L.A. Sheriff's Department 1940

T

tecolote

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
70
Reaction score
83
Location
Mississippi
The May 1940 issue of Popular Science featured an article on the LASD,which included firearms training. Here is a photo detail from the article:

and a closer look at the 4inch M&P:

In addition to the Fitz-type treatment, there is a grip adapter(Pachmyer, Mershon?) on the gun. The holster is a spring type,maybe by Clark,floral carved, and judging by Sgt. Fleming's grip on it, it must move on the gunbelt. Note the finger already on the trigger.
I'd welcome any comments. Here is a link to the issue of PM; you will have to go to page 112 to find the article.

Regards,
Tecolote
 
Register to hide this ad
Fun and interesting to see this!

Quite a few people did indeed prefer the open Trigger guard front and a Bobbed Hammer back when. Even if usually having been the de rigueur on a Snubby, some liked them that way with longer Barrel models also.
 
Interesting. I'll bet the donuts were better back in the day.

I've never heard of S&W offering a cut away trigger guard but if you knew the right people who knows.
 
The gunbelt doesn't appear to be threaded through the belt loops on his pants. Most probably it is a separate belt worn over his pants belt, and not secured at all, thus necessitating holding it with his weak hand to prevent the whole shebang from riding up.
 
JayCeeNC said:
The gunbelt doesn't appear to be threaded through the belt loops on his pants. Most probably it is a separate belt worn over his pants belt, and not secured at all, thus necessitating holding it with his weak hand to prevent the whole shebang from riding up.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!:)
Cross draw from that spring loaded holster was more of a horizontal pull than a pure vertical.. That caused the holster to tend to follow the gun along the gun belt more than a vertical draw would even if there were belt keepers in use. That is probably the reason that feller is hanging onto it.
 
Last edited:
Seven High said:
Did the factory ever offer a cut away trigger guard as an option?
Click to expand...

They would have been foolish if they did. Even back then, S&W would have legal liability for circumventing a safety device resulting in someone being accidentally shot. Product liability is not a new concept, it's just for the last 30 years or so, people are much more aware of it and more than willing to file lawsuits.
 
DWalt said:
They would have been foolish if they did. Even back then, S&W would have legal liability for circumventing a safety device resulting in someone being accidentally shot. Product liability is not a new concept, it's just for the last 30 years or so, people are much more aware of it and more than willing to file lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Really? I have never heard that anyone filed a lawsuit over a cut-away trigger guard. I wonder how that worked out for Colt, with its factory rep, J. Henry FitzGerald, not only recommending the modification, but supplying them that way from the factory.

The Fitz Special - American Rifleman

That said, I agree with Bill Jordan that the modification of cutting away the front section of the trigger guard is a bad idea for several reasons.
 
COL Charles Askins liked the cutaway guard and had his personal Colt .38 New Service so modified. He carried it through the latter part of the WW II European campaign. Seems like it was a moderately popular modification back in the '30's.
Bob
 
Last edited:
The observation about the belt is accurate. When I started in LE ('68) many detectives wore the holster and belt over their trouser belt like the Sam Brown uniform set up. I did not do that when I made detective b/c the gun belt slid around and made the gun and holster flop around. Besides my issued weapon was a Colt DS and was light enough to carry w/a single belt threaded through the trouser loops.
 
Re Product Liability. Of course the concept was around and the nucleus goes back into European history and likely for much of the world where there arose effective judicial systems with developed civil law systems of relief.
Yet what was also previously far more prevalent was the countering legal concept of "assumption of risk". Assumption of risk simply postulates that given an overtly perceptible hazard and the proverbial 'reasonable man' (or woman), there is a point where the individual is chargeable for the conduct they elect in the face of recognizable hazards.
Nowadays, the 'assumption' theory is so distorted by statutory limitations on raising such defense, it becomes difficult to avoid product or conduct liability based on reasonable 'assumption' theory. There is a balance, yet American statutory law and courts simply tend to disfavor holding us responsible for our own actions! (Part of womb to tomb benevolent government oversight!)
In the case of S&W and the "Fitz" cutaway trigger guard, it seems likely that even then prudence would have denied such an option. Then too, likely an option of miniscule demand!
Just my wordy take
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RM Vivas
NYPD - M&P #S812894 - How I Research The NYPD Guns
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
dobegrant
dobegrant

Latest posts

Back
Top