Any time the notion of the open front Trigger Bow comes up, there are always a handful of people who begin referencing "remove the Trigger Bow' as if the entire Trigger Bow were to be removed on the Revolver.
Also, people who feel the modificaiton is somehow 'unsafe' and a waste of time anyway, saying how 'dangerous' and how 'impractical' and so on, it is, or is purportedly shown to have been by how it is relatively unknown or confusing to people, now, etc.
Of course, none of these people have ever carried or used a revolver which had the modifications, and, none of them understand it.
Nor were these Modified Revolvers likely to be carried by ordinary Uniformed Policeman, unless, maybe, as a back up.
Nor were they ever touted to the Public as somehting intended for 'everyone'.
They were and remain, either a 'Special Order' item, or, a Modification done by a private person or Gunsmith, in order to arrive at the form intended.
They were carried by LEO or G-Men of the kinds who had autonomy, owned their own Arms, and wore Plain clothes, and or were carried by savvy private persons whose occupations or haunts recommended the advantages of the design.
Also, if one wore or wears Winter Gloves or Riding Gloves or Driving Gloves, unless having a large Frame Pistol, or a Colt 1878/1903 'Alaskan Model' with it's HUGE trigger Bow, the Gloved index Finger would tend to present a problem for readily accessing the Trigger of a normal small Frame or even mid Frame Revolver...as well as that a Spurr Hammer could or would catch on Clothing of carried in the Pocket.
As Olf Fuff has repeated many times now, these were 'Pocket Guns', and, not Holster Guns anyway.
Various people always imagine some sort of mis-hap occurring in holstering or Pocket-carrying a 'Fitz', because they are not understanding how difficult it would be to somehow actually DO the mis-deed they envision.
Do these people believe that Carrying a Cocked DA Revolver with a normal Trigger Bow, and a normal Spurr Hammer, in the Pocket or in a Holster, is a good way to Carry? If not, why do they always harp on how a 'Fitz', Carried in the Pocket, or any other way, could somehow just go 'off' because it lacks the front portion of the Trigger Bow and lacks a Hammer Spurr?
One would have to be a complete and utter incompetent to have the Revolver inadvertently discharge
and or to actuate a full Double-Action Cycle, TO discharge it, while Carrying or drawing or putting back into one's Pocket.
I genuinely doubt anyone can cite one example in fact, where any such mis-hap with a 'Fitz' had ever actually occurred.
We have imaginary vignettes being touted, of people mentioning things they 'imagine' which then get repeated by others as if such were an actual event being reviewed.
Given the by now likely thousands of NDs occuring with LEO or anyone else with 'Glocks', calling the 'Fitz Special' dangerous or impractical, ( particularly in the absense of even one authentic or factual or cited instance of any mis-hap having ever occurred at all, with a 'Fitz', no matter how incompetent or clueless the operative may have been, ) seems beyond absurd to me.
Any Arm requires intelligent, informed, aware, and responsible ownership and management.
If an Arm has design features which will tend to invite neglegent discharge incidents among informed and competent people, or, even among uninformed and inexperienced and ordinary people, or among poeople who have specific training for the Arm, then, somewhere in that grey zone of operator error, vis a vis design attribute which invites such operator error, there is a threshold where a design which is widely subject to operator error, is clearly is NOT for everyone...or, maybe, in some instances, not a good election for anyone.
I have never heard or read of one actual or substianted instance of any operator error occuring with any verion of a 'Fitz' style/design Revolver.
Others want to park me in front of a tape recorder... 
I need one of those computers where you can talk to it and it will write text... 
