Poll: Would you carry a revolver with Fitz Special type trigger guard?

[CountryGent]

Thought this would be an interesting thing to kick around. Would you carry a revolver with the front half of the trigger guard removed per extant examples, and copies there of, the FitzGerald Special? Some examples of the style:





Lay it on me, pal — what's rattlin' around in that cool head of yours?

Read More

 

[1911Fanatic]

No bubblegumin' way.

 

[Tlock]

Your gonna shoot your eye out kid!

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I did for a couple weeks +/- 40 years ago, a Colt with the bobbed hammer and everything. It was fine, IIRC I used a Bianchi Pistol Pocket IWB and nothing happened to me. I never felt unsafe with it, but switched back to my 1911. It wouldn't be my first choice these days, but if I needed something and it was one of those or nothing I wouldn't lose any sleep over it as long as I had a good holster for it

 

[TNThomas]

If I was looking for deep concealment at close quarters with bad guys, and going out of my way to find them (it's intended purpose) then heck yes, I would just make sure to have the trigger covered in some sort of holster. But, I would be open to pocket carry uncovered if I was 100% sure I was going to be dealing with bad dudes. I would just avoid tree branches as much as possible. I would probably set it up as a gun for my weak hand. Bigger gun or huge knife on my strong side.


But for general ccw, no. I'm going on about 15 years with pocket carrying a J frame, and only had to draw once, no shots fired, gun spooked him enough.

 

[Juniper9mm]

Yes, I have always admired the enhanced trigger access.

 

[Nosferatu]

As long as the option to NOT do that exists, I'm going to do that.

 

[TNThomas]

These could make more sense. I'm not 100% sure where these would fall legally though, probably frowned upon in areas that outlaw brass knuckles, but if a bad guys was on you, better than nothing.

 

[orygun]

I know why Fitz did it, but I wouldn't. Accidental discharges aren't my concern, as the long fairly heavy trigger pull is in effect it's own type of safety. We are usually talking about a DA revolver, ya know? But I'd be concerned that if hit with enough force the bobbed trigger guard would bend
and interfere with the trigger stroke. Then you have nothing but a hammer.
I am intrigued by the old Fitz Specials, but I'd never do that to a firearm.
I didn't vote "No", because I don't think it's unsafe. Just not for me.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just like Hoppes #9....post number nine...does it for me.....

Totally agree with post #9.
Andy

 

[Stomper]

Your gonna shoot your eye out kid!

I just know someone would get their pecker all caught up in that contraption!

 

[TTSX]

I would have no concerns about this, myself. We're not talking about a 4# trigger with a few mm of travel. If it's holstered, that DA trigger isn't going anywhere and while you're holstering, you can put your thumb on the back of the hammer. If it's in your pocket, same rules apply as they would to any other revolver in a pocket.

I also wouldn't do this to my guns. Just no problem with carrying one.

 

[Cerberus Group]

Yes I would.

Contrary to popular belief, they are not unsafe...just misunderstood.

A Firz revolver with a double action trigger weight pull is way more safe than any striker fired semi-auto with the firing system cocked and ready to go attached to a sub 5lb trigger.

 

[Member 45541]

I didn't vote. This may sound strange to some, but I wouldn't carry simply because it's ugly to me.


Buuuut, if it was all that was on hand....

 

[RVTECH]

Essentially a modification from an earlier time that MAY have had some advantages (and probably appealed to some in an 'early' tacticool way) but was probably more problematic than advantageous and never became anything of widespread popularity or manufacturers would have applied the design to new revolvers.

Personally I see WAY more ways for the trigger and remaining guard to hang up or catch on things than say an exposed hammer on a typical revolver.

Plus it makes the revolver look 'incomplete' and 'out of balance' but hey, that's just ME and my 'traditional' ways of thinking when it comes to firearms.

 

[Boyandhisdogs]

Nope. My normal 442 carries and shoots just fine. I understand that it is still a partial guard, double action pull, proper holster and so on. But the full guard does not impede my shooting in any way, so why add a potential safety complication?

 

[dangerranger60]

I voted "of course not" and I would not carry it. But I would own and shoot one. DR

 

[Nosferatu]

It seems like I have just as much of a chance of stabbing my index finger that that stupid leftover portion of the trigger guard as I do actually pulling the trigger.

If you're going to do that, why not just remove the whole thing?

 

[nammac]

I voted "Of course I would". Why not, with an appropriately heavy double action trigger pull, it'd still be safer than a partially cocked striker fired pistol.

They must have worked to some degree back in the day, as many an undercover cop or detective carried one. No, not so mainstream as to have manufacturers pick up the option. But not so obscure that they've not been seen before or known about.

Any firearm, properly and consciously handled will be sufficiently safe, especially a double action revolver. I wouldn't hesitate to pocket carry such a beast in an appropriate holster. My only concern would be poking my trigger finger with that exposed truncated trigger guard.

Besides is it's good enough for Frank Reagan, it's good enough for me.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Dumb, unprotected trigger idea...

But, but, it's misunderstood...no, no it isn't...it's just a hair brained idea...

But, if we're into 'dumb gun ideas' why not swap front and back sights and while we're at it, load it up with the wrong caliber ammo, and when you're done with that dumb idea, come back for more, I gotta ton of em.

Here's another good one: Bend the barrel of your rifle just enough for shooting around coh-ners!