[Handy]

Lately, I've noticed a lot funny stuff being said about the 1911 that I'd like to share with you. You commonly see the following stated as fact, and well, maybe it isn't.

Don't bother to ask me if I'm on crack. I am.


Myth #1. JMB "meant" the 1911 to be carried cocked and locked, or cond. 1.
He did not, nor did the Cavalrymen in the Army tests intend that either. Some people get confused by the design's initial lack of a manual safety and think the gun was meant to be carried cocked and UNlocked. In reality, pistol people in the early 20th century were very comfortable cocking and uncocking hammers. The Army was still thinking Colt SAA and a pistol you only have to cock for the first shot was appealing. A manual safety was unnecessary for the same reason it was unnecessary on the SAA. The late addition of the safety was likely due to the relative difficulty of decocking the 1911 on a moving horse - the safety could then be briefly used.
Other prewar designs shared this sentiment. The most glaringly obvious is the VIS 1935 Radom. On this very 1911esque weapon, the safety was traded for a decocker. Cond 2 is the only possible carry method. The Radom acknowledged the preferred carry method of the time and made it safer. Has an inertial firing pin.
Cocked and locked carry was popularized in the '50s by people like Col. Jeff. It makes sense, but is essentially a new way of using an old gun.

Myth #2. "You can't carry a 1911 hammer down! It will go off when dropped."
This is a common one based on the misunderstanding of what a inertial firing pin does. The gun is as safe with the hammer down as back. 1911 firing pins can cause the gun to fire if dropped on the MUZZLE hard enough. Obviously, this would happen whereever the hammer was. But if the hammer is down and the gun dropped on the hammer, the hammer doesn't have anywhere to move. Since it can't move, it can't propell the firing pin. And the drop is driving the firing pin away from the breach, not toward it.
JMB is a genius. Ask yourself, given Myth #1, did Browning negligently design an unsafe pistol?

Myth #3. "Cocked and locked is tried and true. Those Army guys used the 1911 for 74 years."
Again, see #1. While the design was meant to be carried Cond. 2 (not cocked and locked), the standard practice for most of the 1911s service life was Cond. 3 with 5 rounds loaded in each of three mags. This was considered safer and allowed easier loading/unloading at guard shift changes.
The regular military has never advocated or allowed its soldiers or officers to carry the gun that way. One of the driving forces in the M9 trials was a gun that could be "safely" carried with a round in the chamber.

Myth #4. The Army's 1911s were tough and reliable enough for 4 wars. This applies to all 1911s.
All the 1911s ever used in government service were produced between 1911 and 1945. Since then, any boob can produce a "1911" without even signing a license agreement or looking at a blueprint. There are some amazingly good 1911s available today. There are also plently that use materials, dimensions and clearances that would not pass Army acceptance test criteria. This one should be obvious.
AMT, anyone? How about a safety lever made of sinterized metal?

Myth #5. "Special Forces types love the 1911 and still use them."
There is only one group that matches this one. The Meusoc Marines are using new 1911s built from stored armory parts and a few aftermarket items. The guns I played with in 1998 were loose and reliable.
Everybody else (Seals, Rangers, Green Berets, etc.) make due with DA 9mms. Sig 226 for the Seals, M9 for the rest. If a .45 is requested, Socom has a nice one available from HK. It is rarely used. And yes, the Seals (as a whole) do use whatever weapon they deem appropriate. The 226 and M9 both bested the control 1911s in reliability trials, which is the main thing any soldier cares about.


Before any panties get wadded, I'm not saying anything that isn't history. The 1911 definitely is a proven, reliable and tough firearm. Cond. 1 carry, while relatively new to the handgun scene (cond. 2 dating back to the first handguns, really), is a proven method of making a fairly safe weapon quickly ready to fire. Don't shoot the messenger.

(The author, when not offending people on THR, is a Navy helicopter pilot with personal/professional ties to members of the Seal Teams, Spec Ops and Marine Corps.)

[Lone_Gunman]

I wont dispute the validity of any of your points, but I would like to point out that in the days when the 1911 first came out, the hammer on it was not a bobbed commander style configuration like nearly all guns have today. It was a standard hammer, with a nice long spur that made the gun easier to manually cock.

Trying to manually cock a bobbed hammer is a little awkward, compared to cocking a SAA.

Also, in regard to your last point, it doesnt matter much really what the military, special forces, or police carry. The role of the handgun for any of them is as a secondary weapon. For most of the rest of us, a handgun is a primary weapon. There are also logistical considerations for them choosing to mainly use 9mm.

[BigG]

I think it's a pretty fair characterization of the Govt Issue M1911/A1 pistols. You can't generalize as much about the commercial ones because they run from horrible to superb. Many of them qualify as a "1911" in appearance only.

Anything with as much time on the job as the GI 1911/A1 is bound to have a lot of misinformation/myths attached to it.

Ditto on the what the SEALS/Selous Scouts/Delta Force pick. Who cares? Many are not really gunnuts.

[Double Naught Spy]

Aside from those aspects claimed to be what JMB meant or intended for the 1911, the one I really have to laugh at is the myth that the 1911 was JMB's ideal for a combat handgun. It was not. It may have been his best attempt at putting together a combat handgun to meet military specs (and numerous changes from 1906-1911 before it was adopted), but not his personal ideal gun.

I also like the tributes to longevity and history. People regularly point to the fact that the 1911 was used in the military for more than 74 years, which is fine. What they fail to note is that the 1911 wasn't ever the primary weapon of the foot soldier. While 1911s went to war, they didn't get used as much as people think. According to the history channel, in WWII, the mass produced Liberator .45 saw more actual action than 1911s and the Liberator was a single shot gun.

[Rally Vincent]

French Freedom fighters used the .45acp liberator to a very high extent.

[45auto]

Excellent post and I think that sums up the history and use of the 1911 quite well.
Didn't the Army want the grip safety for the Cavarly also?

JMB was a genius, but he also was a very good business man and designed guns that people wanted and that could sell. If he was alive today he would have modified and/or designed multiple pistol designs that reflected the needs and wants of the current consumer/armed forces.

Without people like Jeff Cooper and the modifications developed for the 1911 over the years, after firing countless rounds in Combat games, I think the 1911 would simply be a fun antique to bring to the range. Fun until the the web of your hand was red or bleeding from the sharp grip tangs and/or hammmer bite.

Cooper's, and others, techniques of cocked and locked, strong two handed holds, thumb on safety and design changes like the extended beavertails, safeties, better sights etc allowed the 1911 to become a viable handgun to carry and shoot.
A series 80 allows the 1911 to be as safe as any modern gun.

The downside is, as stated, there are too many "boob" 1911s out there and trying to own a reliable, durable 1911 at the same price as a Glock is not good odds. The notion you need to spend a $1000-2000 on a single stack 45 is also not correct-IMHO.

[Boats]

So is the M9 carried on watches with a chambered round? When I was in the service, (Navy) the 1911 was carried condition 3 or even condition 0 as Handy has said. If the M9 is not carried chambered, it says more about the military and their fear of noobs carrying ammo and gun at the same time than it does about the inherent safety of any pistol.

However, no matter how the 1911 was designed, how long it was used, how it was carried in the Roaring 20s, it is a great weapon today, and has a peerless pedigree.

I don't mind a little serendipity when an old cobbled together, low cap, dangerous pistol that shouldn't be carried by cherries, meant to be carried Condition 2, becomes the best combat handgun in the world through the considerable efforts of its legions of fans. Any other design should be so lucky.

[Soap]

Boats- Very well said.

[Handy]

The M9 is carried cond. 2 by our military.

[DeltaElite]

I had a Vis Radom. What a great gun.
The balance, feel and accuracy was wonderful, but alas I gave it to my brother and have yet to get another.

[Mike Irwin]

I've got one of those, too, Delta.

Only the extractor on mine is failing, and I'm getting jams.

Haven't tracked down a new one yet.

[Handy]

45auto,

Aside from Cooper, I think one of the driving forces in the 1911's popularity was its broad surplus availability in the decades following WWII.

A budding gunsmith is much more likely to experiment with the "tuning" of a gun he paid $25 for. And most of the parts that can be fitted are removeable (link, bushing, etc.).

[45auto]

Handy,
Agreed, $25 1911s would certainly have helped it's popularity.

[Navy joe]

Boats, the good news is that the Navy is now carrying the M9 in C2 as stated. The bad news is that it only took a barracks bombingx2, Embassy bombing, ship bombing and a couple of really big buildings knocked down with lots of people dead to get it that way. From mid 97 to about the Cole watches in Norfolk were disarmed after someone(inside job) used a loaded pistol to relieve two pier watches of their no mag in gun! M9 pistols and duty belt. Only another sailor would have known we liked to stand around with an empty gun.

[Dr.Rob]

I'll agree the Army didn't like the idea of cocked and locked, and thanks to the hammer change in the 1911a1, I'd say more ND's occured by troops trying to lower the hammer on a cold wet or slimey pistol (even with the half cock notch) than just putting the safety on.

A few 1911 stories:

On a Tiger Cruise on USS Ranger after the Gulf War the Marine OD was carrying a cocked and locked 1911a1 in a USMC Shoulder holster. It was a Colt, likely made for WW2 production. He had been shooting it that day in a fan-fire exercise. Sat across from me in the number one mess. He said he always carried it cocked and locked. Always.

Another friend of mine was a Bradly commander during the gulf war and was ISSUED a 1911. (And I was certainly suprised to hear that) He claimed, among other things that the 1911 was loose as a goose, was accurate enough to knock someone off his track, and it went bang every time but he really didn't like it. He is a knowledgeable gun guy and taught shotgunning in the boy scouts. He figured his effective range to be about 25 feet with it, so he requested a rifle as well. (He figured if he got shot out of his track he didn't want to be walking around with JUST a pistol).

My dad has a pre "a1" commercial government model that is indeed MUCH easier to de-cock (if you want to do that sort of thing) Sights are tiny, but the action is smooth. The hammer should have been left wide, with deeper serrations.

Truth is, everyone knows a stock milspec 1911 is a pretty good gun. Adding full race doo-dads and new springs etc can easily muck up a perfectly good pistol. Leave pistolsmithing to the pistolsmiths.

Just my 2¢

[ajacobs]

While all your statements may very well be true (I am no firearms historian), I think it does nothing to diminish the supperiority (I am sure I am going to get it on that statement) of the design. It seams to me it dominates all relivant shooting sports wheather they are practical accuracy oriented or combat shooting oriented. Save for the SAA which continues to be fastest from holster to first shot of any design (I belive). Maybe my persection though is another myth.

While I love my 1911's I certainly don't think they are the end all and be all of all firearms. I do think it is interesting though that seeminly the most qualified choose them (people who can actually squeeze out whatever extra edge a design can give them). I often carry a kahr though as I am only fond of 1911 in the 5" flavor, and I am certaily not one of those ones who can squeeze out enough of the extra advantage the 1911 apears to offer, to make it worth the extra size and weight.

[Handy]

ajacobs-

While I see where you are coming from, the "superiority of the design" seems to be getting the of attention just about no one but competitors. The number of professional gun using organizations that employ 1911 type pistols can be counted on one hand. You could find an equal number of military/police organizations that use weapons as seemingly rare and esoteric as the P7.

The print media, training schools and fans have greatly exaggerated the impact the 1911 has on people who stake their lives on a handgun in their job. Maybe that would be different if high capacity 1911s had better reputations for reliability. But as things stand, the 1911 is making no inroads.

[ajacobs]

Handy:

I agree that sales of 1911 have been greatly inpacted by the print media. Infact I am sure that it convinces people that they need 1911's when they would be well servered by something else. I think it is only a small class of shooters who can bring out the extra potential, I truly believe the 1911 has both in terms of trigger pull and pointablility. It appears that many world class shooters think that it also gives them an edge. While average shooters like my self may not benifit compared to extra time mastering another trigger type.

I would argue that the police and millitary are not good measures of what is the best handgun (which is ofcourse different things to different people). They are not dedicated handgunners by any accout. I know very little about groups that are dedicated handgunners but my understanding groups like the HRT and Delta force who spend much more time with handguns as their mission dictates use 1911 designs. As I mentioned in my previous post I think that the advantage is atleast percieved by world class shooters and they are the ones that I think it is more appropriate to look at in regards to pure equiptment advantage.

[Handy]

There are many groups that live and die by the handgun. For Seals, GSG9, Geo and SAS, a handgun isn't a warm fuzzy backup, it's a NY reload for a long gun. They practice, ALOT, drawing and firing with one hand while cradling the primary in the other. All 4 groups also use non-standard issue pistols, meaning, they chose what they wanted to carry and chose Sigs and HKs. Delta also chose and went 1911.

The Seals are superior shooters-go to an IPSC match in Virgina Beach and watch them pants the rest of the line. They use up more practice ammo per year than the whole Marine Corps.

The point, not even the BEST spec ops teams agree that the 1911 is the best bet.

[ajacobs]

Handy- As I mentioned I am no expert so I will leave it with your expertice on the matter.

I am not certain though what the selection critera for those groups where or if it even matters to the point of your original post. I guess my thoughts at this point are more in the form of questions and not counter-points.

Suffice to say I think the differences are almost minimal in terms of capabilities amoung a subset of high quality handguns. As many have said it is not the arrow it is the indian.

Thanks for the informative post.

[Harold Mayo]

The opinions of spec ops personnel should count for very little in regard to handguns. Handguns are NOT tools of war and special operations personnel can get by very well without ever touching a handgun. Why use a handgun when you have a rifle or subgun? Fact is, most special operations personnel don't know much about handguns at all BECAUSE handguns aren't of much use when the SHTF. If you've gotta rely on a handgun in a rifle fight, you're worse off than having a knife in a gunfight with pistols.

[Handy]

Hey Harold, read my post on that subject.

These guys constantly transition to the sidearm when the primary runs dry. It's what they practice and how they play.


Who's opinion does matter? The owner of a training business?

[Harold Mayo]

Not all, Handy, not all. I've not been around very many spec ops guys who were worth much with a handgun. Rifles and subguns, yes, but not handguns. Those who were good with a handgun were gun enthusiasts and shooters OUTSIDE of their military life. The last SEAL that I shot with was OK with a handgun but nothing special. I know MANY people, including myself, who could and did outdo him. He was better than me with an AR15/M16 or with an MP5, however, by quite a bit, and was one of the top five or so guys with those weapons out of the couple of hundred of us at the shoot (and this includes SWAT officers and active and retired Army Rangers and Special Forces personnel).

Whose opinion matters? It's largely a matter of personal opinion and choice. Although there are handguns that I feel are objectively "better" than others, the differences aren't enough to make someone who isn't very well-practiced able to outshoot someone who is.

The owners of training businesses are really pretty decent judges, though, as they see more handguns used than anyone else. I'll still follow my own personal choices, though.

After all, it's the craftsman that counts, not the tool.

[Boats]

Well, I could give two tiddlywinks for what Eurotroops, SEALs, Delta, FBI-HRT, or the Podunk PD SWAT-TAC-RECON-OP Strike Force uses.:rolleyes:

I am absolutely certain that my story is not unique. I hated the 1911 in the service because it bit me the first few times I fired it. However, it was on the mark. Fast forward. After going through the B92, BHP, Walther P99, HK USPc .45, and Beretta 8045, and renting/borrowing a multitude of other service pistols, I am throughly a 1911 shooter. My only caveat is that a beavertail is a must on old slabsides for me.

My objective evidence for the change to 1911 only? Splits. I am simply faster, (and more accurate), especially double tapping from a draw, with a 1911 than with any other pistol I have tried. The BHP is a close second, but it bites me. Everything else I have tried has a relatively crap trigger contrasted against a 1911. Trying any double action style trigger always makes me wonder, "if these are so great, why aren't they on any rifles or shotguns." Yes, I know that Mossberg makes a DA 590.:scrutiny:

Does my experience make the 1911 a better choice for anyone else? No. For the average cop? Nah. Again, who gives a rip? What amuses me is that every year since 1998, when I went monogamous with the 1911 and started selling off everything else but the mouseguns, I have had people (usually noobs) on the internet, and at my range, treat me like I am nuts, or at least suffering from a clueless dinosaur fetish. All I have to do to the range detractors is outshoot them most weekends or let them borrow one of my pistols and watch what is usually a look of revelation.

I am still trying to figure out what to do with the internet naysayers.

[Dobe]

Myth #2. "You can't carry a 1911 hammer down! It will go off when dropped."
This is a common one based on the misunderstanding of what a inertial firing pin does. The gun is as safe with the hammer down as back. 1911 firing pins can cause the gun to fire if dropped on the MUZZLE hard enough. Obviously, this would happen whereever the hammer was. But if the hammer is down and the gun dropped on the hammer, the hammer doesn't have anywhere to move. Since it can't move, it can't propell the firing pin.

Handy, I am going to attempt to correct you on this one, but not rudely. Try placing your face against a solid door. Have someone strike the door with his/her hand from the other side. Even though their hand will not penetrate the door, the force still does. Have you ever played crochet? The hammer doesn't have to move in order to move the firing pin.

[Handy]

I am familiar with what you're talking about-transmitted vibration. I guess the answer has two parts. First, what would happen if the crocket ball had a spring pushing on it?

Second, when the hammer is cocked, the firing pin is resting firmly against the firing pin stop, which is in turn seated firmly in the slide. If you are right about the amount of transmitted force from an impact, then an impact when the hammer is cocked would do the same thing, because the energy would just as easily travel through the frame and slide to impart motion on the pin.

Also, the crocket thing doesn't work because dropped guns bounce, unlike the crocket ball with your foot on it. With two balls and no foot, the two balls roll away with the same velocity. (the front ball the pin, the back ball the hammer).

And the firing pin spring acts as both a stop and a vibration dampener.


Luckily, this just isn't my theory. Firing pin blocks are fairly new, but cond. 2 is not, with a host of handguns. The Beretta 92 and CZ-75 started their careers hammer down, inertial pin only. They did not build their reputation by firing every time they are dropped.

[Jerry Morris]

Don't much care what naysayers post. I know what has and has not worked for me.

Thousands of rounds in practice will prove out any handgun type. 500 will prove out a particular handgun. If whatever gun you're using proves out and is accurrate in your hands, then well and good.

Anyone who says the 1911 is obsolete, or less than effective has lost credibilty with me. A simple pusher of Net Legend. I have three, all cost well shy of a grand in cost. All reliable and accurate.

If you do have a bad 1911, it is much less trouble to get in order than many of todays "more popular" handguns. All it takes is either gaining the knowledge of good gunsmiths, or learning to do a proper job yourself. If you aren't *gunnie* leave it to a pro. Know what you are about before you fiddle with a proven design.

Jerry

[Dobe]

Handy:
"I am familiar with what you're talking about-transmitted vibration. I guess the answer has two parts. First, what would happen if the crocket ball had a spring pushing on it?"

Handy, the spring is there to keep the base of the firing pin close to the hammer, not to retard movement. The spring will make ignition more likely, not less.*

Handy:
"Second, when the hammer is cocked, the firing pin is resting firmly against the firing pin stop, which is in turn seated firmly in the slide. If you are right about the amount of transmitted force from an impact, then an impact when the hammer is cocked would do the same thing, because the energy would just as easily travel through the frame and slide to impart motion on the pin."

I am not sure what you mean here, but I think that you mean that condition 1 would therefore be dangerous too. Well, you are right, except for two elements. First is the half cock, and secondly there is the modern beaver tailed grip safety that all but encases the hammer.

Handy:
"Also, the crocket thing doesn't work because dropped guns bounce, unlike the crocket ball with your foot on it. With two balls and no foot, the two balls roll away with the same velocity. (the front ball the pin, the back ball the hammer)."

Handy, you are reaching man…if all guns bounced enough to dissipate force, then there would never have been an accident from a dropped firearm.

Handy
"And the firing pin spring acts as both a stop and a vibration dampener."

See above *

Handy:
"Luckily, this just isn't my theory. Firing pin blocks are fairly new, but cond. 2 is not, with a host of handguns. The Beretta 92 and CZ-75 started their careers hammer down, inertial pin only. They did not build their reputation by firing every time they are dropped."

Handy, tactics and safety practices change through time and proven error. We no longer teach our soldiers to shoot one handed either.

[Handy]

Which accident are you talking about? I've heard of several muzzle drop ADs, but none involving a hammer and inertial pin.

The spring isn't there for convenience. Many weapons do not have a firing pin spring or an inertial pin. They use a floating full length pin. They work by not allowing the hammer to touch the pin. Tokarev, Makarov, AR15.

[Handy]

I guess I should have addressed all of these:

The spring does not assist ignition, it fights it. Are you thinking of a striker?

Hammer to firing pin is metal to metal. Frame to slide to firing pin is metal to metal to metal. Same thing with one extra element. You know those metal balls on the strings? As long as they are all touching the force goes through 5 of them to propel the last. The number of components don't matter, just as long as they are touching. So if you are right, a frame strike would also send the pin flying.

The bouncing drop doesn't dissipate force. It just doesn't transmit it soully to the firing pin. If the gun bounces up, how is the firing pin going to bounce even faster and get to the primer?

You can still buy brand new guns that rely on inertial pins only.



The thing is, you're making all guns with inertial pins sound as likely to go off as a SAA with 6 rounds loaded. They aren't.

[Dobe]

Handy
"The spring does not assist ignition, it fights it. Are you thinking of a striker."

No Handy, and I do know the difference, and the light firing pin spring on a 1911 is designed to keep the firing pin close to the hammer as possible. It is not strong enough to stop ignition when dropped. Think about it. Why would a designer place a spring on a firing pin...certainly not to inhibit ignition, but rather to keep the inertia pin as close to the hammer as possible.

Handy
"Hammer to firing pin is metal to metal. Frame to slide to firing pin is metal to metal to metal. Same thing with one extra element. You know those metal balls on the strings? As long as they are all touching the force goes through 5 of them to propel the last. The number of components don't matter, just as long as they are touching. So if you are right, a frame strike would also send the pin flying."

Theory is good, but application is a little off. All of those balls on a string keep moving because they are in each other's direct path. The side of the slide, and the frame are not in a direct path of the firing pin.

Handy
"The bouncing drop doesn't dissipate force. It just doesn't transmit it soully to the firing pin. If the gun bounces up, how is the firing pin going to bounce even faster and get to the primer?"

Most people who have shot throughout the years will eventually confess that they have dropped a handgun from time to time. I remember dropping my BHP from my hand to the asphalt. It is amazing where these type pistols "instinctively" strike when falling. It is geneally on the back sites or the hammer area...not surprisingly though. This is where the majority of the mass is. But, I have yet to see one bounce enough to make me feel comfortable that it would not "go-off", if in condition 2.

Handy
"You can still buy brand new guns that really on inertial pins only."

So?

Handy
"The thing is, you're making all guns with inertial pins sound as likely to go off as a SAA with 6 rounds loaded. They aren't."

That was not my intent. Condition 1 is safer than condition 2.

[Pendragon]

Don't bother to ask me if I'm on crack. I am.

I do not understand your vendetta against the 1911 Handy. Did Mr. Browning wrong you in some way in a past life? Were you brought to an untimely end by one of his designs?

First you make a thread about how inaccurate JMBs designs are compared to other designs. Now you are taking issue with "Cocked and Locked" carry and hashing the vagaries of the 1911s various safties.

Not that these are not legitimate topics of discussion, but I honestly do not understand you motivation. Are you trying to make a case that we should not own 1911 pistols? That we should admit that Condition 1 is "unsafe" or at least "unsightly"?

Every pistols has weaknesses. Some require more attentive cleaning and lubrication schedules. Some guns are ammor sensitive, some bite, some jam all the time, some are just ugly, etc.

I have had several handguns in my relatively short career as a handgunner and the one gun I will never voluntarily part with is my 1911. It is beautiful, extremely accurate, has excellent ergonomics for my hand and it has never failed to fire.

Seriously - I cannot abide Glock, Sig, H&K or almost any DA/SA pistol. However, I just do not spend much energy debunking their percieved good points.

Sure it's fun to throw my hat in and defend my favorite gun, but really.

If you just don't like it, you don't have to own or shoot one - ever. Nobody will think less you you - well, I will, but I will also tell myself that there is no accounting for taste ;) and that it was probably your parents fault ;)



See my sig :)

[BigG]

Despite all the discussion about the dropped 45, the chances of it going off are a million to one anyway. The original testing IIRC was done by the Navy and they had to drop it 27 feet and have it land on the muzzle in order to produce an AD. This sort of topic is fine to debate but it is nearly as remote a possibility as some of the quasi-legal stuff Mas Ayoob comes up with to fuel his columns.

[c_yeager]

Only another sailor would have known we liked to stand around with an empty gun.

NavyJoe,

I hate to break it to you but i read that very thing in Patriot Games by Tom Clancy in the late 80's.

As far as the "condition 2 (thats loaded chamber hammer down right?)" thing im suprised noone has mentioned this, the problem with condition 2 isnt that it is in itself dangerous. The problem is that GETTING into condition 2 IS dangerous. It invloves pulling the trigger on a weapon without any of its safeties activated WITHOUT the intention of firing that weapon. This is a violation of several of the safe gunhandling rules that we all try to live by.

[ajacobs]

As far as the "condition 2 (thats loaded chamber hammer down right?)" thing im suprised noone has mentioned this, the problem with condition 2 isnt that it is in itself dangerous. The problem is that GETTING into condition 2 IS dangerous. It invloves pulling the trigger on a weapon without any of its safeties activated WITHOUT the intention of firing that weapon. This is a violation of several of the safe gunhandling rules that we all try to live by.

Not in this case. The navy has berretta m9's which have a decock lever.

[BHP9]

I also like the tributes to longevity and history. People regularly point to the fact that the 1911 was used in the military for more than 74 years, which is fine. What they fail to note is that the 1911 wasn't ever the primary weapon of the foot soldier. While 1911s went to war, they didn't get used as much as people think. According to the history channel, in WWII, the mass produced Liberator .45 saw more actual action than 1911s and the Liberator was a single shot gun.


I have done extensive reading and interviews with War Vets and I can assure you that the U.S. service men did use their 1911's extensively, from WWI thru WWII to Korea and Viet-Nam. Volumes are filled in military history books with personal accounts of the 1911's performance in battle.



Myth #2. "You can't carry a 1911 hammer down! It will go off when dropped." The gun is as safe with the hammer down as back. 1911 firing pins can cause the gun to fire if dropped on the MUZZLE hard enough. Obviously, this would happen whereever the hammer was. But if the hammer is down and the gun dropped on the hammer, the hammer doesn't have anywhere to move. Since it can't move, it can't propell the firing pin. And the drop is driving the firing pin away from the breach, not toward it.

Wrongo Handy. In tests conducted and published years ago in the Gun Digest 1911's did indeed go off when dropped on the muzzle but it had to be from a height of at least 20 feet and the gun had to land squarely on the muzzle.

. The 226 and M9 both bested the control 1911s in reliability trials, which is the main thing any soldier cares about

Thats a new one on me. I do know that the 1911's that were at the test trials were guns that were very old and probably in need of a complete overhall but I did not read anywhere that even they were less reliable than the tests guns. I believe comparing apples to apples would be more appropriate. In other words if brand new Mil Spec 1911's had been tested (which they were not) against brand new modern weapons the reliablity would not have favored the stamped sheet metal pistols, not by a long shot. Besides jamming the ruggedness of the handgun must also be factored in and that is where the modern flimsily constructed aluminum and sheet metal pistols fail miserably.

[BigG]

...the problem with condition 2 isnt that it is in itself dangerous. The problem is that GETTING into condition 2 IS dangerous. That's pretty much how I see it, too.

[TechBrute]

The 226 and M9 both bested the control 1911s in reliability trials, which is the main thing any soldier cares about.
Can you tell me what trials these were? I am unaware of any reliability trials the military has performed which included both the 1911 and a more modern gun. The trials by the Air Force which resulted in the M9 did not include the 1911, as it was going to be replaced by whatever "won" the trials.

There could be a whole new post about the goings-on at those tests. :scrutiny:

The M9 is carried cond. 2 by our military.
Um... yeah, now that we've been attacked and everyone is watching for terrorists. Way, way back in the '90's it was common to have soldiers guarding the gates of military installations with nothing more than an empty sidearm. :banghead: The single magazine that they were issued had to be kept in the guardhouse. I'm not saying that every installation was like this, but the 6 that I was at during the 90's sure were.

[RON in PA]

Seems to me that the initial trials that led to the adoption of the M9 included 1911s and S&W M15 revolvers. Suprisingly, the revolvers did pretty well in the accuracy and mud tests, but not in maintainability(need for gunsmithing at low levels) or firepower.

I can't think of a modern semi-auto pistol marketed since 1990(CZ75 didn't have them at first) that does not have a firing pin block. Modern revolvers have hammer blocks. I can only conclude that they are there because government agencies demand them and/or because gunmakers have had major law suits due to somebody getting shot because of a dropped gun.

[TechBrute]

Doh! Ron, you're right about the 1911 being in the trials, but I could find no mention of the revolvers. One of the reasons that the Air Force got stuck with the testing is that they were desperate to replace their aging 38 revolvers. Apparently, congress had refused to fund aquisition of more .38 ammo, so they had to choose a 9mm pistol. I'm not all that familiar with the M15 S&W, was it a 9mm?

Anyway, the 1911 was included in the trials only as a control. The army actually pitched a fit about the poor performance of the control 1911s and claimed the test was unscientific. Turns out the 1911s used in the testing were over 35 years old.

[Al Thompson]

M15 = .38 S&W K frame revolver.

[MrAcheson]

Yes the 1911s used in the M9 trials were 35 years old, but so were most 1911s in the inventory. IIRC the US military hadn't bought a significant amount of 1911s since WWII and was basically using the weapons in the inventory in Korea, Vietnam, etc.

[Handy]

Well, I got busy for awhile and was burned in efigy. Let's see what I can remember.

Inertial firing pins. My point about these is that they were created, well prior to the 1911, as a hammer down safety feature. My mention of muzzle drops in the write up was not to say that they are likely either, but they are the only impact related ADs I have ever heard of. If muzzle drops are unlikely, hammer on firing pin ignitions are even more so. Dobe, there is no point in arguing with you, so I'll leave it at that. I'm a safety conscious guy, yet I would carry a gun hammer down with an inertial safety because they work.

The 1911 in the XM9 trials. This comment seems to have been misread. I was not making a negative comparison. On the contrary, I was pointing out that of all the guns tested, the 35 year old 1911 was a close third, not dead last. The US issue 1911 was a reliable piece, and I have never maintained anything but.

Pendragon,
I don't know where you're coming from. The first post in this thread is a list of historical facts. There is no attack on the gun, just an attack on misinformation about the gun. I think service 1911s were good guns. In other threads I have posted the downsides to both Cond. 1 carry (I favor DA trigger autos for most uses) and the accuracy potential of the stock Browning locking system. I have made similar comments about the rotating barrel system. Do I have a vendetta against the Beretta 8000 as well? Please read the entirety of the first post without looking for agenda. It's just history.

Frankly, I've spent the most time in this thread defending the 1911's firing pin engineering against ONE doubting Thomas. The basic gun works, is reliable and has an interesting history of varied use, which I attempted to illustrate, then defend. I also own one.

My intention in posting this is to give everyone a primer to discuss the pistol with all the facts, rather than the hype.


Oh yeah, I was in the Gulf of Persia in 1998, before the Cole. Condition 2 was in use waaaay back then on the M9. But maybe not in Norfolk. And a Baby Eagle with a decocker does not have an automatic firing pin block. They sell for $350.

[Handy]

Dobe,

As I couldn't come up with the perfect illustrative example of how the inertial pin prevents hammer strike ADs, I put it out for the resident experts and old timers to wrestle with. Here you go:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13620

Since this isn't really a 1911 "problem", but a very common pistol design, I thought it would be better in it's own thread. Have at it.

[Johnny Guest]

Getting away from the personal likes and dislikes of a certain pistols, and back into the actual nuts-and-bolts of the workings, I submit an entry in the relater thread, at - -
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=170856#post170856

I didn't make the point there, but I'd like to caution about confusion of the terms, inertia or inertial firing pin, as a safety device, and the internal firing pin safety-- a mechanical means inthe inards of the gun, for blocking the pin movement, ;)

Best,
Johnny

[VaughnT]

One thing I find interesting in this thread is the mention of how the design of the weapon might give a good shooter an edge, if he's good enough to wring that extra ounce out of it. I would argue that the design of the weapon can make a good shooter better simply because of the design.

Case in Point: I carry and shoot a Smith 686. I've fired thousands of round through it and really do like it as a defensive sidearm. It is by far my prefered revolver.

However, that long, heavy triggerstroke kills my accuracy and speed of fire. Try as I might, I can't be both fast and accurate. I could get better under the tutelage of some grandmaster, but I can't afford that and so, have to reinvent the wheel as best I can.

Now give me a 1911 and the story changes dramatically. The ergonomic design and short triggerstroke make for great accuracy in my hands (that's relative, of course). Give me a glock or Sig and my accuracy suffers because of the triggerstroke.

I am a better, safer, shooter because of the 1911's design. I practice a lot with all of my weapons, but the 1911 really makes me shine.

And, again, all of this is relative. Some are better/worse than me.

[gryphon]

I've read this whole thread, and with very few exceptions, the statements made have not been backed by documented facts.

An interesting read, but 95% of the statements have no backing, other than someone said so.

[Handy]

That's true, Gryphon. Despite the legion of JMB worshippers, no one seems to have written a book about his design work or the 1911 development that goes into this stuff. People like Kuhnhausen don't go into it either. We don't know about most of Jesus's life, either.

The unsubstanciated facts I've scraped together are without bibliography, but myself and others find that they ring true and are logical. The alternatives, like saying the 1911 was supposed to be carried cocked with no safety, are preposterous and don't stand up to the reasonable man theory.

Keep in mind that virtually nothing in this forum is presented with any backing, even when there might be plenty. I don't think there's actually anything very challenging in this thread anyway (except to Dobe). It's not like any of us have ever seen a picture of gangsters, police or military from WWII or earlier with a cocked pistol sticking out of their holster.

Is there anything in particular you take issue with, or you just don't like that there isn't an accompanying book called "The XM1911 Trials"?

[Handy]

Actually, I looked over my first post again. The only Myth that might be contentious is #1, and then only because I can't find a specific source.

The rest are pretty much accepted fact, especially the ones about the military use of the gun. There are enough veterens and active duty (like myself) who have seen and experienced those things to know that they are fact. Just ask one.

[trooper]

I've not been around very many spec ops guys who were worth much with a handgun. Rifles and subguns, yes, but not handguns. Those who were good with a handgun were gun enthusiasts and shooters OUTSIDE of their military life. The last SEAL that I shot with was OK with a handgun but nothing special.

Maybe it's different for law enforcement outfits.

One of our instructors was ex-GSG 9. He was by far the best handgun shot I've ever known. That said, he wasn't really into shooting outside of his job.

These guys practice a LOT with handguns because they regularly rely on them as as a primary weapon.


Regards,

Trooper

[Harold Mayo]

OK...once again. No one uses a handgun as a primary offensive weapon over a long gun. That is ridiculous. If anyone actually does, then they are an idiot, even if they are a "professional".

There is no difference between LE and military units in that "preference".

Although an operator or two might use a handgun in a dynamic entry, even that is a tactic that isn't really a good one. A subgun is just as maneuverable as a handgun in close quarters and is a better weapon.

I shoot with a lot of LE and military special ops guys, both active duty and retired, and NONE of them claim to have learned their handgun skills in the military. Handguns are a back-up weapon to long guns. Yes, they practice a transition to a handgun when the long gun runs dry but they're sure not going to keep using the handgun the rest of the fight if the long gun can be brought back into operation. That would be plain stupid.

[trooper]

You're certainly right about those units using long guns as primaries most of the time (though not every operator uses one every time).

If your work includes observation jobs and other "civil clothes" work, carrying a long gun is not always an option.

I shoot with a lot of LE and military special ops guys, both active duty and retired, and NONE of them claim to have learned their handgun skills in the military.

I just wanted to point out that apparently there ARE some units that put great emphasis on pistol proficiency, too. GSG 9 (which isn't military, by the way) and the SAS do, as far as I know.


Regards,

Trooper

[Handy]

NONE of them claim to have learned their handgun skills in the military.

Well, obviously some of us DO know people who fall into that category. I guess you pick up some skills even if you only fire 500 out of 2000 rounds in a day out of your sidearm.

[Harold Mayo]

Nah...still myth.

I'm sure our definitions of skill differ, anyway.

It is a rare circumstance for operators to shoot 2000 rounds per day. I know one SEAL who, last time I spoke to him, had only had his hands on a subgun twice in the past year for refresher and qualifications. His platoon was otherwise engaged in deep diving and demolitions work. He hadn't shot 2000 rounds in the entire year and he assured me that this wasn't unusual. Contrary to what movies depict and people WANT so desperately to believe, individual skill-at-arms is not something that is valued. Teamwork and sound tactics matter far more.

Flame away, but I KNOW it isn't so. It is a rare "professional" who can claim the amount of skill with a handgun that a dedicated handgun hobbyist and gamer can display. The majority of those who DO have that skill level learned it in some place other than the military.

[Handy]

Harold,

There are sub specialties among the Seals. Find one of the door kickers to talk to about shooting.


I'm not sure who you would qualify as a practiced handgun shooter from your point of view. It's well known that regular police do not get as much practice with their sidearms as any of the specialty groups do with their secondary weapons. And if secondary handgun users aren't meaningful, all military and SWAtT are out too. That essentially leaves zero armed professionals whose weapon choices, as a group, would be considered meaningful, by your definition.

If there aren't any groups of professionals who's opinions matter, weapon selection truly becomes a matter of personal preference ONLY. I certainly wouldn't base a weapon choice on the opinion of a gun writer, firearms instructor or gamer - they don't get in firefights for a living. And, according to you, those who do aren't very good with pistols.

[Harold Mayo]

Your choice or mine is as valid as anyone's.

Depending on who you talk to, SEALs use Sigs or whatever they please (unlikely in most cases)

SAS used to use BHPs but now use Sigs

Israelis used to use BHPs but now use Sigs

FBI HRT used to use BHPs but now use 1911s(?)

FBI SWAT uses 1911s

LE SWAT uses a mixture but most seem to use something of the Glock persuasion, though almost everything is represented

Who is right? Who uses their handguns more? None of them are going to choose the handgun as their primary if a long gun is available (or, if they do, I say their opinion doesn't matter just because they aren't all that bright).

The best handgunner that I know is an ex-SEAL and current LEO and he chooses a P7M13. He's shot people with various weapons and calibers and trains military, LE, and civilians for a living. He chooses a 9x19mm in a weapon that almost no one else uses. Should I emulate him?

From what I can see, there is no consensus among true professionals and so, therefore, there is no handgun that stands out over the others. If there was, there WOULD be a consensus. This means that, as you say, NO ONE'S opinion really matters. It's just that...an opinion.

And opinions are like you know what...everyone has one. I have my preferences and someone else has their preferences and it is likely that neither really has anything on the other.

There ARE sub-specialties among SEALs. Things may have changed since I really had a good idea how things went in terms of training. I will say, however, that one guy that I knew who was active in the first Gulf War (I know, I'm anticipating) with the SEAL teams had almost no idea of how to use a handgun until he got out and became a LEO and he WAS a shooter. This was, of course, over a decade ago and much of my information comes from that time.

I also KNOW that a lot of military special ops guys ended up getting handgun training in the civilian sector in the early to mid 1990s. I encountered military firearms instructors at civilian training sites during that time, which is also where my knowledge comes from. I have been out of shooting very actively for several years and, in that time, they may very well have taken what they learned and began teaching it in the military.

In any case, like I said before...it's not the tool, it's the craftsman.

[Handy]

So we agree.

[Dobe]

Handy,
Sorry you seem so offended. Many others on this thread also seem to believe as I in that condition two with inertia fp is not safe. I am assuming condition 2 without a fp block.

You seem to have a problem with the 1911. But then, you will claim that you do not. You rave about the P7, and it is a good handgun, but you tend to slice at other designs, in order to elevate your favorite.

There is room for more than one handgun in your safe Handy. The 1911 is a fine handgun.

And on your point about spec. ops....Most of us were rarely trained with a handgun.

Dobe

[Handy]

Dobe,

Sorry you seem so offended. Many others on this thread also seem to believe as I in that condition two with inertia fp is not safe. I am assuming condition 2 without a fp block.

Not offended. You ARE the only poster who thinks a hammer strike in this condition will cause ignition. I just read over this whole piece, no one else echoes your sentiments. What are you reading? I even wrote a new thread on the topic so you and others could comment and give examples. There hasn't been any indication here, there or historically that an inertial firing pin is anything but a safety device.

I have no "problem" with the 1911, and certainly stated none in this thread. You are welcome to quote the big 1911 problem I have, since you won't find it here. I've mentioned it's military record for reliability and its various safety features. If I wanted to bash it I would have just let you go. And there is already a place in my collection for one.

Besides your deal, the only controversy was whether or not Special Forces opinion matters. This was caused by my completely factual Myth #5 that mentions that the gun isn't getting much serious use any more. Boats backed that up with a list. It doesn't matter why that's true, and I offered no theories on that score.

I am really failing to see what your problem is. Articulate it here with specifics if you want and I'll answer them. But this kind of post:
you tend to slice at other designs, in order to elevate your favorite
is pure crap.

[Dobe]

Handy,
The word "vendetta" was already mentioned. One has only to take this thread in context to many others in which you are involved. It becomes quiet clear. I can still remember reading and participating in your thread on JMB's design in comparison to the P7, etc. and what should be in store for the future.

If you remember. I wrote that I believed you were correct. We should move foreward. But you would not stop there. You just keep going to the point that it almost seemed like (as stated by Pendragon) JMB had wronged you. I was begining to believe that you were a salesman for HK. Or that your mission in life was to stamp out the 1911.

I have some trigger time with the P7, and think it is a remarkable handgun, and I will have one. As a matter-of-fact, I handled and drooled over one tonight at the range where I shoot. But there are other designs that are worth having. And the 1911 is far from a poor design.

So, in answer to your question.
I do not think it is likely that an AD will occur in condition 2, simply because a strike on a hammer would need to be exact. If that strike were applied correctly, there is no logical reason why the hammer would not drive the fp into the primer. And of course, as mentioned by others, getting to condition 2 is potentially dangerous.

You post an item; don't expect people to simply swallow everything you print, without a challenge.

This will be my last post on this matter as I do not wish to have this turn worse.

[Handy]

Dobe,

Please do not confuse my zealousness on a point of debate with emotional involvement in a piece of metal. I don't even have a clue why you think I was "offended" by you. Pendragon is the only offended party I saw.

I occasionally enjoy posting my opinion and defending it. I see no point in taking the time think about and write a position and then abandon it when the name calling starts. People who get offended by my posts want to be offended.

I don't recall the thread you mention. There was one that came down to much comparison between the HK P9S and Browning designs. I didn't get into it as an HK thing, I was attempting to provide a concrete example of what I was talking about. But at some point, I had to defend the fact of the gun's very existence. That kind of thing quickly sidetracks a discussion.

I always expect a challenge to my opinion. What I do not expect are the challenges to what mindreaders think is my 'evil secret agenda', or to what are well established facts.

As to your personal upset with firearms design, I invite you once again to go ahead and make a good argument here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=13620
I'll leave it alone, if you want.

I think it's weird that all you got out of three pages was Pendragon's emotional "vendetta" post. Everyone else seemed to think it was a fair and accurate discussion, albeit with a few miscommunications and clarifications.

[Harold Mayo]

(joins in on kicking at the dead equine)

[Pendragon]

Pendragon is the only offended party I saw.

I would use the word "bewildered" but I suppose I could come off as offended - though I am not.

I have no illusions that the 1911 is a perfect gun - I think *my* 1911 is as close to perfect *for me* as I have ever seen.

That said, what has riled me up is that I percieve you as engaging is blatant straw man arguments on a large scale.

I see this thread "The Mythic 1911" as appealing to the myth of the 1911 and then attempting to deconstruct it. Please take this as my reading of what you have written and the metamessage I am percieving. I fully admit that I could be wrong - but perhaps you will see my point as well.

You commonly see the following stated as fact,

What I see are statements which contain an aspect of truth, stated in a way that makes them untrue and (in my reading) seems to paint the true aspects as untrue:

Myth #1. JMB "meant" the 1911 to be carried cocked and locked, or cond. 1.

It does not appear that JMB "meant" the 1911 to be carried "C&L". However, this does not mean that Condition 1 is perfectly valid. I have seen you post that you do not prefer Condition 1 carry (your choice which I do not begrudge you).

So I see this section as using a valid historical observation to question the validity of condition 1 carry. Certainly there may be reasons to question the practice, but I do not believe the "intent" of JMB is among them.

Myth #2. "You can't carry a 1911 hammer down! It will go off when dropped."

Again, I see this as a partial truth - or your presentation of what is considered bad practice, elevated to a maxim and then debunked.

The main objection to Condition 2 carry is that it can be slow and unsure to bring into action and it can be unsafe to lower the hammer.

Myth #3. "Cocked and locked is tried and true. Those Army guys used the 1911 for 74 years."

Again, a belief that is widely held to be valid, next to a statement which then invalidates it.

Of course the Army did not make a practice of Condition 1. There are many reasons for this that have little bearing on the trained, practiced civilian who prefers condition 1 carry. What is best or what is policy for the Army is not what is best for me.

Myth #4. The Army's 1911s were tough and reliable enough for 4 wars. This applies to all 1911s.

Once more, the pattern. However, this time, I do not know, nor do I care if the 1911s in the Army were "tough enough" for 4 wars. Also - adding the statement "This applies to all 1911s" is just blatant straw man jousting. There are few statements that are not self evident that this phrase would apply to.

Myth #5. "Special Forces types love the 1911 and still use them."

The sentence as typed does not have a qualifier like "Some Special Forces types..." which would make it unquestionable as long as somewhere in the world a special forces person loves the 1911 and uses one to do his job.

But your sentence, as written, should be read to apply to all special forces types - making it very easy to be proven false - find a few crews using some other gun and - yep, that statement is myth also!


Look, I am not saying you do not have some valid points, but I find the whole construct of this thread very hard to swallow. I was not laboring under any of these "myths" and while your rebuttals may be more or less true (and I would bet more rather than less), I just do not find the information relevant to my decision to own, operate and enjoy my 1911 pistol.

The real irony for me is that despite the fact that I own a very nice semi custom 1911 (Valtro), the gun I keep loaded around the home is a 1977 S&W Model 10 (4" taper in nickel). This gun cost 1/5th the price of my Valtro which is normally unloaded. Additionally, when I do move and get my CCW, I will most likely carry a J-frame a lot more than I carry my Valtro.

Anyway - I am not writing this to attack you, I find your posts among the most interesting on THR - I just have a different take on the issues you post about.

Have a good evening.

[Gerald McDonald]

Handy, those must be regional myths. I have never heard any of them.

I have always heard that they were designed with the mode of carry that was used at the time, empty chamber.

So if you carry on an empty chamber as was the carry standard of the day, myths 2 and 3 make no sense.

If you hadnt added "this applys to all 1911's" to myth 4 it would be true.

I had'nt heard myth 5. I have heard a lot of police agencys are looking at 1911's again, but spec ops no.

[Handy]

Pendragon and Gerald,

While I have taken the occasional opposition view in regard to this particular firearm, the "myths" are a distillation of much of the "supporting evidence" offered by someone trying to make a point for the gun on THR and before on TFL. Making a point is fine, backing it with erroneous information is not.

My honest to God goal in writing this was to offer a level playing field so future arguments do not have to go off on historical tangents (and I'm certainly not the only one who's done this), but can stick closer to the point. For instance, #3 came directly from this messy thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13149&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

The poster made a point and almost immediately retracted it. But if he had all the facts, he probably would have made a better point in a better way. That's certainly my preference.

I prefer lively and intelligent debate to people talking down to each other. By putting this out I handed out all such rebuttals instead of using them again. And in the final paragraph I reiterate the modern and proven use of the cond. 1 1911. There was no intended debate in this thread, and that's why there wasn't much. I think you read it looking for my motivation rather than your interest. Unsurprisingly, you found that "underlying intent" and you ended up replying to points that no one made.

Gerald,

The cavalry had no interest in adopting a pistol that would take two hands to put into action, that would be a step back. If they had, the wide spur hammer, grip safety, manual safety and inertial firing pin all become unnecessary extravagence. (It would be a Tokarev.) All of that thinking changed 7 years later when the cavalry became history, but the gun was designed with and for men on horseback. One doesn't stay on the horse's back long if both hands are otherwise engaged.

[buzz_knox]

Why doesn't everyone raise these anti-1911 comments on tacticalforums.com? Oh, I forgot. Maybe because there are actual operators over there who use the 1911 in combat.

[Handy]

Which, anti-1911 comments, Buzz?

Funny, you may pick the wrong gun, then the wrong gun forum!:D

[Gerald McDonald]

Handy, according to the Basic Field Manual 23-35,

"in campaign, when early use of pistol is not forseen, it should be carried with fully loaded magazine in socket, chamber empty, hammer down. When early use is probable it should be carried fully loaded and locked in holster or hand"

No where does it mention different use if on horseback. Nor cocked and locked carry recommended unless use is probable.

Gerald

[Tango Sierra]

Handy,

The following is from:

FM 23-35
BASIC FIELD MANUAL
AUTOMATIC PISTOL, CALIBER .45
M1911 AND M1911A1
Prepared under direction of the Chief of Cavalry
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1940

------------------------------------------------
SECTION IV

FUNCTIONING

(from) • 12. METHOD OF OPERATION.-

a. A loaded magazine is placed in the receiver and the slide drawn fully back and released, thus bringing the first cartridge into the chamber. (If the slide is open push down the slide stop to let the slide go forward.) The hammer is thus cocked and the pistol is ready for firing.

b. If it is desired to make the pistol ready for instant use and for firing the maximum number of shots with the least possible delay, draw back the slide, insert a cartridge by hand into the chamber of the barrel, allow the slide to close, then lock the slide and the cocked hammer by pressing the safety lock upward and insert a loaded magazine. The slide and hammer being thus positively locked, the pistol may be carried safely at full cock and it is only necessary to press down the safety lock (which is located within easy reach of the thumb) when raising the pistol to the firing position.

c. The grip safety is provided with an extending horn which not only serves as a guard to prevent the hand of the shooter from slipping upward and being struck or injured by the hammer, but also aids in accurate shooting by keeping the hand in the same position for each shot and, furthermore, permits the lowering of the cocked hammer with one hand by automatically pressing in the grip safety when the hammer is drawn slightly beyond the cocked position. In order to release the hammer, the grip safety must be pressed in before the trigger is squeezed

--------------------------------------
SECTION VII

INDIVIDUAL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

(from) • 25. RULES FOR SAFETY

l. In campaign, when early use of the pistol is not foreseen, it should be carried with a fully loaded magazine in the socket, chamber empty, hammer down. When early use of the pistol is probable, It should be carried loaded and locked in the holster or hand. In campaign, extra magazines should be carried fully loaded.

m. When the pistol is carried In the holster loaded, cocked, and locked the butt should be rotated away from the body when drawing the pistol In order to avoid displacing the safety lock.

-----------------------------------
The entire manual can be viewed at: http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/manual.htm

Check out the training section for shooting from horseback.

I have in front of me the Soldiers's Handbook that was issued to my father in 1941and it includes some of the pages from the above mentioned 1911 Pistol Manual. I wish I knew what happened to the Soldier's Handbook that was issued to me in 1966.

[Handy]

This is an interesting find! While the existance of this 1940 manual does not necessarily invalidate the claim that the INTENT of the design was condition 2, it does show that the Army eventually wanted to avoid it (maybe due to decocking ADs?).

It also gives instruction for Cond. 1, which no one I've ever talked to had ever seen instructed or allowed the use of by in the military. But obviously, someone did it at some point. Cooper was in the military and this manual probably set him on his course.

Does anyone know of soldiers being taught or allowed to practice cond. 1 carry?

[Gerald McDonald]

I imagine if you were walking around the base in condition 1 you might get chewed on, in the jungle about to be over run by a bunch of (your choice of enemy) no one would ever say a word.

Similar to what John Wayne said in the Shootist (I think) when telling Ron Howard to only load 5 in the S/A Army and leave the chamber under the hammer empty, but load six when you needed to. Ron Howard asked when should you load six, and Wayne replied "youll know"

Gerald

[Tango Sierra]

Handy,

The manual clearly recommends Condition Two carry for low threat situations and Condition One carry for high threat situations.

No matter what the manual teaches, local commanders set their own rules for carry. When I joined the MP company at Fort Dix in 1966 there had been an accidental shooting of one MP by another MP in pursuit of an escaping prisoner. The weapon handling rules were changed to have patrolmen carry their 45s with a magazine containing 5 rounds in their magazine pouch, and the gun was seen by the whole world to be empty.

In Viet Nam when on base you never armed the chamber of your rifle but when you stepped out the gate to go on patrol, the command to lock and load was given. I rarely carried a pistol in Viet Nam and my failing memories don't recall the details of when I did.

I do remember that when qualifing with the 1911 at Fort Dix, the last firing station was at 5 meters with a Condition One 1911 and on command you drew and double tapped your shilouette target as quickly as possible, single handed grip from the hip of course. The 5 meter quick draw was refered to as the John Wayne portion of the test. The 10 meter station was slow fire single handed from the classic sighted sideways standing position. The further away postions of kneeling, sitting and prone I belive were done with two hands. I qualified 3 times this way during an eight month period at Fort Dix and once later in Viet Nam.

My father passed away 15 years ago so I can't ask him of any WWII experiences with the 1911. We talked of many things in our lives but our military experiences never were discussed .

[c_yeager]

tango, think your confusing condition two with condition three. As i recall them the "conditions" are as follows:

1) "cocked and locked" i.e. magazine in well, loaded chamber safeties on.

2) magazine loaded and chamber loaded, hammer DOWN on chamber. safeties off.

3)magazine loaded, chamber empty, hammer down (usually), safeties off.

Of course my original intent on posting here was to say this: Does it really matter? I mean we are arguing over what is "best" here. I think that really all that counts is what is best for YOU. Just do whatever your experience and knowledge has led you to believe is the best course of action. Untill you have enough knowledge to comfortably make a decision just do what a trusted friend does untill you learn a reason to change it. Specific to this issue, asside from the potention of NDs from getting into condition two, none of this methods is likely to get you killed. So if you carry a 1911 just go with whatever "feels" best on your hip. This is all of course just my opinion so take it with the requisite grain of salt.

-cy

[Tango Sierra]

c_yeager,

I re-read my post and can't find where I stated Condition One or Two incorrectly.

edited:
O.K. You are right. When probable use is not foreseen,
Condition Three.

I knew what I was saying was right, you just heard me say it wrong. :)
TS