Blue Bloods

T

twhidd

New member
Tom Selleck's character in Blue Bloods appears to be carrying a Fitz Special of some kind, as can be seen from the cutaway trigger guard. I was curious if anyone could tell what kind of holster this is.

Blue_Bloods_Colt_Fitz_ep_4_cr.jpg
 
I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Selleck himself is not quite involved in the 'firearms' aspects of his projects/works. Guy is a real gun aficionado as well as 2A Patriot.
 
I recall a line in one of the Blue Blood episodes which indicated that the gun in the picture was handed down from his father who first received it as a gift from his father. The Fitz Special is an interesting choice. One that you might expect from some old school cops.

It wouldn't surprise me either to know that Selleck may have had some influence in that selection of weapon for his character. I wouldn't think that Hollywood producers would know the first thing about a Fitz Special.
 
I wouldn't wear that rig,,,

I wouldn't wear that rig,,,
The twice-exposed trigger is just begging to get hung up on something.

It's not covered by the trigger guard or the holster's leather.

Aarond

.
 
Tom Selleck would be a great "spokesperson" for the NRA. I met him years ago at Sears in West Jefferson. His vehicle needed a battery and he was the nicest, most common man I had met who was famous.

Hell I would vote for him for president. He is a very well educated, well spoken man.
 
Bucheimer-Clark did make that type of holster, but so did a number of other holster makers of the day.
The design was very popular with police, to the extent that Jack Webb wore one in the "Dragnet" TV show.

They were usually worn cross-draw back then, but could also be worn strong-side.
They're still a pretty good CCW holster, although I don't know of anyone still making them.
 
What is the benefit to the cut-out trigger guard? This looks like a civil suit and shot-up leg waiting to happen.
 
Sparemag. Theoretically, your finger has no chance of hitting the front of the triggerguard (b/c there's not one) and is easy to engage with gloved fingers.
 
Personally I wouldn't wear it either. However a tight fit holster isn't likely to let the cylinder rotate to fire. The cylinder has mechanical advantage over the triger. You can grab a cylinder by the thumb and fore finger and the strongest grip of a person can't pull the trigger to fire the pistol.
 
Gotta agree with Aarond....I used to make an exposed trigger of the old Tom Three persons open top....but wiser heads than mine pointed out that that trigger is just waiting there...I've switched over to a protected trigger cut to the leather...

And I agree wholeheartedly with Seleck's stand up guy for the 2nd Amendment image. Wish there were more like him in Hollyweird.

Rod
 
The irony of a pro gunner playing an NYPD Chief

NYPD chiefs are told by those who appoint them what their political views are. Any chief that is pro-gun knows better than to talk about it in front of a camera.
 
Being Pro-2A

Any chief that is pro-gun knows better than to talk about it in front of a camera.
Click to expand...
That is because being pro-gun or anti-gun is too political. Where as being pro-2A, is not !!! .... :)

Be Safe !!!
 
I know it's just a TV role, but being as pro gun as Selleck is, had it been me, I would have passed on the NYC police commissioner's character. What they really do to the 2nd Amendment in NYC just turns my stomach. Or maybe had them rewrite it to be for Dallas or San Antonio; but then those other NY or Jersey boys in the cast would have sounded funny........
 
We all know that Tom Selleck is pro 2nd Amendment. It's not really where I had intended for the thread to go, but I guess it was inevitable. I'd like to steer the discussion back to the gun and holster combination.

Holsters with exposed triggers were in vogue for many years. If the weapon is concealed and the wearer obeys rule number three, then why would such a holster be considered unsafe?
 
An exposed trigger guard is not a big problem UNLESS the pistol has had the front of the trigger guard removed, as does the "Fitz" Special like Selleck's. Then, anything that might stick into the unshrouded trigger could easily snag it and sit it off. Even reholstering could catch some clothing and snag the trigger. No good.
 
I don't know how "easily" it would set it off. As someone mentioned earlier, the cylinder would not likely turn with the gun in the holster. Surely J. H. Fitzgerald considered such things when he decided to modify his guns.

I do admire the concept
 
Last edited:
It's both factors that make it iffy on safety,,,

It's both factors taken together that make it iffy on safety,,,
Once it's securely in the holster,,,
It's probably okay.

But look at it closely,,,
When you are holstering the gun,,,
There is a chance, however slight it may be,,,
That the exposed trigger could snag on your clothing.

I carry a standard S&W Model 36 snubbie,,,
Every now and then I "gather" a bit of shirt-tail holstering it,,,
The trigger guard keeps the shirt-tail from snagging the point of the trigger

Like rodfac said earlier, I've made Tom Threepersons holsters for years,,,
That exposure of the trigger guard is now considered to be unsafe,,,
I however prefer the term less safe rather than unsafe.

Besides, no one ever said that the Fitz Special was a safe configuration,,,
The modification was designed to accommodate gloved fingers,,,
Back when it was introduced people didn't think safety,,,
Well, at least it wasn't as in the forefront as now.

It's entirely possible that the cutaway trigger guard never caused a discharge,,,
But when I look at that gun, especially with that holster,,,
I see an accidental discharge waiting to happen.

Aarond

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top