Colt lawman, half trigger guard?

[Bikewer]

Bill Jordan, author of No Second Place Winner, favored a "relieved" trigger guard on his duty revolvers. The forward section is reduced in width by about half.
This for fast-draw purposes, not pocket carry.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Needs wood grips. The price would have to be right.

 

[Guillermo]

The price would have to be right.

that is for sure

 

[Old Fuff]

Bill Jordan, author of No Second Place Winner, favored a "relieved" trigger guard on his duty revolvers. The forward section is reduced in width by about half. This for fast-draw purposes, not pocket carry.

Bill had big paws. In fact the rest of him was just plain big too! No trigger guard was too big for him, and the slimming helped.

That, and the Border Patrol was not too keen about cut-away trigger guards on revolvers carried on duty.

 

[oldbear]

The price is high, I feel.

Then keep looking for a revolver that meets you liking. remember if you buy you probably will not learn to love it.

 

[Guillermo]

a fitz would have to be referred to as a "gat" or a "heater"

 

[VA27]

Many things done back when would be considered horrible today. I have a film (remember film) someplace of me drawing a Combat Magnum out of a Bucheimer Federal Man holster. The holster allows full exposure of the trigger guard and my finger is on the trigger as I draw. Worse, the hammer is half way back when the gun is at a 45 degree angle and falls as the sights come on target.

If I did that today on a police range, I would be thrown out so fast I would bounce. I think modern training is to never draw the gun unless fired on and never touch the trigger until you have been hit by at least six bullets. All in the name of "safety" and avoiding lawsuits from the bad guys.

Jim

That's the way I learned it in the academy, 'bucket and string' holster and point shooting up close. The sights were for the 25 and 50 yard line.

And you wouldn't bounce, you'd skip like a flat rock across a pond!

 

[Coop45]

Hmmmm!! A Fitz looks like something that would be a good carry when traveling by motorcycle.

 

[SaxonPig]

Jordan was 6'6" and had enormous hands. He actually needed the thinned trigger guard. Most mortals do not. The cut away guard is dangerous as it makes weapon retention a problem. If a crook grabs the gun he will likely get it from you. It makes the gun more likely to be dropped. You shove one of these butchered guns into a holster and it is much more likely to catch the exposed trigger and discharge.

S&W and Colt made revolvers 150 years ago with no guards. Note that they quickly discontinued such designs. The did so for good reason.

A revolver so modified is dangerous. It's crippled. In my opinion it's ugly.

And absolutely worthless...

 

[Guillermo]

much more likely to catch the exposed trigger and discharge.

this is true.

notice he said "more likely"

This is a possibility with any revolver. I have gotten shirt tail in my holster and had the trigger come back.

Because of that it is important to keep your thumb on the hammer when you holster a gun, modified or not.

 

[CraigC]

On my K-frames with the wide target trigger, the trigger is wider than the triggerguard anyway. So I can't imagine a thinned triggerguard coupled with a thin combat trigger to be any worse.

 

[Old Fuff]

The cut away guard is dangerous as it makes weapon retention a problem. If a crook grabs the gun he will likely get it from you. It makes the gun more likely to be dropped. You shove one of these butchered guns into a holster and it is much more likely to catch the exposed trigger and discharge.

Gee!!! Maybe I should go hide under the bed! Fact is, these are answers looking for a question. Even though the number of Fitz conversions was limited, there is no record of the catastrophic incidents you bring up actually occurring in practice rather then theory. It should be obvious that neither Colt nor others would have continued to make a revolver with a cut-away guard if repeated reports from the field described what you propose was the case.

S&W and Colt made revolvers 150 years ago with no guards. Note that they quickly discontinued such designs. They did so for good reason.

They did indeed, and they were very popular. They had one thing in common however, in that they were all single-action designed, and you had to cock the hammer before they could be fired. They went out of favor when double-action revolvers replaced them that required a long trigger travel, not because they were unsafe.

A revolver so modified is dangerous.

Doesn’t seem to be any real evidence to show this was (or is) the case, just speculation on the part of its critics.

It's crippled.

Why so? Especially when its used in the context it was supposed to be?

In my opinion it's ugly.

The men that used or indorsed them didn’t give a hoot about ugly. When it came to shootings and gunfights they had “been there and done that,” and they were interested in anything that might or would give them an edge in a very risky business. When I was much younger, and therefore knew everything there was to know… I ask Charlie Askins (who was very experienced when it came to gun fighting, “If cutting away the front of the trigger guard (which he customarly did) wasn’t dangerous?” He looked me up and down for a minute, and I got a distinct feeling he was considering if answering such a dumb question was worth the trouble, and then he replied…

“If you ever get in a fight and survive, (he seemed to think I wouldn’t) you will quickly discover that there are a lot of things that are far more dangerous then a cut-away trigger guard.”

And absolutely worthless...

Men like Askins, Rex Applegate and William Fairbairn didn’t think so, and neither did many of Mr. FitzGerald’s contemporaries who were well known in law enforcement and military service circles. If you think otherwise that’s your privilege, but it doesn’t change the facts or history concerning its use.

 

[CraigC]

Fact is, these are answers looking for a question.

I agree. I think some folks just get it in their minds that something is dangerous or unsafe. Despite facts to the contrary.

Men like Askins, Rex Applegate and William Fairbairn didn’t think so, and neither did many of Mr. FitzGerald’s contemporaries who were well known in law enforcement and military service circles.

And they were real gunfighters.


Of course, some folks just don't like modification of a factory revolver in any way. Especially something no longer in production. I can't count the number of times I've heard a Ruger collector or purist use the word "butchered" in reference to a custom Old Model Blackhawk, no matter how much better it was than in its original form.

 

[Guillermo]

That Askins, Rex Applegate and William Fairbairn found value in the Fitz is a very strong argument of which I do not see an adequate response unless they later changed their minds.

 

[Old Fuff]

When I knew Askins his gunfighting days were well over, and he was retired. His current favorite was a S&W model 39/9mm pistol - and the trigger guard was cut away. I don't think he'd changed his mind one bit!

In later life Rex Applegate prefered Smith & Wesson revolvers, apparently J-frame snubbies and a 2 1/2" model 19. Because of the location of the mousetrap spring that tensions the cylinder stop, neither was (or is) a good candidate for a Fitz conversion. At least part of the time he carried them in upside-down shoulder holsters. I know because I have the holsters.

Fairbairn much prefered pistols over revolvers, but in discussing revolvers he intentionally showed a Fitz Special in a shoulder holster. It was in fact, identical to the outfit FitzGerald set Charles Lindbergh up with after his baby-son was kidnapped and killed.

 

[SaxonPig]

Old Fuff- Laugh off the possibility of a struggle over the gun if you like, it does happen and it's NOT that rare of an occurrence.

Dismiss the safety issues if you like. The fact is such a butchered gun is more dangerous to the user and to bystanders.

Seems to me the butchered gun is an unwanted answer looking for a problem to address. I have yet to see any evidence offered that the butchered gun is superior in any way.

I don't really care about how many guys 80 years ago thought a butchered gun was the cat's pajamas. They were wrong. This misguided craze started because Fitz thought the cut away guard was different and looked cool. People thought Fitz was cool so his gun had to be cool and they wanted to be cool, too.

You and everyone else have my blessings to carry such a butchered gun if you choose. I would rather not do anything so foolish.

 

[1911Tuner]

The "Fitz" modifications were purpose-driven...made by and for men who weren't concerned in the least with future collector or resale value or originality, or even safety...but who were keenly concerned with staying alive. Men who carried the guns through their front doors with full knowledge that there was a pretty decent chance that they'd have to shoot to live before the day was over.

These men would remove anything that stood even a small chance of slowing them down, or modify anything that would give them even a fraction of a second's edge in getting the gun involved in the fray. A trigger guard that could catch a fingernail was eliminated or radically thinned. A hammer spur that could catch on clothing was gone.

Because many of them had been there and done that, and they came to understand that a 10th of a second could easily make the difference...and often did. Those who hadn't could see that these so-called "butcher jobs" made sense in the real world.

Men who...if we're smart...we pay heed to, and at least consider that they probably know something about surviving a sudden, lethal attack that most of us will hopefully never discover.

 

[Guillermo]

Of course Saxon is right that the trigger guard can help with retention

how likely such to be an issue? Not very often.


is the modified (or "butchered") gun more dangerous?

Let's look at how
the trigger is more exposed from the front which is only an issue if another object pushes it on accident.
a small amount of training will minimize or eliminate this problem

Not having a trigger guard to rest your finger on when not prepared to shoot would require a bit of adaption for me. I would have to lay my finger on the frame.
Still, not an insurmountable issue.

Any other issues?

 

[1911Tuner]

Not having a trigger guard to rest your finger on when not prepared to shoot would require a bit of adaption for me. I would have to lay my finger on the frame.

The point of those modifications was based on the assumption that the man who carried it would be firing as soon as the gun cleared leather...or his pocket because the negotiation part of the confrontation was a ship that had already sailed.

 

[Guillermo]

The point of those modifications was based on the assumption that the man who carried it would be firing as soon as the gun cleared leather...or his pocket because the negotiation part of the confrontation was a ship that had already sailed.

Perhaps

But it is still a gun and they have more uses other than quick draw.

Even in a gunfight one might be behind cover and not shooting at that moment.

 

[Jaymo]

Why u beez hatin' on da Fitzez?

 

[Guillermo]

Jaymo,

I ain't hatin' on em'

SaxonPig, on the other hand...

 

[Old Fuff]

Returning to Charles Askins…

His major concern was how long it might take him to get it done, when he decided it was time to shoot, rather then worry about what was happening when he didn’t have to. He was also not a fan of delayed decision-making in the face of hostilities. That he opined, could get him killed, and no one was more concerned about this then himself.

The Fitz Special was nothing more or less then a tool made for the specific purpose of keeping one alive in lethal circumstances. It was used by some experienced individuals for the intended purpose, and ignored or rejected by others. To my knowledge it was never an issued duty weapon, but was freely chosen by those who carried and used it. Without question some of them had backgrounds that made them knowledgeable authorities on the subject, and what they chose and why, should not be easily dismissed. Today in some circles the Fitz Special has become “politically incorrect” and shunned. It is however no less affective then it originally was, just out of favor. If nothing else they make an interesting conversation piece.

 

[CraigC]

Men who...if we're smart...we pay heed to, and at least consider that they probably know something about surviving a sudden, lethal attack that most of us will hopefully never discover.

Very well put!

I think the biggest difference between now and then is 80yrs of lawyers lining up to protect us from ourselves.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

I love Fitz threads!