Ariochmagician
#1Joe Fox had an interesting comment. I’d like to know your thoughts on the matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Forum at Handcuffs.Org
OTC
17 visible archived posts · 17 preserved total · topic ID 7046
holstcollection
#2LOL!!! This is by far your best best video! I'm quite familar with the Pratt's as I've had both the 1916 and the 1932 versions for many years.
The great thing with this video is your dogs! LOL! They are really having a good time with each other. Lovely dogs!!
Lars
The great thing with this video is your dogs! LOL! They are really having a good time with each other. Lovely dogs!!
Lars
Off the cuff
#3Way to go Arioch those Pratt’s are very unusual and even though the first and second models were supposedly made in equal numbers, the second model is rarely encountered.
Spencer
Spencer
lauher
#4Arioch
Great video.
I agree with Joe Fox, the inside "teeth" on your cuffs is not normal. Perhaps they were added by the locksmith who also added his name.
Indeed maybe the locksmith sold this modified version. Very interesting.
Joe
Oh. As to your question. "Are you having fun?" The answer is yes.
Great video.
I agree with Joe Fox, the inside "teeth" on your cuffs is not normal. Perhaps they were added by the locksmith who also added his name.
Indeed maybe the locksmith sold this modified version. Very interesting.
Joe
Oh. As to your question. "Are you having fun?" The answer is yes.
Mark Lyons O--O Cuffs
#5Fun to watch your dogs!
They are sooo happy that there is a new Pratt in their home!
You asked about why the walls of the nipper handle are so thin and I believe that is so they can be smashed down toward each other with a block of wood ever so slightly so that they apply force or friction onto the lock and bow of the nipper section in order to hold them in place when in the pocket.
They are sooo happy that there is a new Pratt in their home!
You asked about why the walls of the nipper handle are so thin and I believe that is so they can be smashed down toward each other with a block of wood ever so slightly so that they apply force or friction onto the lock and bow of the nipper section in order to hold them in place when in the pocket.
Vince
#6Congrats on your newest addition.
FWIW. If it's the same place I'm thinking of, Birks' Keys was a old school, traditional hardware & locksmith shop. I remember reading a news clipping years ago that my old boss had saved about the owner being one of the most talented female locksmiths. There was a passive mention about antiques on the wall. I wish I remembered more details or even what her name was.
-Vince
FWIW. If it's the same place I'm thinking of, Birks' Keys was a old school, traditional hardware & locksmith shop. I remember reading a news clipping years ago that my old boss had saved about the owner being one of the most talented female locksmiths. There was a passive mention about antiques on the wall. I wish I remembered more details or even what her name was.
-Vince
Vince
#7I do agree about how their demise was most likely due to being finniky in actual use, especially with someone even slightly un-cooperative.
-Vince
-Vince
djhalfdead
#8Great looking Pratt, Arioch! I have always love the complexity of this cuff's design. Even though they were cumbersome and too difficult to use on a struggling person. Of course back then, there really wasnt much against police brutality. If you struggled with a cop, they popped you on your head with the nightstick and continued cuffing you. LOL! The way the mechanisms in these cuffs work, it a really cool bit of engineering!
Now, onto the question of why the manufacturer didnt make the two parts of the flexible cuff, store all of the way into the handle of the nipper. My feeling is that they wanted it to stick out some to make it easier for the officer to grab them and use them. If the countersunk all of the way in, there wouldnt be anything to grab onto to pull the two parts of the cuff, out. The part that would be on the bottom, inside of the handle, would be really hard to get out. That does raise the question, why didnt they just use a finger tabs, like on Cummings Handcuff, to use as a lever to push down and pivot the pieces out of the handle? And that one, i do not know why they didnt choose to do that. As is, the Pratt's design is pretty comfortable, over all, when in the officer's palm. The pieces that stick up out of the handle, kind of form a top to the handle and rest against your palm, pretty comfortably.
-Richard Knip-
Now, onto the question of why the manufacturer didnt make the two parts of the flexible cuff, store all of the way into the handle of the nipper. My feeling is that they wanted it to stick out some to make it easier for the officer to grab them and use them. If the countersunk all of the way in, there wouldnt be anything to grab onto to pull the two parts of the cuff, out. The part that would be on the bottom, inside of the handle, would be really hard to get out. That does raise the question, why didnt they just use a finger tabs, like on Cummings Handcuff, to use as a lever to push down and pivot the pieces out of the handle? And that one, i do not know why they didnt choose to do that. As is, the Pratt's design is pretty comfortable, over all, when in the officer's palm. The pieces that stick up out of the handle, kind of form a top to the handle and rest against your palm, pretty comfortably.
-Richard Knip-
Two Dogs......
#9The young Indian boy had spent most of his life in a quandry.
.. He felt different yet.
.. couldn't figure why.
.. he was just so depressed. He went to the Chief for answers.
.. He asked the chief how his brother Red Deer Running had gotten his name.
The chief answered in his typically poetic way.
.."When Red Deer Running was born, at the moment of his birth, the first thing his mother saw was a beautiful deer running off into the forest.
.. and so Running Deer was named. It is the custom of our tribe to name the offspring according to the spirits in nature visiting upon the birth."Then, the boy said to the Chief.
.. And how did my sister "Thundering Bird" get her name? The chief described again, how at the moment of her birth Thundering Bird's mother had heard a roar of thunder and looking up, saw a bird flying in the sky.
The boy asked again, how his cousin "White Crouching Bear" had been given such a name.
.. And the chief, looking down once more at the boy, explaining the traditions of their tribe.
. White Bear's mother had seen a rare white bear crouched over a stream at the moment her baby's birth. Then he asked the boy.
.."Why do you ask, Two Dogs Fucking?"
.. He felt different yet.
.. couldn't figure why.
.. he was just so depressed. He went to the Chief for answers.
.. He asked the chief how his brother Red Deer Running had gotten his name.
The chief answered in his typically poetic way.
.."When Red Deer Running was born, at the moment of his birth, the first thing his mother saw was a beautiful deer running off into the forest.
.. and so Running Deer was named. It is the custom of our tribe to name the offspring according to the spirits in nature visiting upon the birth."Then, the boy said to the Chief.
.. And how did my sister "Thundering Bird" get her name? The chief described again, how at the moment of her birth Thundering Bird's mother had heard a roar of thunder and looking up, saw a bird flying in the sky.
The boy asked again, how his cousin "White Crouching Bear" had been given such a name.
.. And the chief, looking down once more at the boy, explaining the traditions of their tribe.
. White Bear's mother had seen a rare white bear crouched over a stream at the moment her baby's birth. Then he asked the boy.
.."Why do you ask, Two Dogs Fucking?"
Kanye4POTUS
#10love a great racist joke
Ariochmagician
#11I just thought that if the flexible parts fit into the handle, you could open them with a flick like a collapsible baton.djhalfdead wrote:Great looking Pratt, Arioch! I have always love the complexity of this cuff's design. Even though they were cumbersome and too difficult to use on a struggling person. Of course back then, there really wasnt much against police brutality. If you struggled with a cop, they popped you on your head with the nightstick and continued cuffing you. LOL! The way the mechanisms in these cuffs work, it a really cool bit of engineering!Click to expand...
Now, onto the question of why the manufacturer didnt make the two parts of the flexible cuff, store all of the way into the handle of the nipper. My feeling is that they wanted it to stick out some to make it easier for the officer to grab them and use them. If the countersunk all of the way in, there wouldnt be anything to grab onto to pull the two parts of the cuff, out. The part that would be on the bottom, inside of the handle, would be really hard to get out. That does raise the question, why didnt they just use a finger tabs, like on Cummings Handcuff, to use as a lever to push down and pivot the pieces out of the handle? And that one, i do not know why they didnt choose to do that. As is, the Pratt's design is pretty comfortable, over all, when in the officer's palm. The pieces that stick up out of the handle, kind of form a top to the handle and rest against your palm, pretty comfortably.
-Richard Knip-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Matt3114
#12Vince
Birks Keys was officially known as Birks Monterey Key Shop. It was established in 1958 and was located at 252 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, California. The female locksmith was Nina Evelyn Consiglio, who ran the store with her husband, Gerald Joseph Serrano. They owned the shop for over 50 years. Nina died in 2008 and Gerald died in 2010.
Matt
Birks Keys was officially known as Birks Monterey Key Shop. It was established in 1958 and was located at 252 Lighthouse Avenue, Monterey, California. The female locksmith was Nina Evelyn Consiglio, who ran the store with her husband, Gerald Joseph Serrano. They owned the shop for over 50 years. Nina died in 2008 and Gerald died in 2010.
Matt
Ariochmagician
#13Wow! Thanks for the info!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
djhalfdead
#14Arioch - I can see where you are coming from. I can see where it would work and where it wouldnt. It would work, provided that it wasnt attached to the prisoner in any way. Since it would require a flick to get them open and ready to use. Since the combo is both a nipper and a handcuff. How would you be able to use the flicking motion, if the device were busy used as a nipper, when the situation changes or escalates to the point of needing to use a set of handcuffs? The prisoner isnt likely going to allow you the opportunity to use the motion. They certainly wouldnt do it for you. It would be difficult enough to use them like they are made to be used and have to set up each piece of the cuff before using them.
I suppose they could have gone the "Mattatuck" design's direction and made it a spring loaded device? I would wager to say that the current mechanisms in the cuff, dont allow for much additional space inside of the device. Trying to put a mechanism in to deploy and perform the spring propelled opening, would prove problematic and take up too much space inside of the already complicated cuff/nipper.
I have always been curious as to why Pratts made 2 different models of these, that were so many years apart? After the original one wasnt well received in 1916, it looks like the idea of their design was shelved, for many years. Then they decided to revisit the idea and make an improved model 2, patented 16 years after the first, in 1932. I have a Model 1 and I am familiar with how it functions. I do not have a Model 2, nor have I handled one. Im not sure why they thought this improvement to the design would change people's minds on their product? It still looks rather complicated and awkward to use? Here is a pic of the Model 2, for reference. The pic I used is from the gallery section on the forums, here.
-Richard Knip-
I suppose they could have gone the "Mattatuck" design's direction and made it a spring loaded device? I would wager to say that the current mechanisms in the cuff, dont allow for much additional space inside of the device. Trying to put a mechanism in to deploy and perform the spring propelled opening, would prove problematic and take up too much space inside of the already complicated cuff/nipper.
I have always been curious as to why Pratts made 2 different models of these, that were so many years apart? After the original one wasnt well received in 1916, it looks like the idea of their design was shelved, for many years. Then they decided to revisit the idea and make an improved model 2, patented 16 years after the first, in 1932. I have a Model 1 and I am familiar with how it functions. I do not have a Model 2, nor have I handled one. Im not sure why they thought this improvement to the design would change people's minds on their product? It still looks rather complicated and awkward to use? Here is a pic of the Model 2, for reference. The pic I used is from the gallery section on the forums, here.
-Richard Knip-
OTC
#15Richard I believe the second model Pratt was supposed to be a little more ergonomic in design, just a little more hand friendly.
Spencer
Spencer
djhalfdead
#16They definitely did make it both smaller for your hand and more ergonomic. But, they retained the original folding design of the cuffs. I know one of the complaints about the first model was how everything had to line up just so, to make it possible to seat the arm into the lock body. This design appears to have that issue, still? I think in a struggle, that wouldnt be easy to accomplish?
-Richard Knip-
-Richard Knip-
holstcollection
#17Here is Model 1 and and 2 for comparison. Not a very big difference except from the handle and the Model 2 takes a barrell key.
Lars
Lars