Why an exposed trigger in a holster?

[fiftybmg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If I were having a conversation with Bill Jordan, I would much more listening than talking.

 

[1911Tuner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[1911Tuner]

Done

I'll go ahead and close it. It seems to have run its course.