|
Senior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2005
Location: orange county, ca
Posts: 610
|
I remember reading this last year and had to dig to find it.
Quote:
Over the last year, I have developed some serious concerns with the blackhawk Serpa Active Retention holster design. Various persons have brought these concerns to the attention of blackhawk on several occasions and blackhawk has chosen to ignore these very real issues.
The ‘Serpa Active Retention’ design consists of a plastic L-shaped component which functions as the release button [from the outside of the holster] and as the lock [which engages inside the trigger guard]. The short leg of the L-shaped lever pivots inward [toward the pistol], while the locking tab pivots outward to release the pistol from the holster.
According to the blackhawk website, ”The release is made using your normal drawing motion, with the trigger finger beside the holster body. … As your trigger finger naturally comes to rest on the SERPA lock’s release mechanism, simply push the mechanism as you draw the weapon and it releases the gun for a smooth, fast draw.”
While blackhawk may intend for the end-user to apply inboard pressure with the flat of the index finger, under stress, shooters tend to push the button with the tip of their index finger. After all, this is the manner in which most people have the most repetitions pushing buttons such as keys on a keypad or phone or ringing doorbells. When the finger pushes in on the release button and the user initiates the upward motion of the drawstroke, the finger tends to stay in motion and as the trigger guard clears the holster, the finger enters the trigger guard and contacts the trigger, with possibly tragic results.
I am aware of two instances where trained personnel have shot themselves using this holster in conjunction with Glock pistols. In August of 2004, a situation occurred with a live weapon that resulted in the shooter losing a 10cm piece of her femur. The other occurred with nonlethal training ammunitions in a force-on-force event in April of 2005. The impact of the NLTA was in the same area as the actual gunshot wound previously mentioned.
Following each of these events, blackhawk was contacted and advised of the problems observed and concerns raised. In the first instance, they claimed that they were unaware of any previous issues with the design and insisted that the design had been ‘thoroughly tested by law enforcement and military personnel’.
After the second event, they were contacted by at least two people. Again, they stated that they were unaware of any concerns and had heard nothing similar from any sources.
If this were not disturbing enough, in October 2005, while assisting with a class in Casa Grande, AZ, additional concerns surfaced. During a force-on-force evolution, when a student attempted to draw an NLTA-modified Glock 17 from his blackhawk Serpa holster, he was unable to free the gun from the holster.
In fact, the gun was so tightly held in the holster that, with one person applying both hands to the release button and another person applying two hands to the pistol, the gun could not be freed. Upon inspection, a small piece of gravel, approximately the size of the head of a pin, had managed to work itself into the Serpa release button and wedge the lock in place.
While trying to effect a release of the pistol from the holster, the entire holster popped off of the belt. The three screws that attach the holster body to the belt plate simply slipped through the tracks in the belt plate without apparent damage. Of what use is a retention holster that does not keep the gun on the belt?
In my opinion, the blackhawk Serpa Active Retention holster is a severely flawed design. It offers the theoretical advantage of security while, in reality, offering none. It does not hold up to the rigors of realistic training. It accentuates the possibility of an unintentional discharge. It is unsafe.
If you, or anyone known to you, are currently using one of these holsters, please reconsider.
It is a given that all designs are a compromise and that all designs can fail. My leather IWB is slower than my kydex Locking Paddle, but the retention capabilities of my leather IWB greatly exceed those of my Locking Paddle. However, given that 99.9% of negligent shootings are operator induced, why would we choose a holster design that increases the likelihood of the occurance?
If the end-user follows the directions, exactly, then there is no problem. The problem shows up when, under stress, the user pushes the button with the fingertip as they draw the gun rapidly. Once the finger has begun to close in towards the palm, it tends to continue along that path, resulting in the negligent discharge. Under stress, the holster design tends to have the user put his trigger finger in motion in a direction that will, if not checked, result in the firing of the pistol. In my opinion, that is a huge problem.
In the instances that I mentioned, the female had received over 150 hours of professional level, private sector training, in addition to her own ongoing personal training, and was actively working in the executive protection field in Europe. The male referenced in the second episode, likewise had over 150 hours of private sector training and has worked as an instructor for several professional training organizations. Neither of these persons could be accused of being a rookie or of having an observable lack of trigger finger discipline prior to their respective incidents with the Serpa holster.
While 6004s may be jammed by debris, the quantity of debris needed to jam a 6004 is far greater than that needed to seize a Serpa. Additionally, while a 6004 can be sheared off of it’s shroud or a 6280 may be torn off of a duty belt, the amount of force required to do so is far in excess of that required to tear a Serpa from a concealed carry belt. If you take a look at the pictures in the original posting, you will see that the belt plate and paddle for the Serpa have tracks through which the screws travel to mount the holster to the belt plate. Take a look at the final picture, showing the back face of the holster from the Arizona class. The screws are intact and unharmed. There is enough flexion between the belt plate and the holster body that the screws simply popped through the tracks without damaging the screws or tracks. It simply came apart.
Between the ease of disengagement of the retention device, the lack of rigidity of the belt mount and concerns over the lock being jammed, even if you ignore the negligent discharge issues, there are significant failings with this design.
|
|
March 20, 2006, 09:22 AM
