[ether]

I just read a thread where someone asked this. Here's the answer. The grip safety helps, but does not ensure, safer one-handed hammer cocking. If the the rear part of your hand is busy cocking the hammer, it's difficult to squeeze the safety at the same time. Browning's thoughtful design tried to allow for "safely" cocking the hammer even if your trigger finger is inside the trigger guard. This concept was more valid in his original design than in the A1 model. In the A1, it's easier to mash the grip safety down with the hammer while cocking than with the original design since the A1 extended the grip safety to prevent hammer bite.

This design does not really promote safety while unholstering (expecially with military holsters of the time) since the grip safety will likely be squeezed before the trigger guard is even accessible. Most carried their pistols in these early holsters with the hammer down anyway, which is likely the reason for this design in the first place.

[Valkman]

Why would you EVER cock the hammer on a loaded gun? I only have 6 1911's but have never done it, because that means you let the hammer down on a loaded chamber and that's something I would never do. Very unsafe practice.

It's just an extra safety that ensures you have a good grip on the gun before it can be fired. If you reach for your Glock in your pocket and hit the trigger it can (and has) fire. With the grip safety it won't. XD's have a grip safety and that's one of the reasons I like them and bought one.

[mljdeckard]

I was reading an article in the current American Handgunner by Massad Ayoob about this discussion today.

There is never a reason to drop the hammer on a loaded chamber. If you carry cocked and locked, the only thing you ever do to clear the weapon is drop the magazine and rack the slide, neither of which involve dropping on a hot chamber. This is another reason to carry with the hammer back, because yes, it is unsafe to let the hammer down. A 1911 with a round chambered, and the hammer down is not considered drop-safe.

SA autos are designed to be carried with the hammer cocked and the safety on. This is why the safety won't even go on if the hammer isn't cocked. Visually, this might give some people the willies, but it's actually much safer than a Glock, carried with a round chambered, with no safeties at all.

Those who handle 1911s should be in the habit of A: Holding the hammer back when holstering, or B: Forcing the thumb safety while holstering. Many current 1911s (like my Kimber) also have a firing pin disconnect attached to the thumb safety, so pushing up on the thumb safety is double protection against accidental discharge.

[tegemu]

Because the ARMY required that it be included in the design. It is my understanding that John Browning did not want to put it in the gun. His subsequent design, the Browning Hi Power, does not have the grip safety.

[MadMercS55]

I would never consider lowering the hammer on a 1911. I have carried a 1911 from time to time and cocked\locked in the only way IMO. I know the ARMY wanted the grip safety, but I'm not overly familiar with the reasons behind it aside from rumors and speculation I've overheard various places. I like the grip safety as an added measure when carrying in case the thumb safety gets knocked off somehow.

[1911Tuner]

A quote:

>Many current 1911s (like my Kimber) also have a firing pin disconnect attached to the thumb safety, so pushing up on the thumb safety is double protection against accidental discharge.<
***************************

None that I'm aware of have a flring pin block that ties in with the thumb safety. The Swartz system operates off the grip safety, and the Series 80 Colt design operates off the trigger....but the thumb safeties don't tie in with firing pin blocking devices.

[jc2]

First, it was SOP at that time to carry the 1911 with a loaded magazine and an empty chamber. A round was only chambered (and the safety engaged) when action was imminent. It wasn't intended to be thumb cocked.

Secondly, the mounted soldier was still common and a primary user of the handgun. If the weapon was dropped, would you want a cocked and unlocked 1911 swinging by its lanyard while you were riding on the back of a galloping (or out of control) horse? The grip safety serves a purpose.

[MCgunner]

I believe in redundant hardware safety backing up good, safe gun handling. I never had a problem using a 1911 with grip safety, so why not????

[jungle]

JB didn't know it at the time he created it, but the grip safety is one of the keys to the 1911's modularity. By altering the grip safety and MSH the pistol can be adapted to a wide variety of hand sizes and preferances.
Other handguns have only recently caught up with replacement backstraps of varying size.
As a safety it is somewhat of a belt and suspenders deal, but is easily altered for sensitivity or disabled if you don't care for it. Without the removable grip safety, those wanting more protection from hammer bite in the form of an extended tang would be forced to weld on the frame as in the case of the BHP.
I have to agree the original intent was to provide an extra measure of safety for the then new pistol which was always cocked in use. It was a sort of rough handling/drop safety. Anyone in the military has seen numerous weapons dropped and dropping something off a horse compounds the mistake. The idea of a cocked and not safed pistol bouncing around on the end of a lanyard on horseback or on foot offers many ways for gear to contact the trigger.

[WT]

If you go back a couple of months in AH you will see that Walt Rauch and Ken Hackathorne disagree with Ayoob. I guess you have to have controversey to sell magazines.

[Old Fuff]

All of Browning's automatics with an exposed hammer, starting with the first one in 1900, until about 1905 with some .45 prototypes, had neither a grip or manual safety. It was intended that the pistol be either carried with a loaded magazine and empty chamber, or with the chamber loaded and the hammer fully down. While this would be seen as dangerous to some, the fact is that many users carried Colt's series of pre-Super .38's in that caliber and Government Model .45's using the chamber loaded/hammer down mode for decades without leaving a history of unintended discharges. That's the reason that pre-war 1911/1911A1 pistols had hammers with long/wide cocking spurs.

[bigsarg99]

I carry a Colt Cmder and the only way I carry is locked and cocked. I will admit I dont think you should pick one up from your local shop and slip it into a IWB holster out in the car if your not familiar with it yet. I carry that way now but it took some training and familization with the the entire rig not just the weapon system. I believe that not carrying it locked and cocked isnt much difference than carrying it with out one in the pipe. If I need it i want it to go in as few motions and possible and the Grip safty is a big part of me feeling safe about carrying that way.

[mljdeckard]

I wrote that post during a graveyard shift, I made a mistake, I meant to say grip safety, not thumb safety. Sorry. :D

[Glockman17366]

"I only have 6 1911's but have never done it, because that means you let the hammer down on a loaded chamber and that's something I would never do. Very unsafe practice."

Yep...it sure is! That's my ony ND (in the house at that!). I almost shot my wife's computer!

[MCgunner]

You can decock a 1911 without blowing away the computer if you'll use your off hand thumb to block the hammer drop, remove your finger from the trigger after breaking the sear, then lower the hammer slowly. ALWAYS make sure the gun is pointed in a safe direction!

However, I never saw a reason to decock the 1911. I always carried it condition one or condition three in the field. I never carried it for CCW, didn't have a permit back then, but if I did, it'd be condition one. The AMT I had was a series 70 style, no hammer block. That makes decocking even more perilous.

[1911Tuner]

mljdeckard...As a 15-year veteran of the graveyard shift...I completely understand. :cool:

I read it that Ayoob had said it...Which didn't make sense, because he understands the gun pretty well.

MCGunner...Lowering the hammer on a pistol with or without a firing pin blocking system is no different. In order for the sear to release the hammer, any passive safety system is disengaged. Series 80 Colt works off the trigger...Trigger must be pulled. Swartz-type works off the grip safety...Grip safety must be depressed in order for the trigger to move. No difference.

Not pickin' on ya...Just didn't want anybody to think that lowering the hammer on a 1911-pattern pistol was any less hazardous with a FP blocking arrangement.

For the record, it can be done without incident...but it does make an incident much more likely.

[jungle]

Under current practices and procedures, there is never a good reason to lower the hammer on a live round in any single action auto pistol. However, if you simply must for whatever reason do so don't point it at the waterbed or anything else of value.
Carrying an SA auto with the hammer down on a live round is slower than condition three and not as safe.

[Cosmoline]

Here's an added thought. When the 1911 was designed, did ANYONE contemplate going cocked & locked with it? My understanding is this carry method developed much later, and JMB never expected people to do it.

[Vern Humphrey]

What many people don't understand is, Browning was a brilliant engineer and a good businessman. He was not a soldier, lawman, or gunfighter.

Browning designed what would sell. In the case of the M1911, he designed what the customer (the US Army) wanted. The Army had a better understanding of what would make a good cavalry pistol than Browning -- but Browning had a better understanding of how to translate those requirements into a working and reliable handgun.

The Army needed redundant safeties for mounted operations -- and they did have a history of accidents with decocking loaded guns, such as the M1873 SAA. The Army never endorsed hammer-down-on-a-loaded-chamber (Condition 2) carry, but only Condition 3 (empty chamber, loaded magazine) and Condition 1 (Cocked-and-locked.)

[jungle]

I think cocked and locked is mentioned in several early military manuals as the prefered state in the face of imminent action. Most of the military carried in condition three normally.
If you carry concealed you are expecting imminent action, and don't have the time of preparation for forming the ranks prior to a cavalry charge or going over the tops of the trenches.

[AirForceShooter]

it's there for me. I'm a lefty and I never use the thumb safety.
Gee Mom, it's just like a Glock .
It's called "Condition 0"

AFS

[1911Tuner]

AirForceShooter! You's a wild man! Open invitation to the next pig-pickin'.
Come on down!:D

[vynx]

jc2 thats is the best explanation I have heard and it makes a lot of sense.

Didn't the first 1911's have a lanyard ring on them?

[Vern Humphrey]

Didn't the first 1911's have a lanyard ring on them?

All M1911s and M1911A1s (as opposed to clones for the civilian market) had lanyard loops at the bottom of the mainspring housing. Early M1911 magazines also had lanyard loops on the magazine floor plate -- so a cavalryman could reload and not lose the magazine.

[MICHAEL T]

While this would be seen as dangerous to some, the fact is that many users carried Colt's series of pre-Super .38's in that caliber and Government Model .45's using the chamber loaded/hammer down mode for decades without leaving a history of unintended discharges. That's the reason that pre-war 1911/1911A1 pistols had hammers with long/wide cocking spurs.


Thank you OLD FUFF I have a gun Mag from early 80's that gives instruction on how to lower hammer for carry or storage. Growing up I never saw a C&L 45 unless somebody at range getting ready to shoot. Always hammer down . I can cock my USGI very fast on draw and its no trouble.
(yes It can be done it times of stress also , Its called practice.)

[Old Fuff]

jc2:

It wasn't intended to be thumb cocked.

So why was it up to World War Two (and beyond with Colt) were 1911 and 1911A1 pistols equipped with hammers that had a long cocking spur with wide flanks? Making those hammers with wide flanks involved at least 2 extra machining operations that slowed production and added to the cost. :) :)

[jc2]

My comments were based on the original operator's manual (FM 23-35). You might want to check it out yourself.

[1911Tuner]

Here's a refinished but otherwise original 1925 Commercial Colt Government Model...says so right on the side there...complete with lanyard loop.
And...horrors of horrors...I've shot it. It'll feed hollowpoints too! There goes the myth that the unthroated/unsmithed/untuned 1911s and 1911A1s were only reliable with hardball.;)

Sorry. Tried to load it from my pictures...said it was an invalid file, so I had to use photobucket.


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/25Colt.jpg

[MCgunner]

And...horrors of horrors...I've shot it. It'll feed hollowpoints too! There goes the myth that the unthroated/unsmithed/untuned 1911s and 1911A1s were only reliable with hardball.

Well, if you got a box of 200 of 'em stashed away, I reckon it wouldn't be too hard to find one exception in the bunch. ROFLMAO!!!:D I couldn't get one Auto Ordinance or one AMT to feed hollowpoints even AFTER the throat job. :rolleyes: But, that was a sample of two, I guess.

[Azrael256]

The Army never endorsed hammer-down-on-a-loaded-chamber (Condition 2) carry, but only Condition 3 (empty chamber, loaded magazine) and Condition 1 (Cocked-and-locked.) That is my impression as well. From FM 23-35 Automatic Pistol Caliber .45 M1911 and M1911A1:
"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... when raising the pistol to the firing position." The grip safety tang being useful for lowering the hammer is mentioned, but not as a method for carry.

Two other things strike me as very interesting from this manual. They indicate a completely differend mindset about the pistol. First, there are two safeties on the pistol: the grip safety and the disconnector. The thumb safety is just a convenient add-on that locks up the slide and hammer. The other (Tuner is about to feel a disturbance in the force) is "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..."

I had to throw in that second one just to be difficult.

[1911Tuner]

LOL Gunner...Problem is that I've got a few others that'll do it too...including an untouched 1919 Black Army Colt and a couple of Rands that'll gobble about anything that I can throw at'em, INCLUDING the H&G #68 200-grain SWC...from the original GI magazines. Just...bangbangbangbang, etc.etc.

Here the old girl is...with the Rand in the background.:cool:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e243/1911Tuner/Colt.jpg

[1911Tuner]

Azrael...The thumb safety blocks the sear and locks the slide...but not the hammer.

Nannoo! Nannoo!

[MCgunner]

Not pickin' on ya...Just didn't want anybody to think that lowering the hammer on a 1911-pattern pistol was any less hazardous with a FP blocking arrangement.

Only reason I said that is that the way I decock a single action is to block the hammer with my off thumb, then release the trigger, grab the hammer with my strong thumb to finish lowering it. Now, if you have a series 80 and you do that and the hammer slips, the firing pin block with keep the firing pin from striking because you have already released the trigger. However, with a series 70, no firing pin block, if the hammer slips even though you are not pulling the trigger, it can still go bang. Therefore, I consider the series 80 a good thing in the 1911 world. Besides, I like having that extra passive safety. The tiny bit it effects the trigger pull is negligible IMHO.

I think if I wanted to carry a 1911 again, it'd be a series 80 lightweight commander.

Oh, thought I'd throw in a BTW, I carried a Norinco Tokarev in 9mm a few times. It was really flat and pretty light, smaller than a 1911, but had the stupidest safety I've seen on a single action gun. So, I carried it condition two, which is not preferable on that gun at all for safety. The only really safe way to carry it is condition three, unless you have to use it. But, I didn't have it long. 1911s are so handy in condition one, I can't see a reason for the hammer down thing. They have redundant safeties, I feel safe with 'em, which is more than I can say about Glocks.

[1911Tuner]

Oh yeah...

Chambering a round individually and dropping the slide is an emergency measure to load the gun when the magazine isn't available. The ability to do that is provided for by virtue of the angled nose on the extractor. That's one of the reasons that Browning specified spring-tempered steel...but it's still not good for it, and should only be done IN such an emergency. Remember the old joke about Military Intelligence being a contradiction in terms? Apply as needed.:cool:

Let us also bear in mind that the 1911's hammer has checkering or serrations.
That was put there at a cost and for a reason. The reason being for thumb cocking. Ask yourself...Why would you need a non-slip grip on a hammer...on a gun...that should never be carried in Condition 2?

[Jim Watson]

Add another worry to the mix.
In 1908 Colt changed the 1902/1903/1905 guns from burr hammers to prominent spur hammers. Anybody got instructions for one of those?

[Azrael256]

Nannoo! Nannoo! Hey, I didn't write it. Blame the army! :neener: Why would you need a non-slip grip on a hammer...on a gun...that should never be carried in Condition 2? It does stand to reason that the spur and serrations are there for a reason other than looking cool. The whole attutude surrounding the manual of arms has changed dramatically over the years. Reading the old FM, they're almost describing a different pistol.

[Old Fuff]

jc2:

I am aware of the manual you cited, but so far no one has explained why the hammers were made with a wide/long cocking spur - even though it would bite some users. Up to and including the last prototype (Special Army Model of 1911) the pistols had narrow hammers with short spurs.

On March 29, 1911 the design was approved, with a few changes. They included:

"1. The hammer spur was made wider by adding flanks to both sides of the hammer in order to provide more thumb contact during cocking."
Subsequent changes lengthened the hammer spur. Then in 1913 Army Ordance considered, (but rejected) an entirely different hammer with a long but narrow hammer spur that was almost vertical. It was proposed by a cavalry officer, so that it (the hammer) "could be more easily cocked by hand."

If the pistol was to be carried with an empty chamber/loaded magazine, or chamber loaded/cocked & locked, why so much concern (and additional expense) to provide for "more thumb contact during cocking?"

[jc2]

Who knows why the Army does anything? One thing I learned early on with the Army is that it doesn't have to make sense.

If you're read FM 23-35, then you know how it was intended to be used--chamber empty or cocked and locked.

[AirForceShooter]

anybody remember when they used to sell a little plastic wedge that fit between the hammer and the firing pin. It was so you coud carry safely at half cock. It popped out when you thumbed the hammer back to full cock.
As for me carrying at condition 0 I've been doing it a long time. Like decades.

AFS

[1911Tuner]

LOL...I've seen those. Thought it was a neat idea...for the man sellin'em.:rolleyes:

Decades ya say?? Forsooth! And ya never, ever had one to go off all by itself and shootcha in the butt?:D

[sm]

You smart folks know better than I ...

Gloves and Cold weather, add wet environments - IIRC played a part on the spur and serrations did it not?

[Old Fuff]

That 1911 style hammer is sort of like someone’s neighbor 16-year-old girl that’s unmarried and pregnant. Everybody knows but nobody notices… :eek: :D

[MCgunner]

I've not seen the plastic things for the hammer, but have seen the plastic things for Glock triggers. That's the ONLY way I'd feel okay about carrying a Glock, with one of those little plastic things behind the trigger. You push on it somehow just right (never actually played with one) and it pops out, but it keeps the trigger from being pulled while in place. That seems like a really good idea to me for Glocksters.

Only thing, I'd be a little antsy about stickin' that plastic thing behind the trigger with it loaded. You'd wanna be double careful that the muzzle was pointed in a safe direction and you don't slip when installing it.:eek:

[Whirlwind06]

If the pistol was to be carried with an empty chamber/loaded magazine, or chamber loaded/cocked & locked, why so much concern (and additional expense) to provide for "more thumb contact during cocking?"

Crappy ammo?
missfire cock the hammer and try again? I don't know either. Just throwing it out there.

[gc70]

It does stand to reason that the spur and serrations are there for a reason other than looking cool.I sorta' like the 'looking cool' option. :D

[Old Fuff]

Crappy ammo?

That's a remote possibility, but no mention of any such prolem was made during the extensive development of the 1911 pistol. The original gun had a "substantial" mainspring, so clearing a dud and going to a fresh cartridge would have been a better option.

The reason for the longer/wider hammer spur was never left in doubt. The Army said: "in order to provide more thumb contact during cocking."

A lot of folks that are knowledgeable about Cooper's "modern technique" haven't really studied the history of the pistol that's its centerpiece. :scrutiny:

Understand that I am not advocating carrying the pistol in this manner, but rather pointing out that it was done (extensively so before the 1970's) and is still being done today to some extent. In theory this should have resulted in a history of unintended discharges, but in practice it doesn't seem to have been the case.

Prior to the 1911, Browning/Colt's .38 pistols, that had neither a grip or manual safety, were sometimes carried chamber loaded/hammer down, and again we don't find a history of accidental shootings.

Between the World Wars the Shanghai (China) Municipal Police ordered their .45 and .380 Colt pistols to be modified or bought them from the factory with the manual safety blocked in the off position with a screw. That left the grip safety and nothing else. This practice was ordered by William E. Fairbrain of Fairbrain/Sykes fame, who knew a lot about (1) close-quarters gunfighting, and (2) pistols. Of course neither knew anything about Jeff Cooper, and perhaps if they had it might have made a difference - but then maybe not. The more important point might be again that they didn't have an inordinate number of unintentional discharges because of the practice.

History gentlemen - study the history. Everything in the 1911 pistol was done for a reason. :)

[jc2]

The reason for the longer/wider hammer spur was never left in doubt. The Army said: "in order to provide more thumb contact during cocking."
Maybe. But when they published the "operator's manual" (FM 23-35), they say absolutely nothing about thumb cocking--in fact, they only recognize/teach only two methods of carry: hammer-down/chamber empty and locked/chamber loaded.

I think you are reading way too much into that one little sentence you've extracted from the development and disregarding what was the actual intent. Without going back and doing a lot of research, the best I recall the some of the prototypes of 1911 had almost no hammer spur. I could see the need of adding a hammer spur for decocking (after unloading) or cocking for cleaning (it's easier to field strip when it's locked).

FM 23-35 is far better source of how the pistol was actually intended to be used than a single sentence pulled out of a letter addressing developmental changes. FM 23-35 makes in very clear the Army did not intend for the 1911/1911A1 to be be carried hammer down on a loaded chamber.

[Old Fuff]

FM 23-35 didn't address the question of carrying with the hammer down on a loaded chamber - which is to say while they didn't recommend the practice they also didn't outright prohibit it. Perhaps at the time they didn't think they needed to because carrying the earlier but still current Colt .38 automatics with the hammer down on a loaded chamber wasn't unusual. I submit that if the Army (and Colt) weren't aware of the thumb-cocking practice, and didn't accept it, they wouldn't have spent so much time fiddling with the hammer spur design to get it "just right."

Regardless of FM-23-35, the practice of carrying the pistol with the hammer down on a loaded chamber was far more common then going cocked & locked until Jeff Cooper ( who I treasure as a friend) came along during the middle 1970's. I know because my experience around people who carried and used the pistol goes back to the middle 1940's. At that time most "experienced" users that I knew either carried the pistol with an empty chamber, or chamber loaded/hammer down. Right or wrong, cocked & locked was considered to be less safe. Most of those who considered "fast work" to be important carried double-action revolvers.

You are pointing out what an Army manual said. I was pointing out how things were really done. Understand again, I do not advocate carrying the piece with the hammer down on a loaded chamber, but simply point out that it was a viable option during most of the lifetime of the pistol, and one that is still used by some.

[Jim Watson]

It is my recollection that the Fairbairn procedures involved not only pinning out the thumb safety but carrying the autopistol in Condition 3 and racking the slide during the draw. I saw one account of precinct inspection with the oncoming shift withdrawing their magazines to display the six (6) rounds authorized for carry and reinserting them with gun still holstered.

[jc2]

OF -
Regardless of FM-23-35, the practice of carrying the pistol with the hammer down on a loaded chamber was far more common then going cocked & locked until Jeff Cooper.
It probably was in non-military circles. Your original question to me, however, concerned intent--not what was actual practice with non-military users (which doesn't necessarily equate to what was intended which is what I thought you and I were talking about based on your Post #26 comments to me).

As for cocked & locked before Cooper, it was evidently common in some campaigns in the Pacific. From Ordnance Went Up Front by Roy F. Dunlap:
In the Pacific pistols were chiefly valuable against infiltrating Japs sneaking into our areas at night, and in foxholes or close-quarters fights handguns were easy to point and shoot in a hurry. I saw dozens of .45's carried loaded and at full cock at all times in front areas of the Ast Cavalry Division, with the thumb safey in place.

As you alluded to in your post, we need to remember 1911 use in civilian and LE circles became far more common as a result of Cooper. Prior to Cooper (with a few notable exceptions), the 1911 was not common (or highly thought of) as a weapon among experienced, knowledgable shooters.

[jungle]

I have never seen any military manual listing hammer down on a loaded round as a standard condition and have never seen this practiced by any military user, it is more fumble prone than condition three. Poorly trained people are prone to do all sorts of odd things with weapons they don't understand and the 1911 is not immune to poor handling. Is it safe to carry a 1911 hammer down on a loaded round? Yes, for the most part, but what advantage would this offer over cocked and locked or condition three? The disadvantage is the slow time to readiness and danger of lowering the hammer on a live round and perhaps this is the reason for the larger spur. The practice was recognized as dangerous, but people did it anyway.

Back to the original question of the grip safety. It is apparent that the grip safety plays no role in a pistol carried cocked and locked, hammer down on a loaded round, or condition three. So when does it come into play?
Only in a cocked and unlocked pistol, and it serves to block the trigger when the user drops the weapon or lets it dangle from a lanyard as mentioned before. Speculation on what JMB, the Army board or ill informed users have done in the past doesn't change the function of the grip safety.

One other thing many forget is that the thumb safety blocks hammer movement to some degree in a 1911 even if the sear or hammer notch were to break.

[Old Fuff]

... and danger of lowering the hammer on a live round and perhaps this is the reason for the larger spur. The practice was recognized as dangerous, but people did it anyway.

It seems unlikely that the Army and Colt would modify the pistol to incorporate a feature that would encourage something that "was recognized as dangerous." It would seem that instead they would both go out of their way to condemn the practice in both military manuals and commercial instruction sheets.

Wouldn't they? :scrutiny:

[jungle]

Not mentioning hammer down on a loaded round is proof that the manuals didn't approve of it. Find a recommendation of this method in a military or commercial manual and I'll be happy to retract that statement, but I don't think you will.

Speculation in this case diverges from official Military documentation of the proper methods of carry. The wide spur for easier cocking sounds good, but I have yet to see any military manuals or members advocate carry in this way. It wasn't the first or last time a piece of military hardware was modified without regard to training documents or prevailing use.

Old Fuff, I see that you don't advocate carry with the hammer down on a loaded round and coming from someone with your expertise that is enough for me (at least in this case).

[default]

Although I have nothing vital or revolutionary to contribute to this thread, I have to say that seeing the history and design of the 1911 discussed by folks like 1911Tuner and Old Fuff is one of the true pleasures of THR, and I thank them and others like them for their contributions.

As for the topic at hand, I believe the grip safety on the 1911 is broadly similar, in principle at least, to the GLOCK trigger safety and the squeeze-cocking mechanism on the HK P7/PSP. That is to say, an attempt to include a sort of "dead man's switch", in order to further ensure some sort of positive control over the pistol immediately prior to firing. We could argue until the cows come home whether or not the 1911 grip safety is necessary, whether or not the GLOCK trigger safety constitutes a "safety" at all, or how likely it is likely that one will remember to squeeze the frontstrap of their P7 at a stressful moment, but these features, irrespective of other safety mechanisms on the pistols discussed, do differentiate them from most, if not all, other handguns.

[Old Fuff]

Old Fuff, I see that you don't advocate carry with the hammer down on a loaded round and coming from someone with your expertise that is enough for me (at least in this case).

No I don't. But on countless ocasions I have unholster the pistol, flipped down the safety lock, and then lowered the hammer on a loaded chamber prior to setting the piece aside.

Historically, many users carried the pistol and Browning/Colt's earlier .38 pistols with the hammer down on a loaded (or unloaded) chamber. The practice wasn't condemned until recent times (post 1970's) and I acknowledge that those who march to a different drummer can, if they wish, carry in this mode. Unquestionably the reason for modifying the hammer as I described was to facilitate thumb cocking, and I highly doubt that this was done to provide for lowering the hammer following field stripping the pistol. It would also seem doubtful that the Army and/or Colt's would go to the trouble that they did if they strongly objected to the practice of carrying in this mode (hammer down/empty or loaded chamber).

It should be remembered that in 1911 military officers as well as civilian users were used to carrying Colt .38 automatics with the hammer down on an empty chamber - or a loaded one - because there was no other option. Time has erased the memory of these first Colt pistols, but historical references have not forgoten them, or how they were used.

Truly understanding the 1911 pistol requires also understanding its history - where it came from, how it did, and why. Those that carried it differently then is generally done today were not necessarily incompetent - just different.

[1911Tuner]

Only thing that I can add to this debate is that, although various field manuals
and Army regulations never endorsed...or actually forbade C-3...most of the time, the men who were actually carrying the pistol into harm's way were far, far removed from Division HQ or anyone else who made or enforced the rules,
and the general attitude was: "To hell with your regulations. I'm tryin' to stay alive out here." ...and did pretty much as they pleased if they felt like it would increase their chances of accomplishing that particular mission.

The exchange would probably go somethin' like this:

"Sargeant! You will clear that weapon and you will KEEP it clear until danger is clear and present!"

"Aye Major." Shuck-Shuck/clickety-click. *mumble-grumble* (Overheard muttered as a whisper. (You can kiss my &%#@** SIR! You ain't the one
that'll be layin' over at GR if I don't SEE clear and present in time to rack the SOB.)

...shuck-shuck...click. *mumble-grumble*..."&$%#@ Army regulations, my"...
Well...You get the picture.:D

[jungle]

True understanding. I guess in some cases this translates to "historical performance does not imply future gains". The hammer design has become largely moot in modern usage.
I will agree that troops will do things at odds with the current FMs, but it would be interesting to find a quote from any FM or commercial manual supporting hammer down on a loaded round. These quotes are indeed rarer than hens teeth and that is why we won't see one. Just anecdotes of how some people did things before they knew better.

[Old Fuff]

The Short Hammer .38 (Colt 1908 Pocket Model .38/Hammer) is an excellent fighting pistol, as it is free from the complications of latter types. There is no safety catch, but it has a half cock bent to the hammer, and owing to the inertia type striker, a cartridge can be carried in the chamber with the hammer down. It is, in the opinion of many one of the best Colt pistols ever produced.
Textbook of Automatic Pistols: by R. K. Wilson. p. 198

Originally published in 1934, Wilson was an influential writer of that day in the handgun field, and his views reflected the thinking of that time. This is not to say that the Old Fuff is in full agreement, but rather to explain that hammer down on a loaded chamber was an acceptable procedure – at least up to the 1970’s.

[jungle]

This has what to do with a 1911? If we go back far enough we can find people who carried the 1873 with six rounds in the cylinder, it was a common and dangerous practice then and now.
Still no luck on a 1911 quote?

Before we drift off into the esoterica of hammmer shape again, any comments on the original question about the grip safety?


" ...the 1908 pocket model is...an excellent fighting pistol" This sort of thing would damage the credibility of any current writer and must have sounded funny even at the turn of the century.

[Jim Watson]

Tom Florich said in Henry Stebbins' 1960 'Pistols, a Modern Encyclopedia' that the greatest advantage of the 1911 was that it could be safely carried with the hammer down. (He really preferred a DA revolver, though.)

In my youth I read stuff like that and listened to FLD who carried his Commander in Condition 2. I even have a Commander with G.M. spur hammer and grip safety installed for the purpose. It doesn't get used that way any more, I finally realized that FLD used C2 was because he was lefthanded and had grown up pre-ambi safety. So I now use the safety and the spur hammer stays only because it is set to a decent trigger pull.

So that kind of sets the time frame for Condition 2.

[poppy]

I have a reason for the easy cocking hammer on the 1911: So the movie actor can cock the gun to intimidate the bad guy. :evil:

But in all seriousness, Tuner is probably the closest to being right.

[1911Tuner]

Wonder what ol' John Moses would think about us arguin' about his pistol almost a hundred years after he got done with it.:scrutiny:

He'd probably say somethin' like:

"Ya'll STILL ain't got that thing figgered out???":p

Bet he'd also say...or think:

"Look...If ya wanna lower the hammer on a hot chamber, it's okay. Just be careful...It's a damn gun, fer cryin' out loud.":rolleyes:

How many of us goin'---> :eek: at the thought of somebody lowerin' the hammer and thumb cockin' a 1911 have decocked a double-action revolver, and never given it a second thought? Me, for one. Anybody else? Aw...C'mon! Let's have a show of hands. Sure ya have...and you'll probably do it again. Just be careful, fer cryin' out loud. It's a GUN!

:neener:

[jungle]

Can you lower the hammer safely on a live round? Sure, but knowing what you do now, why in JMB's name would you want to?
I think the method of carry involving a round under a hammer down in the 1911 has been abandoned for quite some time(since it's inception if Military manuals are the standard), so why would anyone want to do this, what are the advantages, and why would anyone consider condition three or condition one inferior choices? Customs established with different weapons prior to the 1911?

I don't doubt that it has been done and will be done, or even that it can safely be done, my only question is why in the heck would anyone do it under current conditions?

What are the advantages?

[jc2]

OF -

I'm not too sure about your source (or maybe your typing ;) ). The Colt 1908 was a "hammerless" (enclosed hammer) model with a safety. If the author was speaking of the "COLT MODEL 1903 POCKET HAMMER," it might have been "an excellent fighting pistol" in his opinion, but based on its sales and longevity not many people agreed with him. :)

Tuner -
How many of us goin'---> at the thought of somebody lowerin' the hammer and thumb cockin' a 1911 have decocked a double-action revolver, and never given it a second thought?
I have decocked a number of double (and single action) revolvers (as well as a few 1911s/BHPs), BUT I have always given it a second thought before I did (at least watching my cousin plant a slug about two-inches from his right foot decocking one). ;)

[1911Tuner]

jc2 said:

>BUT I have always given it a second thought before I did (at least watching my cousin plant a slug about two-inches from his right foot decocking one).<
****************

See? John Moses TOLD ya that ya hadda be careful!:D

Actually, I meant..without giving it a second thought afterward. We all think about it while we're doin' it.

Jungle...There are a few...very few...situations in which C-2 would make sense.

Mud-boggin' on a 4-wheeler is one...when you want to keep as much gunk out of the works as possible. Usually goes along with a full-flap holster, and does add to the protection a bit. Retains the option of one-hand operation if needed. Others will come to mind. Not your normal, every-day scenarios, to be sure...but it's still a viable carry option in those odd times and places.

[RON in PA]

Just have to throw in the Radom 1935, a cavalry weapon with grip safety, decocker and no thumb safety. What would JMB say?

[Old Fuff]

jc2:

It's my darn ol' keyboard messing up again... :uhoh:

Actually I am having some trouble typing because of an osteoarthritis condition.

Anyway, Colt made the 1903 Pocket Hammer until 1929 and started in 1903. That's not too shabby a run. The exact number is in question because they intermixed serial numbers with the 1902 Military. But so far as the mode of carry is concerned the models 1902 Military, 1902 Sporting and 1903 Pocket Hammer were all the same.

Jungle:

Indeed yes, the earlier .38 pistols established the hammer down/loaded chamber carry mode, and it remained popular until sometime around 1970. There were, and still are, many people who remain unconfortable with cocked and locked. Neither I (or I believe) Tuner advocate or recommend this mode of carry, but I (we) accept it as an option that under some circumstances can ge a good (best?) choice. Browning and Colt knew this, and in 1911 the Army must have been aware of it, so this is why the original pistol had the style of hammer it did, and so far as Colt was concerned the style remained until late in World War Two.

In the end it comes down to a matter of choice. One can carry in whatever way they think best.

[makarovnik]

I'm just guessing here but I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that originally these pistols were designed to be fired while riding a horse. Autoloaders where relatively new and maybe the Army felt safer with the extra safety feature. I'm not sure it's needed anymore but the XD's and some other new designs have them. The old H&K P7 actually has a grip safety on the front of the grip. Weird huh?

[progunner1957]

I have never heard this advocated by any of the 1911 experts, but the following has occurred to me:

Say you are carrying a 1911 in condition one and suddenly find yourself in a situation where the "stuff" is about to hit the fan but hostilities have not yet commenced.

You could discreetly reach under your jacket/shirt, click off the thumb safety for an advanced state of readiness and the gun is still on safe, thanks to the grip safety.

Yes, you would need to remember to re-engage the thumb safety if the situation went away and you did not need to draw & present the weapon.

What do you folks think?

[Old Fuff]

While my superfast draw is more then lightning fast... :rolleyes:

I still find I have enough time to disengage the safety lock (manual safety) between the time the pistol leaves the leather and when it's pointed toward whatever. Anyway, as soon as the pistol is gripped the grip safety becomes a moot point because it's "off" anyway.

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm just guessing here but I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that originally these pistols were designed to be fired while riding a horse. Autoloaders where relatively new and maybe the Army felt safer with the extra safety feature.

Correct. Browning himself originally proposed no safety at all, just a half-cock. The Army demanded both a safety lock and a grip safety. The functional proponent for pistols -- even to this day -- is the Armor Branch, successors to the Cavalry.

[Jamie C.]

I've got an uncle that did 2 years in Vietnam.... this was from 1966 'til 1968....

At one point, camp regulations forbade them from carrying weapons loaded.... all sidearms were required to be magazine-free. ( I don't recall the reason for this, or the location of the camp in relation to where the actual combat was supposed to be. )

On one occasion, a VC got into camp, and was promptly shot by one of the soldiers with an "empty" pistol....

Seems that the SOP for the G.I.s was to simply carry one in the chamber, hammer down, with no mag in place while in camp.... It kept the "brass" happy, and that one round gave them at least a little peace of mind.

I wish I could recall the details of this story a little better, but it's been quite a few years since it was told to me. I do seem to recall that camp regs were changed after the sapper incident though.


J.C.

[SAWBONES]

There's an awful lot of simplistic, non-critical thinking out there.
I've always noticed in discussions during formal firearms training and in Internet gun-related bulletin board posts the tendency for what amounts to almost a superstitious dread of certain actions and activities, to wit:

Lowering the hammer on any loaded SA semiauto, especially the 1911;

"Press-checking" the 1911 via the traditional index finger-on-the-recoil spring plug and thumb-in-the-triggerguard method;

Altering ANY kind of firearms safety device, for ANY reason.

Then there's the slavish references to the "Four Rules", all of which actually are meant to apply to active (that is to say, defensive plus offensive) firearms handling, NOT to "administrative" firearms handling (eg, carrying within a holster, cleaning, storing).

Some folks always seem to like to appeal to a "standard of authority", and will cite Rule Two when arguing against (for instance) crossdraw or shoulder holsters, or cite Rule One as inviolable (but if Rule One were always and at all times true, you could never clean your guns nor practice dry-firing!).

These "Rules" are pithy guides promulgated by Jeff Cooper as an easy-to-remember series of points which should be borne in mind when handling firearms.
They're not Laws of Nature.

My point is that if you're a careful, attentive, reasonably intelligent and responsible adult, you can do lots of things with relative safety or with acceptably low risk, including going out in the rain without your galoshes, fishing the toast out of the toaster with a fork and lots of other things your mommy warned you never to do when you were little, if you know how.

This is beyond a lot of foks' comprehension or ability to accept, I know, and I'm certainly NOT recommending that we should exercise unsafe gun handling practices or be cavalier in the way we handle firearms at all, just that some people can sometimes do some things occasionally, or even routinely (such as press-checking or practicing CCW by using a shoulder rig) with excellent and long term safety.

Lots of folks were doing these things long before most of the people reading posts on this BB were born, and none of them died or caused the inadvertent death of others from firearms accidents, either.
Guns are dangerous machines. They're meant to be so, and wouldn't be useful otherwise. Life is risky too, and can't be made risk free, nor would be worth living if it could be made so.