I came across this video from last year. It seemed like an interesting idea. Does it seem ridiculous?
I came across this video from last year. It seemed like an interesting idea. Does it seem ridiculous?
I'm trying to remember when I first saw a muzzle standoff device for a 1911. Has to be 15-20 years ago. These guys just wrapped theirs around the slide, but if they figure out how to mount their optic to it, I'll take another look.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
GGG was selling them at least in the mid-1990s. My agency hired Harry Humphries and Denny Chalker to teach us for two weeks on "aggressive" room clearing and they mentioned them. They were pretty aggressively checkered.Originally Posted by Hambo
Get that this is a niche product (I guess) but holsters? Light mounts?
If you actually read the LEOKA synopsis's of each event, rather than just rely on the statistics, the 'most officers killed within five feet' becomes a little more complicated. Officers are killed with their weapons still holstered, they are killed after being disarmed in a struggle for their weapon, they are killed when their partner is disarmed, they are killed in shot outs, and so on.
This device impacts a small subset of those incidents.
Remember not all are well-versed in defensive tactics, while the two-handed grip with the master grip in a shooting grip, and the support hand clamped around the muzzle is an okay position to retain from, if the assailant is much larger, the officer may not possess the strength/leverage to roll the pistol to gain control, likewise, if sizes are disparate, elbow strikes may not be particularly effective. In that case firing the pistol and inducing a FTExtract malfunction may be a valid option. This device reduces the likelihood the officer will be likely to accomplish that action, and increases the likelihood the suspect will, in fact, retrieve an operational pistol.
For those reasons, I feel the device is valid for a specialized group of officers/users, certainly not all. I don't think I'd recommend it for general patrol use
OK, so it was in the last century. Were they part of an add on light rail? Screwed onto the end of the dust cover on the original SA Operators?
If they were that great of an idea, I wouldn't have so much trouble remembering about them.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
We were never authorized to use it. If I remember correctly they were a gunsmith install, but that was way to many years ago to remember for sure.
Everything old is new again.
I've noticed in the last handful of years that the higher level retention holsters are being deemphasized as well. Major deal circa 200X to have a level 3, 4, or 14 holster lest ye get kilt with your own gun. Now the "Level 1" ALS seems to be roughly equally common as the Level 3. The quality both in manufacture and retention is head and shoulders better than some of the Level 1 and 2 holsters of days gone by, though.
Won't it require a new rear sight? It looks like it comes with it's own front sight, which would have to be significantly elevated over the slide mounted one.
With an optic, it would seem like there's not much slide left to manipulate for malfunction clearance or even routine admin functions. I assume it must be removed to field strip the pistol for cleaning, and anything that's mass issued that makes field stripping harder will result in less cleaning/lubricating.
I'm in no way qualified to say if it's a better mousetrap for handgun retention. Maybe we can throw up the bat signal for comments from @SouthNarc ?
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
If my job was assaulting in tight spaces with a pistol as a primary weapon, I might want a stand-off device. But for me a pistol is defensive, or a secondary weapon when I’m actively looking for evil people.
Would be more interesting with an optic mount.
A71593
Reply With Quote