Why an exposed trigger in a holster?

[Nom de Forum]

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]

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.

 

[JRH6856]

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]

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]

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? (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]

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

Very hilarious.

 

[Nom de Forum]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Good night JRH6856 and 1911Tuner. I will reply tomorrow.

 

[JRH6856]

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]

"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.

 

[Combat Engineer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...... 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]

1911tuner,

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