Quote:
Originally Posted by LoboGunLeather
Red's points about a single pattern being applicable to multiple handguns (both models and types), as well as his observations about covered trigger guards being "inconceivable" and "wrong" speak volumes about the evolution of the holster business over the past several decades.
Again, thanks for an interesting post.
|
Very good as always. Which brings me 'round to an oddity that is exclusively today's ('unheard of' a hundred years ago): striker pistols without external safeties.
Somehow, and I blame Bill Rogers for this and not his predecessors who were dealing with revolver holsters, holster makers were conned into taking responsibility for pistols safety, to the exclusion of the pistol makers themselves.
By building his fortune (he is quoted as saying "the money was in duty holsters") on so-called 'security holsters', Bill's approach completely stalled any (perhaps imagined) efforts by pistol makers to make their pistols safer. And by that I mean, there is no feature on pistols specifically placed there to keep the pistol in its holster. There is no feature (any more, for which we can blame Gaston Glock) to keep the pistol from being fired after it is taken from its holster -- there even is no feature to keep it from being fired IN the holster!
It is an incredible con. And the covered trigger guard is complicit: it keeps an SA hammered auto from being fired in the holster AND so does the grip safety and thumb safety. The Glock is being fired in the holster regardless because nothing more is required than the natural instinct to pull the trigger. So even children are firing these pistols in holsters. And keys. And loose clothing. What a stupid idea and all Glock's competitors followed suit.
A local copper shot himself holstering; which all local coppers use the Glock and Safariland holsters. Has happened plenty before this combination. Yet the unyielding, rigid construction of a Kydex holster only makes it worse; and creates the large opening that is present when it's moulded to a rail-mounted sight. Not realising that was also stupid.
Another local copper responded to a burglary at my wife's offices and was happy to show her his Glock, and the 'safety' in the trigger. It's not a safety! It is a 'fix' or 'bandaid' to keep the trigger from moving to the rear when the pistol is dropped, at which point it could/would fire without the little blade in the trigger against the frame, because it is a striker carried at half cock position.
When I worked out that it was impossible to secure a striker pistol of today, as we did/do with the ancient 1911, I stopped making holsters for the former. And oddly, it is the covered trigger that 'exposes' the con: can't safely cover it, can't safely uncover it. Whereas a 1911 can be carried safely with the trigger covered or uncovered (think the famous Bianchi No. 2).