With the recent very interesting thread by Keith44Spec. showing the Guns of The Texas Ranger museum at Waco, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the merits of that early modification. There is always a kind of knee-jerk reaction saying that it is unsafe, but is it really and does it make it faster for "getting" your gun into action? As far as getting it into action , I can say that after watching very skilled and lightening fast fast draw experts the general thoughts are Yes, it is faster. While I will not dispute the fact that I do think it is dangerous for amateurs and semi-trained I do not think it is dangerous for well trained and long time gun handlers. No one doubts the abilities of those early lawmen and point of fact, all of the owners of the guns pictured died after retirement. My own abilities are not that fast so the cut-away trigger guard or not, does not make a difference in aquiring the gun. I do have no reservations about carrying one and occasionally do carry a Colt Fitz DS, but only in a proper holster. I am in the process of having a Colt New Service converted to a Fitz , but had to promise the Smith that it was only for display and casual use, not to be carried "for real". With the worry over law suits I understand his concern and would not violate his trust. I think the whole issue involves common sense and safe, safe gunhandling, and remembering that all tools are dangerous with unsafe handling. What are your thoughts and have you actually handled guns with these type of modifications?

Joe,
My memory aint what it used to be...

But, I do recall some ol feller tellin me and some other boys about how
he'd come to cut away the trigger guards on his Gov't models.

He'd gotten into this little difficulty once and in the excitement of it all, got his trigger finger
hooked over the front of the guard.
No matter how hard he squeezed or pulled she wouldn't go off.
"Dang near got me kilt", he said.

Folks get all twisted up over seein a revolver 'Fitz-ed' but go out and buy one of them little
north american arms .22 single action revolvers without a trigger guard and drop 'er in their change pocket
and go merrily along their way. Go figger.

On and off over 40 sumthing years I've carried 'em with and without trigger guards.
Safety and muzzle discipline is up to the operator.

With that said,"I ain't never shot nothin or nobody I wasn't trying to shoot."


Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Some of the stuff old guys did "back in the day" would give today's safety ninnies a case of the vapors.

I know an 83 year old guy who has carried a gun everyday for longer than I have been alive. One of his usual carry guns is a really nice 1908 Colt .380 Pocket Hammerless. I asked him he was concerned he would miss that little thumb safety if he had to use it in a hurry. He leaned in and said, "I don't use that damn thing. There's a grip safety, isn't there?"

I wouldn't think twice about carrying a Fitz-ed revolver. My objection to the bobbed guard on the 1911s is more aesthetic than anything - they just look funny.

__________________
Rule of law, not a man.

I read "No Second Place Winner" by Bill Jordan back in the early 70s when I first got into LE. The book showed several examples of cut away trigger guards. I couldn't imagaine carrying a pistol like that. Just too dangerous. The book did show trigger guards that were shaved on the side of the trigger guard, but the trigger guard was still in place. Cool guy stuff from the 50s.

Jungle Work

It seams like many of the pistols made in the 1800's did not have trigger guards ,just spur triggers . I wonder if someday in the distant future people may wonder why they ever made guns without internal locks on them? We all know how dangerous GUNS are right.

Who was it that said; "If it wasn't dangerous I wouldn't carry the damn thing." ? Wise counsel. Regards 18DAI

18DAI, I believe it was an old time Ranger by the name of Charlie Miller. Dave may correct me if I am wrong, but if he didn't he should have. The 45's that he carried normally had rawhide strips wrapped around the frame to disengage the grip safety.

Joe, as I remember the "Ranger" in question carried his 1911, with the grip safety disabled, the thumb safety off at half cock. When asked if he knew what he was doing was dangerous, the response was, "If it wasn't dangerous I wouldn't carry the damn thing."

True or not it's a great story.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

Joe,

I've always heard that story told on Ranger Charlie Miller by several different sources, so I guess it could be so.



When I worked rural areas serving felony warrants and the like, all agencies were short handed.
A feller was expected to do the job as best he could, ya didn't holler for help till ya got shot, shot at or hurt purty bad.

I carried this gov't model with the grip safety pinned down and cock'd.




Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Thank you for the info gents! Best regards 18DAI

Actually I could see it (maybe) more on a 1911 than I could on a double action revolver. The trigger guard is a lot smaller on the 1911 and I suppose some people could overreach the trigger on one and try to honk on the trigger guard but I just can't see the trigger guard ever getting in the way on a DA revolver.

That said, the trigger guard mutilation is not something I would ever do on any of my guns. People shoot guns everyday with the full trigger guard in place and plenty of them can do very fast shooting. Needless to say I can't think of a single one of these top shooters using a handgun with the triggerguard cut away.

I knew a guy once that almost got killed because of a cut-away trigger guard. He dropped the revolver during a gun fight and the trigger guard bent and jammed the trigger. He got shot once before he could draw his BUG.

__________________
You are what you learn.

I have seen photos of Ranger Captain M.T. Gonzaullas' M1911 with a cutaway trigger guard, Charlie Askins also was a firm beliver in the cutaway trigger guard-I have seen pictures of the Colt New Service he carried in the Border Patrol and WWII -it has the "Fitz" treatment Bill Jordan and Ed McGivern call that a mutilation, Bill Jordan's M-19 has its trigger guard reduced in width to accommodate his long fingers but in "No Second Place Winner" he states "That trigger guard was not put there as an ornament." Ed McGivern opposed cutting away the trigger guard and Skeeter Skelton admits he "screwed up some good guns" doing that. It was fashionable among a certain group, but others whose credentials were just as strong decided it had no value and serious drawbacks.

I've always thought that the *Fitz treatment* was to benefit a man that was wearing gloves
One, obviously, has to be careful while holstering the weapon, but otherwise there shouldn't be a problem....

I don't and probably wouldn't own one - To each his own.

__________________
In dog years I'm dead.

I'm going to go with Moondawg's answer...it was mainly a perceived advantage. For someone like "Lone Wolf" Gonzaullas it probably went hand in hand with the gunfighter persona that he adopted, despite (IIRC) only being involved in two actual gunfights.

I don't have a gun with a cut off trigger guard, but they appeal to me big time...especially the 1911's.

__________________
C & L

I shot Jordan's gun with the shaved trigger guard. I din't see much advantage, but I don't have hands like a Grizzle bear neither and I warn't even close to bein' as fast.

It worked fine for "Fitz." Lets not forget however Fitz praciticed hrs and hrs daily. That was his job, it's ALL he did.

For most people I think it's a bad idea (particuarly "Mexican" carry) oweeee honey I think I'll change my name to Sue.

For my money, THAT is what's wrong with a cut-away trigger guard. For safety against ND, it's not much worse than a Glock. Anyone responsible enough to carry a gun is responsible enough to figure out how to carry safely a gun with the trigger showing. Some folks are, some folks ain't. I don't need to be telling folks I haven't met yet how to carry their guns or wipe their behinds.

What is the logic behind pinning back the grip safety on a 1911? I don't see the purpose for that.

Some people grip a 1911 in a way that they some times do not depress the grip safety, so the stories have been told. Has never happened to me.

That is why, now on many custom and some new factory 1911's, the grip safety has a "bump" at the bottom of the grip safety.

I have shot a couple of revolvers thet were "Fitz'ed" out. Frankly it was not any faster for me. I do not have very large hands.

Also as another poster stated, I would not want a cutaway trigger guard as in a fight or a fall it could be bent up, jamming the trigger.

I would rather have it cut totally away.

John,

Makes 'er more user friendly...Kinda like the P35 (Browning Hi-Power)


Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

I've owned and carried several revolvers that were "Fitzed". All were Colt New Service models in .45 LC and were butchered long before I acquired them.


The one pictured on the lower right, was one of them. It shot well, had a very heavy trigger pull which I wanted. For a big bore belly gun it served the purpose. Personally, I've never cut a trigger guard and I see no particular advantage to doing so. That one was a kitchen table hacksaw victim that had 0% finish and other issues, when I bought it. The Colt NS pictured in the lower left is my primary cool weather gun, .45 LC, 2 1/2inch tube and the slickest, sweetest double action trigger in the galaxy. It is my definition of an ideal combat revolver.

Cheers;
Lefty

Thanks one and all for contributing to the thread. It is interesting hearing your thoughts on this modification. All my best, Joe.

I love the guns that already have trigger guards removed but don't think I'd have it done myself. To me these guns just represent a type that old school tough as nails LEO's used while experimenting on what would work best for them for a big bore hideout. My 1917 is similiar to your .45 Colt and has a Pythonesque action. And I'm not crappin' ya' negative. It's as smooth as my Python. But I couldn't remove the trigger guard. I think I like your older New Service better than the stag handled one, though, with that old style frame and shorter looking barrel. That's classic Fitz. If you ever get tired of that one, let me know!

QUOTE=Wyatt Burp;136155433]I love the guns that already have trigger guards removed but don't think I'd have it done myself. To me these guns just represent a type that old school tough as nails LEO's used while experimenting on what would work best for them for a big bore hideout. My 1917 is similiar to your .45 Colt and has a Pythonesque action. And I'm not crappin' ya' negative. It's as smooth as my Python. But I couldn't remove the trigger guard. I think I like your older New Service better, though, on the right with that old style frame and shorter looking barrel. That's classic Fitz. If you ever get tired of that one, let me know!

[/QUOTE]


Right there ya go....

When ya's playin for keeps...Any edge,
whether real or perceived can be the game changer.

Confidence in your own abilities and that of your equipment was the rule of the day.

Su Amigo,
Dave

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Remember in the book, Jordan suggested on Thinning the Trigger guard and not removing it. It served the same function and was much, much safer.
In addition, he recounts the possibility of the guard causing problems on the trigger if bent. He modified one of his this way, due to large hands.

__________________
NRA Life Member and Instructor

Charlie Askins wrote about firing the "belly gun" with a "Fitzed" trigger guard with the heel of the non shooting hand.

I own a number of 1911's.
Most reputable Gunsmiths will not pin a grip safety anymore---easy enough to do on your own.
Every 1911 that I own, with the exception of a P220sig, which is not a 1911, has had the grip safety worked on to the point that it is very light. I have a high grip and would occasionaly pull a trigger that wouldn't pull because of the grip safety.
Charles E Miller had an injury that made thegrip safety impractical for him to use. He tied that grip safety down with a strip of rawhide---thanks for the pics of it .44.
Charlie also never wore a holster, he just stuck it in his pants. The rawhide and the carry method was recognized by a young Range Officer during qualifications once and he brought the fact that it was dangerous thing to do to Charlies attention. Being a man of few words and less of the thought Charles replied very sternly" son. if the damned ol thing aint dangerous, I don't want it.
Charlie was in more scrapes than the Rangers talk about---I have read his reports.
Blessings

__________________
TEXAS, by GOD