Why does Chuck Pressburg's statement have any validity to what a patrol officer/deputy does?Originally Posted by HopetonBrown
Why does Chuck Pressburg's statement have any validity to what a patrol officer/deputy does?
I like Chuck. Was on 10-8 forums and lightfighter with him. Dude has been there done that, but I gotta live with my equipment decisions. The mission drives the gear train. The problem is that the top 1% does not have to live with the options open to me, right now. Being part of the US Tier 1 anti terrorist unit is all good and cool, but gear costs bucks. And I am accountable for them.
pat
I agree with you. I've met Chuck and participate in all of those other forums. And, for Chuck's incident, he's probably correct. Context is everything. People frequently use statements from top-end military trainers as an appeal to authority to justify tactics or gear choices applied to LE or civilian self-defense situations. Just because it works for a Ninja-SEAL, doesn't mean it's going to work for Joe Homeowner, or be legal for Joe Homeowner or Smitty Flatfoot.
A bit of historical perspective on holsters and Surefire's remote switches, across the last 18 years. The commonality is molded in channels for the switch.
6280 for a Colt 1911A1 with an incandescent SF Nitrolon on a Dawson rail. The SL style switch was hard-wired into the light:
6280 for a railed Springfield LtWt Operator with an X series light and a SL switch:
[
6280 for a 9mm M&P with an X series light and the DG switch:
No longer made, in this RCS Glock / X300 holster I can see the channel for the attached switch:
Reply With Quote