- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
I am getting confused myself here.... ;D
Ok triple retention holsters. My point was not against triple retention holsters but the implied need that we need to do things more police like. Which includes percieved legal requirements in how we do business. Triple retention holsters are requirement for police in Canada for legal and liability issues. The army is a little different. Triple retention holsters were not the point of the post. So having a pistol "cocked and locked" in a single action mode, in a police environment is not on, but in an army context, it is how we do business. I feel an external safety is a requirement so the operator can carry the pistol in whatever holster (or ammo pouch) is convenient. If we have a glock for example, there would be a requirement to ensure the trigger area was covered for safety reasons which would necessitate a proper and approved holster. Additionally troops are use to applying a safety. We have it in just about every weapon system in service. It is more in tune with our training. Also most units do not get enough training time on the firearms for troops to become proficent with them.......there is a difference between proficent and familar with a firearm.
That being said, lets be serious here, if you are concerned about someone going for your back up pistol, make sure your primary rifle is the attackers main point of interest. We are soldiers and if someone is going for your pistol, there are alot of other things you should be doing to distract their attention, probably from the butt of your rifle. Have an extra retaining feature is not going to change anything.
As I said, what is a real requirement for policing in Canada is not necessarily relevant to soldiering in a combat zone. To quote a famous firearm instructor, "a pistol is used to fight your way to a rifle". You fight with a rifle not a pistol. Using a pistol to defend yourself should be a temporary state of mind while you get back to a rifle. ;D
The needs of MPs, JTF and the like are different and that is why they have replaced the browning already. For general field use, it is good to go. As I said in my second post. The army has other things it needs to spend money on rather than a replacement for the browning.....
Jeff
Ok triple retention holsters. My point was not against triple retention holsters but the implied need that we need to do things more police like. Which includes percieved legal requirements in how we do business. Triple retention holsters are requirement for police in Canada for legal and liability issues. The army is a little different. Triple retention holsters were not the point of the post. So having a pistol "cocked and locked" in a single action mode, in a police environment is not on, but in an army context, it is how we do business. I feel an external safety is a requirement so the operator can carry the pistol in whatever holster (or ammo pouch) is convenient. If we have a glock for example, there would be a requirement to ensure the trigger area was covered for safety reasons which would necessitate a proper and approved holster. Additionally troops are use to applying a safety. We have it in just about every weapon system in service. It is more in tune with our training. Also most units do not get enough training time on the firearms for troops to become proficent with them.......there is a difference between proficent and familar with a firearm.
That being said, lets be serious here, if you are concerned about someone going for your back up pistol, make sure your primary rifle is the attackers main point of interest. We are soldiers and if someone is going for your pistol, there are alot of other things you should be doing to distract their attention, probably from the butt of your rifle. Have an extra retaining feature is not going to change anything.
As I said, what is a real requirement for policing in Canada is not necessarily relevant to soldiering in a combat zone. To quote a famous firearm instructor, "a pistol is used to fight your way to a rifle". You fight with a rifle not a pistol. Using a pistol to defend yourself should be a temporary state of mind while you get back to a rifle. ;D
The needs of MPs, JTF and the like are different and that is why they have replaced the browning already. For general field use, it is good to go. As I said in my second post. The army has other things it needs to spend money on rather than a replacement for the browning.....
Jeff