not so subtle name calling. I am not the only person who has this opinion. How many trainers today would agree that initiating a trigger pull before the muzzle is in a safe direction is a justifiable technique for anyone?

And as for the "top trainers" who you're so sure would disapprove...If one of them threw down on Jordan or Bryce or Cantrell, they'd be shot before they cleared leather. And if both men went for their guns at the same instant, they'd be shot about the same time their hands hit their pistol butts.

So what and why care? That has nothing to do with the disagreement in opinion. The “top trainers” may have been shot before clearing leather, but that does not mean they would not have the ability to fire a fatal shot into Jordan, Bryce, or Cantrell after being shot. Jordan’s .357 did not have the certain power of instant incapacitation. How many times must I remind you of this?

Given that...who's right and who's wrong? If the object of the exercise is surviving a lethal encounter, it seems to me that those old gunmen had the answer.

Not the only answer and certainly not the safest answer.

That's what landed Cantrell in court on a premeditated murder charge. The prosecution couldn't believe that a man with a holstered gun could beat a man who already had his gun drawn. If it hadn't been for Jordan's display, he'd have likely gone to prison...and if he hadn't practiced and mastered the "risky" technique...he'd have died.

So what and why care? That has nothing to do with the disagreement in opinion.

Nom de Forum
March 21, 2014, 01:43 PM
If I were having a conversation with Bill Jordan, I would much more listening than talking. ;)

Me too. My one contribution to the conversation would be a short and to the point question followed by respectful and rapt attention to his answer. Rapt as in engrossed, not rapt as in enraptured by hero worship.;)

Nom de Forum
March 21, 2014, 01:48 PM
Yep.

Anyway...the question was: "Why an exposed trigger guard?"

It's been answered. Whether we agree with the technique that gave birth to it is irrelevant.

I agree. Guys we are not going to change our opinions. Neither is any amount of THR peer pressure going to silence my expression of my opinion. I hope Jorg or Robert will close this thread, since the topic has been asked and answered, and the Jordan technique discussion is now pointlessly repeating the same comments and opinions.

zxcvbob
March 21, 2014, 01:59 PM
My carry holster has an exposed trigger and I kind of like it -- it fits both my S&W model 15 (I need to get a 19 someday) and Ruger Security Six. I'm not sure it would fit both if it came up and covered the trigger, because the Ruger is slightly bigger. It has a retention strap that covers the hammer.

I doubt the cylinder would turn even if it didn't have a strap, but I would not want to trust that.

Teachu2
March 21, 2014, 02:03 PM
the trigger finger is the only safety.

And always is, and always has been. Everything else are merely devices added to prevent the proper operation of a weapon. :evil:

1911Tuner
March 21, 2014, 02:04 PM
I'll go ahead and close it. It seems to have run its course.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why an exposed trigger in a holster?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!