Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

SlamFire1
February 3, 2010, 10:17 AM
History is constantly being reinterpreted to meet the needs of today.

Many users of the M1911 justify carrying the M1911 in “condition one” by stating that the pistol was designed to be carried that way.

Unfortunately this claim is not correct, the M1911 was not designed to be carried cocked and locked.

The adherents of this theory must be unaware of the evolution of the M1911. I highly recommend reading “The Government Models” by William H.D. Goddard to see the wonderful pictures and progression of Brownings automatic pistol design. I also recommend the “Colt .45 Service Pistols Models of 1911 and 1911A1 Charles W. Clawson”, but the pictures are not as good.

John Browning’s Models’ 1900, Model 1902, 1903 Pocket Model, Military Model 1905, M1909, M1910 did not have thumb safety locks. There are safeties, early on there is a hammer blocking device. This was the sight safety. The user pushed the back of the rear sight down, and that blocked the hammer from the firing pin. It did not last long. The grip safety was added later and stayed all the way through to the M1911.

The first thumb safety lock appears on the Model 1910 slant handle. It was added because the Cavalry apposed the adoption of a semiautomatic pistol because of their concerns about multiple accidental discharges while mounted. The Cavalry wanted to stay with their revolvers. As the primary user of a handgun, the Cavalry had the biggest vote at the table. John Browning’s thumb safety lock was needed to overcome the Cavalry's objections against a semi automatic pistol.

(What you will find when you deal with the User, is that the User likes what he has, wants something better but only a little different, and rejects revolutionary change)

Based on the serial numbers of some of the earlier models in the book, there must have been tens of thousands of these pistols built without a thumb safety lock.

These pistols, and the M1911 were designed to be carried in “Condition two”, that is a round in the chamber with the hammer down. The thumb lock safety was to be engaged to make the pistol safe when the user’s other hand was occupied. The manual of arms from 1913 clearly shows that the hammer was to be lowered (using two hands) when the M1911 was holstered.

Army 1913 Small Arms Manual:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Misc/SmallArmsManual1913Coverpage.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Misc/SmallArmsManualpgs90-91.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Misc/SmallArmsManualpgs92-93.jpg

If you cannot read the text on the bottom of pgs 91 and 92:

Pg 91. If the pistol is to be kept in the and and not to be fired at once, engage the safety lock with the thumb of the right hand. If the pistol is to be carried in the holster, remove safety lock, if on, and lower the hammer fully down.

Pg 92. (Caution) The pistol must never be placed in the holster until hammer is fully down.

Italics are in the original.

So why did the Army change the regulations?:Hatcher’s Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, page 95, provides the clue:

“It is the danger of accidental discharge when thus lowering the hammer with one hand while on horseback that caused the Army to change the regulations some years ago so as to require the automatic to be carried with the hammer cocked and the safety on.

It is obvious that accidental discharges occurred trying to put the pistol in "condition two". The Army had to find an alternative, something that did not require redesign of the M1911, and so the Army changed the procedures to reduce the number accidental shootings.

It was the path of least resistance.

But the point is, the M1911 was not designed to be carried cocked and locked. Cocked and locked is an after design risk reduction measure.

The Army also determined that single action autopistols, even those that could be carried cocked and locked , still had too many accidents, so when the M1911 was replaced, the bidder requirements effectively prohibited single action autos from consideration.

If you enjoyed reading about "Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
REAPER4206969
February 3, 2010, 10:22 AM
You put a lot of effort into justifying carrying your 1911 incorrectly.

docnyt
February 3, 2010, 10:28 AM
I agree that's a great research effort. Chossing how to carry the 1911 seems to be a religious thing around here.

rellascout
February 3, 2010, 10:40 AM
I will remember that the next time I am on the my horse charging with the Calvary.

:evil:

ArmedBear
February 3, 2010, 10:41 AM
It really doesn't matter what the first manual said in it, if, after using it in the field, the Army determined that cocked-and-locked was the best choice -- and that remained SOP thereafter. Field experience beats conjecture set down on paper, every time.

AFAIK the M9, which is DA/SA and supposedly would solve AD problems with single actions, is now typically carried with an empty chamber by military personnel. That means what, exactly, other than the Army doesn't spend any time whatever on pistol training?

silversport
February 3, 2010, 10:44 AM
...and the Military didn't desing the 1911 but they did have a lot of say in certain things...remember the AR-15 was just fine until they "improved it"...;)
Bill

rellascout
February 3, 2010, 10:46 AM
It really doesn't matter what the first manual said in it, if, after using it in the field, the Army determined that cocked-and-locked was the best choice -- and that remained SOP thereafter. Field experience beats conjecture set down on paper, every time.

AFAIK the M9, which is DA/SA and supposedly would solve AD problems with single actions, is now typically carried with an empty chamber by military personnel. That means what, exactly, other than the Army doesn't spend any time whatever on pistol training?

Exactly. The Isrealis carry the same way for the same reason. Too many people are issued and carry a pistol under the conscripted army. It is easier and they believe safer to leave train, tell people, to leave the chamber empty because it meets their need. It has nothing to do with the design of the weapon.

:barf:

In the end it is your gun and your life so carry it anyway you want.

KurtC
February 3, 2010, 10:59 AM
So why did the Army change the regulations?:

A Field Manual is not a Regulation. It is an intrerpretive study, based on trial and error. FM's are pretty much suggestions that get used for kindling the minute something written in them doesn't work out. They are pretty much the biggest running joke in the Army. Unit SOP's (based on the FM's) are more important, and when the SOP's start dissagreeing in mass numbers with the FM, the FM gets changed.

It didn't take the Army long to figure out that Condition 2 was a bad idea. I feel sorry for the test subjects. :)

Our SOP was to carry the 1911 with an empty chamber and the holster taped shut for the jump, then remove the tape and go to condition one on the ground.

earplug
February 3, 2010, 10:59 AM
Since the pistol was designed with a safety to be used cocked and locked. That is all I need to know.
The 1911 safety is much more secure and blocks the firing device better then many rifles and shotguns I have carried. Few people worry about rifles like a Savage 99 or many O/U shotguns in the field with simple safeties.

ClickClickD'oh
February 3, 2010, 11:01 AM
The military has a fabulous history of using things in manners not intended by their designers. Simply because a military manual tells a person to do some thing one way, does not at all mean that's how it was intended to be done or that it should be done at all.

I'm pretty sure the first time the Air Force LAPES'd something Lockheed had a collective fit.. no matter what the newly written procedures manual said.

ArmedBear
February 3, 2010, 11:09 AM
What's funny is that now we carry guns "cocked and locked" all the time. Or even just "cocked." Many people think the XD's grip safety is superfluous, even. I personally think the XD grip safety makes a lot of sense, but look around this site for posts about it.

What did gunmakers learn from this? Just hide the hammer inside the slide, and suddenly nobody feels weird about it.:)

EddieNFL
February 3, 2010, 11:11 AM
Talking with a Force Recon Marine a few weeks ago about the 1911. He told me when not on a mission they are required to carry with an empty chamber cocked and locked. The logic is the safety must always be engaged. I thought about for a bit and decided to stick with condition one.

EddieNFL
February 3, 2010, 11:12 AM
Just hide the hammer inside the slide, and suddenly nobody feels weird about it.

Head in the sand syndrome.

Ron James
February 3, 2010, 11:21 AM
The military has never carried the 1911 cocked and locked, even in combat. That is a myth. Any Military personnel whose duties require them to carry a 1911 ( and that includes the Military Police ) carried the gun hammer down on a empty chamber. Slamfire, you are fighting a losing battle using facts. Too many self proclaimed expert gunfighters/gun writers have ( who have never fired a gun in anger and I have my doubts abut old Col Adkins, he was a bullshi**r from way back, most of his exploits can not be verified ) written that, a real gun fighter always carried it cocked and locked. Bull. Cocked and locked is a modern (1960's) invention. Even the old famed Rangers carried it uncocked ( they did carry a round in the chamber ). I will also make a statement, all documentation shows that the 1911 was never meant to be carried cock and locked , plus, no one in the military legally carried their 1911 other than , hammer down on a empty chamber.:banghead:

SlamFire1
February 3, 2010, 11:24 AM
That means what, exactly, other than the Army doesn't spend any time whatever on pistol training?

Exactly,

Billions on Major Weapon System Acquisitions, pennies on training.

Those are the priorities.

The highest priority goes to those who get the money.

ClickClickD'oh
February 3, 2010, 11:25 AM
Well Ron, if you want to go by military procedures... then it's plain as day for all to see that the M9 and M16 were not designed to be carried with magazines inserted... or even for ammunition to be carried on the soldier... after all, that's what the military does.

ljnowell
February 3, 2010, 11:36 AM
Any Military personnel whose duties require them to carry a 1911 ( and that includes the Military Police ) carried the gun hammer down on a empty chamber

So the mounted ccavalry had to decock the pistol while riding? You were there, and saw this right? Your qualifications for making the absolute statement:
The military has never carried the 1911 cocked and locked, even in combat. That is a myth........no one in the military legally carried their 1911 other than , hammer down on a empty chamber
are what?

SSN Vet
February 3, 2010, 11:38 AM
That means what, exactly, other than the Army doesn't spend any time whatever on pistol training?

:uhoh:

and I thought it was only the navy :(

Upon having a failure to eject (stovepipes were quite common with our 54 year old 45s) our top side sentries were instructed very carefully to....

raise their right hand! :eek:

so that the TMC could come and clear it for them. :barf:

Clearly our procedures left something to be desired.

Which is why I purchased my first 1911, being determined that at least one guy in the duty section was going to be able to
1.) shoot straight, and
2.) clear a stove pipe

Fortunately for me, all I could afford was a used Thompson Auto. Ordinance, which stove piped every other magazine. So I got lots of practice clearing them :(

It only took me 15 years.... but I finally, just recently, got the Colt Commander I wanted way back then.

REAPER4206969
February 3, 2010, 11:38 AM
Even the old famed Rangers carried it uncocked ( they did carry a round in the chamber ). .....

M2 Carbine
February 3, 2010, 11:47 AM
In the USMC in 1956 we carried the 1911 with the hammer down on an empty chamber.

Now I carry my Kimber with a round in the chamber cocked and locked.

easyg
February 3, 2010, 11:53 AM
It really doesn't matter what the first manual said in it, if, after using it in the field, the Army determined that cocked-and-locked was the best choice -- and that remained SOP thereafter. Field experience beats conjecture set down on paper, every time.
Not true.

When I was in the Army the SOP was not cocked-and-locked....even in the field.

The military has never carried the 1911 cocked and locked, even in combat. That is a myth. Any Military personnel whose duties require them to carry a 1911 ( and that includes the Military Police ) carried the gun hammer down on a empty chamber.
This is 100% true....per the SOP.



Of course it's not unheard of for soldiers to totally ignore SOP. ;)

Shawn Dodson
February 3, 2010, 12:30 PM
Cocked and locked is an after design risk reduction measure. It is also an obsolete, faulty philosophy in regard to battle carry and battle-readiness that has evolved since then.

REAPER4206969
February 3, 2010, 12:32 PM
It is also an obsolete, faulty philosophy in regard to battle carry and battle-readiness that has evolved since then.
What?

KurtC
February 3, 2010, 12:33 PM
I will also make a statement, all documentation shows that the 1911 was never meant to be carried cock and locked , plus, no one in the military legally carried their 1911 other than , hammer down on a empty chamber.

Cocked and locked is a modern (1960's) invention.

FM 23-35, Page 19, paragraph l and m. Originally published April, 1940.

http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/manual.htm

Sorry, to call you out on this, but I was in the Rangers back in the 1980's. ;)

X-Rap
February 3, 2010, 12:33 PM
I know that in the late 50's the AP units that my dad was in carried hammer down on an empty chamber. He said they would practice drawing and using the sights to snag on their pants or belt and cock the gun using one hand. This was not sanctioned but done while on guard duty late at night when nobody was looking I would guess.
He never has gotten comfortable with the cond. 1.

gwnorth
February 3, 2010, 12:37 PM
Of course it's not unheard of for soldiers to totally ignore SOP. ;)

As an IT person, I applaud that attitude! Who pays any attention to the manual - nothing would ever actually get done if we followed the manual! ;)

Shawn Dodson
February 3, 2010, 12:42 PM
What? I could've worded that better, couldn't have I? My apologies.

I was referring to holstering a 1911 with chambered cartridge and decocked hammer. There's been an evolution in philosophy since then.

Starcheck55
February 3, 2010, 12:46 PM
Well Ron, if you want to go by military procedures... then it's plain as day for all to see that the M9 and M16 were not designed to be carried with magazines inserted... or even for ammunition to be carried on the soldier... after all, that's what the military does.

well played, very well played

okespe04
February 3, 2010, 12:49 PM
After packing a glock around with one in the chamber for a year or so packing a 1911 around condition 1 seems like being overly safe. Especially with my norinco, I mean the trigger pull in condition 0 is not much less then the trigger pull on my glock, and it has a safety!

REAPER4206969
February 3, 2010, 12:51 PM
I was referring to holstering a 1911 with chambered cartridge and decocked hammer.
Thought so.

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 12:56 PM
using the logic of the OP, I am sure that Slamfire carries his 45 hammer down, empty chamber in a drop-leg cavalry holster with the flap

JohnBT
February 3, 2010, 01:19 PM
"is now typically carried with an empty chamber by military personnel. That means what, exactly,"

That they can't find any ammo either? :)

Casaba
February 3, 2010, 01:32 PM
That one made me laugh JohnBT

Boats
February 3, 2010, 01:32 PM
Not that it mattered to the Navy, but the 1940 version of FM 23-35 mentions C&L as the carry mode suitable for "imminent action." When I participated in boarding vessels in the PG in the late 80s, we boarded with C&L Condition 1 1911s and chambered 870 Wingmasters with the crossbolt on. We had to be ready for anything and were.

Whatever the original Army manual said in the period after adoption has to be the most irrelevant thing ever. Theory dictates initial practice and practice informs practical changes to the theory.

Condition 3 is a common peacetime and rear area carry practice for using Uncle Sugar's handguns. Going into harm's way it was not. Condition 2 fell off of the horse right out of the gate. Condition 0 had better be only employed when being actively shot at.

Some people out there should be carrying in Condition 4, if at all.

jem375
February 3, 2010, 01:45 PM
In the USMC in 1956 we carried the 1911 with the hammer down on an empty chamber.

Now I carry my Kimber with a round in the chamber cocked and locked.
I was in the Navy from 1958-1962 and while on SP duty we also carried the 1911 in condition 3...

SlamFire1
February 3, 2010, 01:46 PM
using the logic of the OP, I am sure that Slamfire carries his 45 hammer down, empty chamber in a drop-leg cavalry holster with the flap

While I do have a drop leg cavalry holster, and a Patton saber, I carry my M1911, chamber empty, magazine empty, to the range in a padded box. I return from the range with the chamber empty, magazine empty, in a padded box.

And after careful cleaning, I store the thing in a box.

I take very good care of my antiques. ;)

mljdeckard
February 3, 2010, 01:51 PM
Regarding the carry and use of firearms by members of the military, my commander agrees that these rules have nothing to do with logic or reason.

HexHead
February 3, 2010, 02:40 PM
That first field manual was written by an Army that was still forming a battle line to charge across an open field. :D

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 02:41 PM
I take very good care of my antiques.

It is good to know that the old girl is in good hands

M2 Carbine
February 3, 2010, 03:08 PM
He said they would practice drawing and using the sights to snag on their pants or belt and cock the gun using one hand.
This is true.
We did the same thing in the USMC.


We also practiced chambering a round one handed. I hadn't thought about that in years.
I just tried it but my hand is too weak now days.
You hold the gun in your strong hand with your fingers across the top of the slide, thumb behind the grip safety. Then you force the slide back with your fingers.
It's really more for show than anything, since it was easier and faster to hang the rear sight on your belt to pull the slide back.



An interesting bit about the 1911.
In 1968, when I was a Army helicopter instructor, I had a student that was awarded the Silver Star in Viet Nam for killing a bunch (I don't remember the number) of VC with a 1911A1. He shot them from (a measured) 7 yards to 97 yards.
I read the Silver Star commendation but, to my regret, I did not copy down all the details.



.

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 03:21 PM
cool info M2

and thank you for your service

twofifty
February 3, 2010, 04:09 PM
Quoting OP:
"(What you will find when you deal with the User, is that the User likes what he has, wants something better but only a little different, and rejects revolutionary change)"

Thanks for the research and images.

What really caught my attention is the above statement. This was true 100 years ago, and is still true nowadays. Too often, the Deciders (brass) are not the final Users (grunts), which also presents problems. The Testers are caught in the middle.

SSN Vet
February 3, 2010, 04:34 PM
This was not sanctioned but done while on guard duty late at night when nobody was looking I would guess.

Yup... and I've seen one Petty Officer of the Deck standing in front of the ol' green table cloth after he blew a hole in his calf doing exactly that.

Talk about adding insult to injury.... the day after he came back from the hospital... Captains Mast

If it can in any possible way be screwed up.... leave it to a sailer to find that way.

Ron James
February 3, 2010, 04:36 PM
Lets go back to the original post by Slamfire, the 1911 was not designed to be carried in condition 1. Period. In reference to the Calvary, after an engagement in which the pistol was used, the slide safety was engaged, the pistol holstered, until a very excited horse was brought under control, at which time the pistol was again placed in condition 3, hammer down on an empty chamber. Regardless of how it is carried today ( which still dates from the 1960's ) Mr. Browning designed the 1911 for the US Army, not himself. At no time until the 1911 was replaced by the M9 did the Army ( knowingly ) allow it to be carried in any other way than condition 3. Lets try and stay away from comparing the 1911 to the M-16, M-9 and the M- 1 Tank. As far as following the Standard Operating procedures, any officer or NCO that allows the men under their charge to ignore their training and proper procedure, is not taking care of those men, and will lead to a increase of body bags needed. Also as far as once out the gate, see the above, once out the gate it is even more important to remember your training if you wanted to stay alive. By the way, just to mess up the minds of all the video players ( where I believe most get their information ) , I can't speak for the sand box, that's not my war, but in RVN, only when in actual " Injun" country was a round chambered in the M-16, not before. Once again, you may carry the 1911 frame anyway you want, but don't make yourself appear uneducated and say it was designed to be carried that way. Simply not true.:banghead:

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 04:44 PM
don't make yourself appear uneducated and say it was designed to be carried that way. Simply not true

It was obviously designed to have that option or the safety would not engage with the hammer back.

Unless you are saying that it was designed to lock the hammer back over an empty chamber?

The gun was not designed with excited horses in mind, that was how the Army used it perhaps...but John Moses wasn't thinking "darn that horse is excitable...I should design a pistol to address that situation"

If you are suggesting that the "cocked and locked" design was only for "waiting to safe a weapon until the horse calmed down" explain the feature on the Hi Power please

REAPER4206969
February 3, 2010, 04:46 PM
it is even more important to remember your training if you wanted to stay alive.
If you were trained to carry C3 that's training that should be forgotten.

Ron James
February 3, 2010, 04:48 PM
Please read my post about the horses, the gun was designed for the Calvary. You can use it to stir your coffee, pound nails and to use it to play with yourself, but that doesn't mean it was designed for those chores :banghead: I'm out of here, by by.

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 04:53 PM
please explain the feature on the Hi Power or was it a cavalry weapon too?

MachIVshooter
February 3, 2010, 05:07 PM
IMO, regardless of what owners manuals, training manuals or field manuals say, a single action pistol carried for defense should be C&L condition 1. No one has ever felt that they had a couple of extra seconds to spare on a needless procedure in a fight for their life.

We also practiced chambering a round one handed. I hadn't thought about that in years.
I just tried it but my hand is too weak now days.
You hold the gun in your strong hand with your fingers across the top of the slide, thumb behind the grip safety. Then you force the slide back with your fingers.
It's really more for show than anything, since it was easier and faster to hang the rear sight on your belt to pull the slide back.

Two methods that I have used for one-handed were:

-lift the gun slightly, turn it 90* in the holster and shove down.

-thumb through the trigger guard, index finger on the spring plunger, squeeze (obviously does not work with FLGR installed)

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 05:19 PM
MachIV

Of course you are right but swerving back to the OP, was it DESIGNED to be carried condition 1?

With the exception of the "jumpy horse" theory there is no other reason for the hammer to be locked back. As the feature was carried well beyond mounted cavalry I am skeptical of Ron James assertion.

Then again, Colt's logo is that of a rearing horse… :confused:

mljdeckard
February 3, 2010, 05:27 PM
It was designed to have numerous options for carry. If it WEREN'T designed to have condition one as an option, then why does the safety ONLY engage when the hammer is cocked?

Army policies have included carrying condition one when action is imminent. As civilians, we carry because it is the nature of personal defense that when it is necessary to use deadly force, you may not have time to rack the slide or cock the hammer. If the world were perfect enough to always have time to rack the slide, we might reconsider whether or not there is really a reason to carry at all.

twofifty
February 3, 2010, 05:44 PM
Incidentally, just how does the military say the M9 must be carried?
Decocked on a charged chamber?

If that's the case, then I'd say that for the 1911 in the military, the Condition 3 proponents have made their case.

Back to the 1911, which I've never carried. In Condition 1 concealed carry, isn't there a pretty good chance the hammer will snag on cover garments? In a SD situation, wouldn't that be a bad turn of events?

REAPER4206969
February 3, 2010, 05:48 PM
On modern 1911s the hammer recesses into the beavertail grip safety.

SwampWolf
February 3, 2010, 05:48 PM
I was issued a 1911 (Remington Rand for those who might be interested) while serving as an Air Policeman in the early sixties and we were required to carry it holstered with chamber empty and hammer down. I can't tell you how many nights I wiled away in a guard shack on Anderson AFB in Guam, practicing drawing the pistol by holding my hat out with my right hand at shoulder's height, releasing the hat and drawing from the flapped holster with my right hand and chambering a "round" before said hat hit the floor. After a while, I got pretty good at it. Most assuredly, these "practice" sessions occured only after the pistol was triple checked to be certain it was empty and I had determined that nobody else was in the immediate area.
As a civilian, unencumbered by silly military protocol, my "manual of arms" is strictly "cocked and locked" when carrying a 1911 for serious social duty. I think you'd be crazy to carry it in any other mode.

The Lone Haranguer
February 3, 2010, 06:07 PM
While I doubt John M. Browning/God intended it to be carried C&L, you can carry yours however you want. If it is to be carried on my person to protect my hide, it is fastest into action and safest C&L.

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 06:10 PM
While I doubt John M. Browning/God intended it to be carried C&L, you can carry yours however you want.

what is your theory as to the reason why the safety only works in the cocked postition if it was not designed to be C&Led?

Nicky Santoro
February 3, 2010, 06:14 PM
Interesting thread. It seems to be a showdown between those who have been there and done that and those who are the typical internet hard charging, butt kicking range rangers. In '69 and '70 I carried a 1911 as a secondary weapon, depending upon the primary weapon I was assigned. It was carried in a flap holster, mag in, empty chamber, hammer down. I know of no one who did differently. BTW, never drew it. I'm sure some of you know a guy who knows a guy who has cousin who did differently. Horse manure.

EddieNFL
February 3, 2010, 06:22 PM
Incidentally, just how does the military say the M9 must be carried?
Decocked on a charged chamber?

I've forgotten the reg, but when I drafted the SOP for my section, it was chambered, hammer down and safety off. May have changed in 20 years.

REAPER4206969
February 3, 2010, 06:26 PM
I'm sure some of you know a guy who knows a guy who has cousin who did differently. Horse manure.
Would you like to guess how the military carry's them now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzHqqTmSnC0

http://i43.tinypic.com/2yl34li.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/qyd1ue.jpg

orrwdd
February 3, 2010, 07:17 PM
Great Video Reaper.

We didn't see any of those guys having to rack a slide!!! BTW that is one great well worn 1911 in your pics.

Bill

SlamFire1
February 3, 2010, 08:05 PM
With the exception of the "jumpy horse" theory there is no other reason for the hammer to be locked back. As the feature was carried well beyond mounted cavalry I am skeptical of Ron James assertion.

Ohh, Ron James is right on target. If the Cavalry had given the M1911 a thumbs down, the service handgun would have remained the M1909 Colt New Service revolver. (Which is a pretty darn good gun, except for the skinny period sights)

Pg 56, Colt 45 Service pistol

On this page is a long extract from a 1910 Board of Officer’s evaluating two mechanical locks submitted by John Browning on the 1910 prototype. I am using only the bit pertinent to this discussion:

The board is of the opinion that the safety device for locking the slide and hammer when the latter is in the cocked position is necessary for this kind of pistol, especially as as the majority of the pistols will be used by the mounted services

Pg 51, Cavalry Board Test, 11 March 1910, excerpts from the Cavalry Boards comments on the M1909 semiautomatic pistol (which did not have the thumb safety)

In the hands of the expert and in the hands of an officer accustomed to pistols of all classes the automatic pistol appears to be a wonderful weapon, but it is too complicated, or apparently so, and there is too much to learn about it to make it a desirable weapon for the ordinary soldier.

When used mounted there is a certain amount of uncertainty and nervousness apparent in the rider which militates greatly against its usefulness and which would confine it to the very best riders with unusual self control. For the ordinary trooper it would be dangerous even at the usual mounted pistol practice, where with the ordinary pistol, in spite of the most watchful precautions, accidents frequently occur, and where fatalities are only averted by the nimbleness of the onlookers

How nimble do you have to be to survive mounted pistol practice?:eek:

Would you like to guess how the military carry's them now?

The Delta force link was interesting to watch, but these Special Force types are not safety experts. It is charitable to say that they engage in risky behavior, less charitably these guys are volunteering to do things that are positively suicidal.

Thank them for their service to our country, but don't be a passenger in one of their cars until they are past the age of 50. :uhoh:

christcorp
February 3, 2010, 08:10 PM
This is why God invented the SigSauer P220. No debate and no safety issues. As for my Springfield Armory 1911A1. "IF" carried; seldom to never; it's got a round chambered and the hammer down. "Condition 2". And if you're smarter than the gun, this is a very safe method.

Guillermo
February 3, 2010, 09:10 PM
Slamfire

That is some cool research

I am not sure that the "sales pitch" proves that it was designed with the jumpy horse in mind. It does prove that they used it as a way to convince the Army to adopt it.

In addition, this does no explain why the HiPower would have the same feature.

Still, it is very cool reading.

Thank you for posting it.

sigsteve
February 3, 2010, 09:22 PM
I was issued a 1911 (Remington Rand for those who might be interested) while serving as an Air Policeman in the early sixties and we were required to carry it holstered with chamber empty and hammer down. I can't tell you how many nights I wiled away in a guard shack on Anderson AFB in Guam, practicing drawing the pistol by holding my hat out with my right hand at shoulder's height, releasing the hat and drawing from the flapped holster with my right hand and chambering a "round" before said hat hit the floor. After a while, I got pretty good at it. Most assuredly, these "practice" sessions occured only after the pistol was triple checked to be certain it was empty and I had determined that nobody else was in the immediate area.
As a civilian, unencumbered by silly military protocol, my "manual of arms" is strictly "cocked and locked" when carrying a 1911 for serious social duty. I think you'd be crazy to carry it in any other mode.
I think SwampWolf has the point here. In the military it's a regulation for "safety" concerns. I think that what we do in civilian life can be drastically different as we're often not given enough warning when a situation is going to go "black". Time may be of the essence and "cocked and locked" is the only sure way to be prepared. Given the design safety of the 1911 with the GS and TS it only makes sense to be as prepared as possible when carrying a 1911.

pale horse
February 3, 2010, 09:41 PM
"The military has never carried the 1911 cocked and locked, even in combat. That is a myth. Any Military personnel whose duties require them to carry a 1911 ( and that includes the Military Police ) carried the gun hammer down on a empty chamber."

Ron this is simply not true. I have trained with members of various units in the Army SF community and they did carry it in condition one. To this day they still do carry the 1911 in condition one in our out of combat. The MP's are notorious for not getting the proper pistol training.

"Cocked and locked is a modern (1960's) invention. Even the old famed Rangers carried it uncocked ( they did carry a round in the chamber )."

The Tx Rangers were not the pinnacle of firearms training. In fact most law enforcement agencies lack firearms skills.

"I will also make a statement, all documentation shows that the 1911 was never meant to be carried cock and locked"

I guess unless you can summon John Moses Browning himself from the grave it is a moot point to even mention this.


"plus, no one in the military legally carried their 1911 other than , hammer down on a empty chamber."

BS. I dont know where you get your information at but you are wrong. 1st SOFD carries it that way so does AWG, SF, and MARSOC. So if you going to make a statement like that be able to back up your assumptions. As it is now you have profited this conversation nothing.

If anyone can show me a standard configuration of the 1911; that is faster to thumb the hammer back and engage targets, faster than I can ala cocked and locked. Please meet me in San Antonio and I will go against the clock head to head with you. My best times for Cocked and Locked from the holster is 1.2 seconds, from the high ready my best is .78 sec, 6 shot drill is 2.21 seconds. There are more but that should prove the point.

NMGonzo
February 3, 2010, 09:52 PM
In the USMC in 1956 we carried the 1911 with the hammer down on an empty chamber.

Now I carry my Kimber with a round in the chamber cocked and locked.

In the Argentinean Army I carried the Ballester Molina hammer down and empty chamber around the base. Rifles were to be carried with an empty chamber.

The idea was that one could be identifying a threat while chambering the round.

Off base, I carried the same way.

It took me many years off guns and relearning the 1911 in 2009 to carry it chambered, cocked, and locked.

Ron James
February 3, 2010, 10:33 PM
Pale Horse, 26 years Army and retired a CSM in 1986, Worked with the SF, the SOG ( Yes, my unit is listed as supporting them in the official records ). Been there and done that, If any enlisted man in any of my units or battalion carried their 1911 cock and locked with a round in the chamber I would have had him court marshaled. If any officer had, My Colonel would have had the Honors. :) That is where my information about how the 1911 is carried in the Military comes from. If there were cowboys out in the bad lands carrying it any other way ,it was in direct contravention of the existing regulations and lord help them if there were ever a accident. Again this was in my time, and with the 1911,I have no ideal of how they are doing it in the sand box. My last post on the subject.

win71
February 3, 2010, 10:50 PM
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w140/win71/3358184535_696f12e4cf_o.jpg

pale horse
February 3, 2010, 10:55 PM
While I not a CSM, I am in the Army now and was in the Marines prior to that.


"Pale Horse, 26 years Army and retired a CSM, Worked with the SF, the SOG ( Yes, my unit is listed as supporting them in the official records ). Been there and done that"

Thank you for your service. I truly mean that. I am a veteran of OIF and was blown up there.

"If any enlisted man in any of my units or battalion carried their 1911 cock and locked with a round in the chamber I would have had him court marshalled. If any officer had, My Colonel would have had the Honors. That is where my information about how the 1911 is carried in the Military comes from. "

There is no shortage of the bad training in the army today. People are still rushed through training and given information that is bad as it relates to firearms training. We are still taught shooting positions from the army manual from the 80's. Which by the way is the most useless TM out there. The army is still 30 behind the power curve. I am sure of the training the army has given that there is no wonder people are still dying due to ND/AD's. The army had to come up with a training platform that worked for Joe Snuffy because he was retarded. If the training and knowledge I have now and was in a Bn that was like yours, I would have taken the Court Marshal.

There is a vast difference in the training and combat. What paper says and what actually happens in real life combat is as different as day and night. So to this day I still hold to the training I paid out of pocket for over the crap the army teaches.

Getting back to the topic at hand. It really does not matter what the manual says. JMB is not around to give input on this matter. We can discuss this all night/day long, but there really is no point.

Carry the 1911 any way you want. If you are serious about carrying it get formal training from someone who has used them like; Larry Vickers, Hilton Yam, Kyle Lamb, Paul Howe, and Swan Tiger. These guys will show you how to use them properly.

NWCP
February 3, 2010, 10:59 PM
In my 20 years of Naval service We never carried the .45 cocked and locked. As a matter of fact the pistols didn't even have a magazine inserted unless ordered by the Officer of the Deck. The only times I recall carrying with a magazine in the pistol were in high risk ports where repelling boarders was a real possibility, or a high level of security required it. At that point we were armed with either a M14, or Thompson as well as a sidearm. Still no rounds chambered unless ordered to do so, or under an immediate armed threat. While I do carry my HK cocked and locked I feel safer with it than my old government issue .45. I loved the old pistol, but it had been rode hard and put away wet many times before it ever made it to my holster. I was always assigned a Thompson when push came to shove, or a 12GA pump below decks. Either way I felt a bit more secure than with the old 1911.

Clarence
February 3, 2010, 11:31 PM
This thread must be the result of 1911 Carry Condition Derangement Syndrome Seems like this gets debated every couple of weeks around here.

SlamFire1
February 4, 2010, 09:10 AM
This thread must be the result of
Quote:
1911 Carry Condition Derangement Syndrome

Seems like this gets debated every couple of weeks around here.

I started it because of the incorrect, dogmatic sounding, statements from the proponents of Condition One.


When Moses came down from the mountain top
Bringing the one true gun
Commanding that every trooper and every Cop
Shall bear it in Condition one

Thus sayeth the Lord.


However, it has morphed into something better, with Users describing how they carry their M1911's, or how they were told how to carry their M1911's, and the reasons why.

Too bad LEO have not posted what their Departments allow, but that may be an indication of how few Law Enforcement Agencies are carrying the thing.


I believe current M1911 discussions have spawned even more interesting threads on the M1911. And I am enjoying reading them all! :D

Win71's picture looks like a prototype M1910 pistol. If you notice, no thumb safety. John Moses Browning designed this pistol to be carried condition two, round in chamber and hammer down.

rellascout
February 4, 2010, 09:16 AM
Too bad LEO have not posted what their Departments allow, but that may be an indication of how few Law Enforcement Agencies are carrying the thing.

There are none that use a 1911 as a standard issue sidearm. If you know of one please point it out. I know some small localities allow them to be carried but most of the time that just means that they are on an approved list.

Your OP is inaccurate because as others point out the Armys initial field manual procedure does not equal design intent.

You are simply stirring the pot for what reason I am not sure. Again like I said earlier who cares how anyone else carries their 1911. Carry it how you want and you feel comfortable with because after all its your gun and your life. :banghead:

MythBuster
February 4, 2010, 09:36 AM
"using the logic of the OP, I am sure that Slamfire carries his 45 hammer down, empty chamber in a drop-leg cavalry holster with the flap"

Most likely not. He was just making a point.

EVERY SINGLE time this subject comes up several people claim the 1911 was designed to be carried cocked and locked and they claim JMB had this in mind when he designed the pistol.

He pointed out this is 100% BS.

No one is trying to tell you condition one is not safe. No one is telling you not to do it.

All he is doing is stating FACTS.

rellascout
February 4, 2010, 09:48 AM
Every single 1911 I own was designed to be carried cocked and locked.

"facts" as they are being presented here are like lies. There are 3 kinds.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Replace statistics with your and the OPs "facts". :cool:

X-Rap
February 4, 2010, 09:55 AM
The thumb safety is for something? It is on the Hi Power as well. It is obvious that the intent was for the gun to be carried in Cond. 1 at some time and is as safe as any handgun out there.
Here there are a few in the SO that carry 1911 and some 15 yrs ago I remember the PD in Albq. NM carried a lot of 1911. I have also seen them in many other LEO holsters but I can't remember all the depts. I agree it is certainly not in the majority. The ones I have noticed have all been cond.1.
I guess I can't really understand the debate, his middle name was Moses wasn't it?

christcorp
February 4, 2010, 10:02 AM
Every single 1911 I own was designed to be carried cocked and locked.

"facts" as they are being presented here are like lies. There are 3 kinds.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Replace statistics with your and the OPs "facts". :cool:
No, the 1911 that you own was NOT designed to be carried cocked and locked. Just because it has a thumb safety. The "design" was that it was carried without a round in the chamber. Then, when the military individual with the weapon felt he needed to draw the weapon, they would chamber it and go to condition 1 as they moved forward with their close quarters. The weapon was drawn and ready to go. Condition 0 was next. After the threat was done; minutes or hours later; the magazine was released, the chambered round was ejected, the hammer was lowered, the ejected round was put back in the magazine, and the magazine went back into the gun in condition 3.

THAT is what the 1911 was INTENDED for and how it was to be carried. It was not designed for civilian use. Now, if as a civilian, you want to carry it condition 1; cocked and locked; because you consider your potential threat to be possible 24/7; compared to the military that had specific threats that are much different than civilians; I.e. No one is sneaking up on a military member on the battle field to rob them, rape them, or car jack them; then you are free to carry your 1911 any way you want to. When I've carried it, I've always carried it condition 2. No one is saying that you can't carry it condition 1. The OP is simply stating a fact that the weapon was NOT designed to be carried condition 1. Condition 1; and 0; in a military environment is different than a civilian environment. And the MILITARY environment is what it was DESIGNED for.

rellascout
February 4, 2010, 10:14 AM
No, the 1911 that you own was NOT designed to be carried cocked and locked. Just because it has a thumb safety. The "design" was that it was carried without a round in the chamber. Then, when the military individual with the weapon felt he needed to draw the weapon, they would chamber it and go to condition 1 as they moved forward with their close quarters. The weapon was drawn and ready to go. Condition 0 was next. After the threat was done; minutes or hours later; the magazine was released, the chambered round was ejected, the hammer was lowered, the ejected round was put back in the magazine, and the magazine went back into the gun in condition 3.

THAT is what the 1911 was INTENDED for and how it was to be carried. It was not designed for civilian use. Now, if as a civilian, you want to carry it condition 1; cocked and locked; because you consider your potential threat to be possible 24/7; compared to the military that had specific threats that are much different than civilians; I.e. No one is sneaking up on a military member on the battle field to rob them, rape them, or car jack them; then you are free to carry your 1911 any way you want to. When I've carried it, I've always carried it condition 2. No one is saying that you can't carry it condition 1. The OP is simply stating a fact that the weapon was NOT designed to be carried condition 1. Condition 1; and 0; in a military environment is different than a civilian environment. And the MILITARY environment is what it was DESIGNED for.

Dan Wesson does not make guns for the Military. They did spec out and design the 1911 I carry cocked and locked. Therefore one can conclude that your statements have no relevance to the pistol I am referring to. You are making an assumption in order to prove your point. I have just demonstrated that assumption to be false. Therefore your argument is false even if your "facts" are true. This is simple logic. The nature and rules of syllogism disprove your statements without addressing any of the "facts". You are drawing false conclusion by employing poor inferences which you have not and cannot establish. Logic FTW

See you are proving my point. You are looking at the concept "designed" and "intended" in myopic terms. You believe incorrectly that these terms are cut and dry. That there is only one meaning and therefore only one answer. The reality is that this could not be further from the truth.

Context has everything to do with meaning. Your choice of words, syllogism and argument or proof structure has as much to do with the truth value of your statements as the "facts" you claim. I can prove your point to be logically false without knowing anything about the 1911, its history or how it is used.

Your statements only prove to reinforce my statement about truths and statistics. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics (truth)."

christcorp
February 4, 2010, 10:22 AM
No, Dan Wesson designed their 1911 to be a CLONE of the original MILITARY 1911. They designed it, as most clones have, to be interchangeable with many parts; emulate the "Original"; and thus be a good marketing tool. Going into the realm of clones doesn't change what the original, that the clone was based on, was designed for.

If a 3rd world company decides to make a "CLONE" of an F-150 Ford Pickup truck, they aren't making it with the thought of: "Hey, this is designed for teenagers to take their date to the prom". No, they didn't "DESIGN" anything. They simply made a clone that they hoped they could sell; off of the reputation and success of the ORIGINAL. Not to say that you can't use a pickup truck to go to the prom. Or to use it as a way for you, the spouse, and 2 kids to go on a cross country trip. You can do whatever you want with the truck. You own it. But don't b.s. or rationalize and try to say that the truck was "Designed" for anything other than hauling crap in the bed of the truck. That's what it was "Designed" for.

rellascout
February 4, 2010, 10:25 AM
No, Dan Wesson designed their 1911 to be a CLONE of the original MILITARY 1911. They designed it, as most clones have, to be interchangeable with many parts; emulate the "Original"; and thus be a good marketing tool. Going into the realm of clones doesn't change what the original, that the clone was based on, was designed for.

So you are actually going to argue that every single modern clone of the 1911 was designed, developed and manufactured with the original intended purpose as their goal?

We are all going to be riding around on horse back with a low riding leg holster? :banghead:

Dan Wesson designs and builds modern versions of the 1911 for the commerical market. The original military intended use is not part of the equation. It is not a clone it is an adaptation. There is a difference IMHO.

HexHead
February 4, 2010, 10:26 AM
There are none that use a 1911 as a standard issue sidearm. If you know of one please point it out. I know some small localities allow them to be carried but most of the time that just means that they are on an approved list.


Tacoma, WA PD issued Kimber Pro Carry IIs to officers that chose them in the early 2000s. (2003?)
LAPD SWAT issues Kimber TLE IIs to it's officers.
FBI HRT and SWAT issues Springfield TRP-Pro to it agents. I'm sure there are others, but that's just off the top of my head.

rellascout
February 4, 2010, 10:30 AM
Thanks but still a very small sampling and 2 of the 3 were tactical groups. Also you have not given any info on how they were carried not that it matters.

Those who care are simply clinging to some false sense of righteousness. It is really amusing.

christcorp
February 4, 2010, 10:36 AM
rellascout; Dan Wesson did not "Design" their 1911. They BUILT their 1911. The 1911 was "DESIGNED" 100 years ago. You are correct that they can "Adapt" their "New Model". But that doesn't mean it isn't a clone. A clone is defined "technically" as being able to interchange parts with the original that it was based upon. Of course, many companies alter (Adapt) some of theirs so they can't simply interchange all parts. But it's still a clone. Dan Wesson didn't "Design" their 1911. if they had, they wouldn't even call it a 1911. They call it a 1911 because it is BASED on the 1911 military sidearm. And they do this for marketing purposes to get you to buy it. If they called it a 2010, it probably wouldn't sell as well. And if it looked different, from the ORIGINAL DESIGN, it probably wouldn't sell too well.

Point is; shoot the damn thing anyway you want. But the truth and facts remain unchanged. The gun was DESIGNED as a military weapon to be carried a certain way. And just because you want to carry it differently; and possibly even have better reasons for carrying it differently; doesn't change what the weapon was "DESIGNED" to to do or how it was to be carried.

Guillermo
February 4, 2010, 10:36 AM
the OP concerns whether the 1911 was DESIGNED to be carried cocked and locked.

The question is not how the weapon was USED (or sold to the Army)

The only reasons given explaining the ability to lock the hammer back (jumpy horse) make no sense as the same feature was incorporated into the Hi Power.

EddieNFL
February 4, 2010, 10:40 AM
Why are so many concerned with what the military's carry requirements were/are (unless you're carrying one for Uncle)? At one time, I was not allowed to wear headphones while jogging and hang gliding was prohibited. Now that my ID is blue, I can do both while carrying C1.

rellascout
February 4, 2010, 10:40 AM
Point is; shoot the damn thing anyway you want. But the truth and facts remain unchanged. The gun was DESIGNED as a military weapon to be carried a certain way. And just because you want to carry it differently; and possibly even have better reasons for carrying it differently; doesn't change what the weapon was "DESIGNED" to to do or how it was to be carried.

Yet you and those advocating this point have not proven it logically.

Again you are only clinging to your myopic view of "designed"

As for your clone remark aren't 80 Series Colts 1991s? :neener:

EddieNFL
February 4, 2010, 10:45 AM
As for your clone remark aren't 80 Series Colts 1991s?

One of mine says Combat Elite and the other Gold Cup NM, so I guess they're not 1911s. I wonder if they were designed to carried C1?

earplug
February 4, 2010, 10:57 AM
If it was designed to be carried with the hammer down. Why does it have a safety?
In USPSA competition and IDPA the 1911 is started cocked and locked. If this was considered unsafe, the handgun rules would have been changed.
The military and LEO training is minimal when compared to a citizen who wants to shoot well. Thats one reason for the empty chamber hammer down carry. Even with this restriction solders often forgot to remove the magazine before racking the slide to clear the weapon. I have heard of many more accidents caused by a supposedly safe empty chamber, and lowering a hammer down on a live round, then any accidents caused by locked and cocked.

Just because the military does something, does not make it correct.

jaysouth
February 4, 2010, 11:10 AM
When I was in the army, carrying a .45 with a round chambered would get you a chewing out unless there was incoming fire. If you got caught carrying cocked and locked, it would cost you a stripe and a month's pay. If the gun was fired, as soon as the threat was over, you unloaded it and started over with an empty chamber.

How do you resolve such idiocy? We simply left our junk 1911s with the armorer/supply sgt on the fire base. I cannot once recall when a .45 would neutralize the threats that killed and wounded us every day. We just carried extra frags and mags to replace the 5 or 6 pounds that the .45 took up with no benefit.

MCgunner
February 4, 2010, 11:16 AM
See, this is why I prefer DA guns. :neener:

I always felt safe with my 1911 in a thumb snap holster with the strap in front of the hammer. Bet that wasn't designed by the military, though. Now days, I stick to DA guns that operate on the first shot similar to my revolvers. 1911s are great for games, but I think DA is better for carry.

X-Rap
February 4, 2010, 11:18 AM
I've lost track of who wants what but feel certain that the gun was designed to be carried both ways depending on the circumstances. In the private sector as personal defence or LE or in a military situation requiring rifles to be loaded I would say the 1911 should be cond.1.
The difference to me would be when the military mission is complete the chambers are cleared and in civilian or LE they aren't.
To say that it wasn't designed to be carried cond.1 at some time even if originally only in the hand with an obvious safety feature that only works in that condition is stretching it IMO.

SlamFire1
February 4, 2010, 11:25 AM
Your OP is inaccurate because as others point out the Armys initial field manual procedure does not equal design intent.

I would like those who hold that position to show period documents showing the true design intent.

If you read the references I have cited, you will find the revisionist history is not supported.

No one creates a FM manual, and Operation Requirements Document, any document, in a vacuum. The Soldiers who wrote the 1913 manual would certainly had access to John Browning and the Officers who determined the tactics and doctrine of the day. I cannot prove that they did, but a couple of pages over is a line drawing of a prototype M1910, which indicates to me that the Logistics group were involved in testing and development.

The pre WWI Army was 98,000 men, half of whom were overseas. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAarmy.htm That is a very small organization and I am confident that lines of access between Officers and organizations were short and personal. Heck, I expect everybody knew everyone.

In today’s world designers, testers, and users rub elbows through out the design, test, and fielding of new systems. What I see in these preWW1 documents is different format, but similiar processes. The same things were going on in 1905-1911, but at a much more personal level.

As for those who say, the Horse argument does not make sense, therefore it is bogus.

You are not a decision maker. You were not on the Smalls Arms Board making the Procurement Decisions for the US Army. This was an issue before the board, by a voting Board member. And because this was a Go-No-Go point for the Cavalry, John Browning included the thumb safety lock, for the reasons previously stated.

You want to carry your M1911 cocked and locked?. Well it is your decision, not original design intent, not SOP per the recollections of the Military here.

If you shoot yourself in the foot, it will be all because of you. John Browning did not make you carry your M1911 cocked and locked. The Army did not make you carry the thing with the grip safety deactivated. No one else made you do that. You did that on your own. :neener:

So stop twisting history to justify your actions

Guillermo
February 4, 2010, 11:41 AM
Slam Fire

was the HiPower designed to be cocked and locked?

if the nervous horse explanation is not reasonable, what other reason can you give for the design

If not please explain the same mechanical reasoning for the design

christcorp
February 4, 2010, 11:46 AM
Yet you and those advocating this point have not proven it logically.

Again you are only clinging to your myopic view of "designed"

As for your clone remark aren't 80 Series Colts 1991s? :neener:
Actually, I am being very consistent. I've already said that when carrying a 1911A1, that I carry it condition 2. Which also is not initially what the 1911 was "Designed" to do. I am saying the same to you. Carry it anyway you want to. Just don't try and tell people that it was "Designed" to be carried condition 1. It wasn't. Just like it wasn't "Designed" to be carried condition 2; yet, that is how I carry it. But I know that it wasn't designed to be carried that way, and I'm not trying to B.S. or rationalize me carrying it condition 2. I carry it that way because I find it to be safer than condition 1; because I'm smarter than the gun; and because condition 3 creates other problems in a civilian environment when the weapon might be needed. But again; I'm not rationalizing me carrying it because some place it said it was "Designed" to be carried that way. I openly admit that I'm not carrying the 1911A1 the way it was "Intended". And that is what this is all about. How you carry it is a choice. No one can dog you for making a choice. But when you say it was "Designed" to be carried that way, you are saying that anyone carrying it different is wrong in how they carry it.

The truth is; the 1911 was "Designed" to be carried condition 3; UNTIL the soldier went into a potential harmful situation. Then, they went to condition 1. And if needed, they went to condition 0. I accept that. And I accept that I've "CHOSEN" to carry mine in condition 2, even though it wasn't "Designed" that way. And if you consider your entire like a "Potential Harmful Situation", and as such has decided to carry your 1911A1 in condition 1, then that is your choice. I don't consider every waking moment of my life a "Potential Harmful Situation". Then again, I carry "Better" weapons for concealed carry; and therefor this issue rarely ever comes up because my "Better" concealed weapons are sa/da with decockers.

Lv4snobrdg
February 4, 2010, 11:49 AM
lots of great feedback and the bottom line exposed "one hundred year old technology and the advice for using that, antique, technology" quality and safety improve drastically over time.

I won't be following the FM's advice since I am not going down due to a lack of shooting back.

Great research though, good job!

EddieNFL
February 4, 2010, 11:55 AM
I won't be following the FM's advice since I am not going down due to a lack of shooting back.

LOL!

ArmedBear
February 4, 2010, 12:08 PM
How silly. I don't own a gun spec'd exactly as a 1911A1 and I likely never will. I will probably end up getting another gun based on a modern rendition of the frame of a 1911, with few, if any, other original-style parts.

There are two questions to ask about a carry gun:

1. Is the individual gun, AS IT EXISTS, 100% drop-safe, no matter what condition it's in?
2. Will it go off with a light accidental touch of the trigger, without any other provisions for manual or automatic safety?

If the answer to #1 is "No" then it's a range gun, not a carry gun. I have a pretty heavily modified Ruger Mark II Target. It's got a fine trigger, but I don't know if I trust the safety. It's a match gun, and it's never been fired anywhere but at a pistol range. It's never even been loaded anywhere but on a sturdy range bench, while pointing downrange.

If the answer to #2 is "Yes" then it's not a carry gun, either. I do not own a Glock, and I doubt I ever will. I'm not telling you what to do, but I know what my requirements are. My requirements do not consider the trigger to be a safety, except that a good trigger design makes a gun drop-safe. But... the XD's grip safety, or the long and heavy trigger pull of a DA revolver or decocked DA/SA semiauto are good enough for my purposes.

A modern 1911-based carry gun is drop safe, and between the thumb safety AND the grip safety, it has provisions that prevent a simple bump of the trigger, by itself, from firing the gun, even if it's chambered and cocked, with the thumb safety off. That, too, is good enough for me. The fact that you can see the hammer does not make it less safe than a gun with the hammer hidden in the slide and called a "striker".

A modern 1911-based bullseye match gun can be amazingly smooth and tight, but it may well not be drop safe or otherwise suited for anything but shooting very accurate groups. You do need to know what's IN your 1911. They're not all the same. Today, "1911" does not define a gun. It is just a general standard around which a huge number of very different guns are built.

Paints
February 4, 2010, 12:17 PM
Us older (more mature, LOL) folks will remember that it used to be well accepted that there were three way for doing things:

1) the right way

2) the wrong way

3) the Army way

Everyone can carry however they desire. However, I believe that a 1911 (or BHP) is safer "cocked and locked" in a holster than most SA/DA guns, or especially Glocks. Chances of an AD while holstering a revolver or SA/DA gun is low, but possible. Chance of an AD when holstering or carrying a C&L 1911 is virtually zero.

Chance of fumbling or slipping while drawing and cocking a gun in an emergency is much higher (IMO) that carrying a 1911 C&L. YMMV.

Ken

Paints
February 4, 2010, 12:29 PM
Folks, the 1911 has evolved over the past 100 years. Most produced today are not 1911's, they are 1911A1's, model 70's, model 1990A1s, etc.

For those of us that carry, they are a PRIMARY weapon. For most of the military, a rifle is a primary weapon and a pistol is a secondary weapon.

How many of us have "firing barrels" as we come into our homes to clear our weapons, like the military does?

We are closer to law enforcement as to how we use our weapons than the military. How many police departments do you know who carry with an empty chamber? Or have to cock their sidearm on a draw? (Geesh).

EddieNFL
February 4, 2010, 12:33 PM
How many of us have "firing barrels" as we come into our homes to clear our weapons, like the military does?

Raised hand (not really a barrel, but serves the same purpose). However, I don't clear when I come home.

SlamFire1
February 4, 2010, 12:39 PM
Slam Fire

was the HiPower designed to be cocked and locked?

if the nervous horse explanation is not reasonable, what other reason can you give for the design

If not please explain the same mechanical reasoning for the design

Heck if I know. I don't have any design books on the Hi Power, nor any history books on the design, test, development or fielding of the Hi Power.

If there is an afterlife, maybe we can ask John Browning about it.

I can wait. :D

X-Rap
February 4, 2010, 12:43 PM
Very good paints. The 1911 is not the perfect weapon nor is any other, they all have some shortcomming that can be held up over another design or model.
It all amounts to what the individual is willing to give up or sacrifice compared to the other.
As far as intended design, I think that over a couple generations most designs are refined and improved so original intent usually changes with time.
How many train and practice in the old one handed style with the of hand on the hip.
Look at the old pics of the soldiers shooting 1911. No Weaver or Isosceles we must be doing it wrong.

USBP1969
February 4, 2010, 12:48 PM
When I was stationed at FLETC in the 1980's we received a report of a state police officer (It might have been Michigan) who was attending a La Maze class with his wife. He was carrying a 1911 in condition I and the report stated that the 1911 discharged through the chair with no one being injured on its own! (It should have been easily verified if the trooper left it in its fired condition, with an empty casing in the chamber and the safety engaged.)

I was at a loss as to how this could occur and asked our armorers about it. They explained that the thumb safety blocks the sear, not the hammer and if a poor trigger job had been done it is possible for a 1911 to have an AD with the safety on.

The quote I remember was, "To be safe the .45's hammer hooks must not be shortened." I had no clue since I was trained to diagnose and fix wheel guns and not semi-autos. (Semi-automatics were, at that time, banned from being carried on duty.)

Since that time Colt has come out with a firing pin block as have other manufacturers which should make a Condition III carry much safer.

Now that I am retired, if I were to carry a 1911 that did not have a firing pin block, I would use a holster with a safety strap (Probably a thumb break style) that would not permit the hammer to inadvertently fall on the firing pin.

Respectfully,
kent

ArmedBear
February 4, 2010, 12:58 PM
if a poor trigger job had been done

See my post above re match/range pistols vs. carry guns.

It could have been a very good trigger job -- just not one meant for a carry pistol. You have to know YOUR gun, its features, what's in it, and what it's meant for.

"1911" is nothing more than a frame spec.

Guillermo
February 4, 2010, 01:03 PM
an Army manual on how to use something bears no (as in ZERO) bearing on how or why something was designed. It only tells you how the green machine wants their people to use it.

JTQ
February 4, 2010, 01:05 PM
He was carrying a 1911 in condition III and the report stated that the 1911 discharged through the chair with no one being injured on its own!
No doubt a typo. I'm sure you meant to type Condition 2. Condition 3 has no round in the chamber, though they are in the magazine. A 1911 discharging while in Condition 3 is most unlikely.

USBP1969
February 4, 2010, 01:15 PM
JTQ - Good eyes.

It was indeed a typo.

Thanks.
kent

SlamFire1
February 4, 2010, 02:22 PM
I was at a loss as to how this could occur and asked our armorers about it. They explained that the thumb safety blocks the sear, not the hammer and if a poor trigger job had been done it is possible for a 1911 to have an AD with the safety on.
This is new to me. I had always assumed that the safety blocked the hammer and the sear.

Well, well. The M1911 thumb safety is just a sear blocking safety. There is nothing but a little bit of sear holding that hammer back.

Cocked and locked with a series 70 mechanism may not be as safe as advertized.

EddieNFL
February 4, 2010, 02:47 PM
This is new to me. I had always assumed that the safety blocked the hammer and the sear.

Well, well. The M1911 thumb safety is just a sear blocking safety. There is nothing but a little bit of sear holding that hammer back.

Cocked and locked with a series 70 mechanism may not be as safe as advertized.
Throughout this thread you've provided some really good technical data, not just opinions or repeats of opinions posted on the internet. IMO, you blew it with this post.

A quick search turned up this:

http://www.m1911.org/technic_forum.htm

Inside the gun, a piece of the safety rotates (red area in diagram) and blocks the base of the sear which prevents the sear from releasing the hammer. If the sear hook on the hammer were to break, the sear would be captured by the half-cock notch preventing an accidental discharge. The stud that locks the sear will also not allow the hammer to fall if the safety is engaged.

At least as reliable as what a poster was told by someone else.

MythBuster
February 4, 2010, 04:23 PM
Correct. The safety also blocks the last 1/4 inch or so of the hammer fall.

MythBuster
February 4, 2010, 04:28 PM
"No doubt a typo. I'm sure you meant to type Condition 2. Condition 3 has no round in the chamber, though they are in the magazine. A 1911 discharging while in Condition 3 is most unlikely"

It is also "most unlikely" for it to discharge in condition 2

MythBuster
February 4, 2010, 04:30 PM
The idea of everyday cocked and locked carry is a fairly new thing with the 1911 that started with Cooper and a few other modern day gun fighters.

Cocked and locked in the WW-I and WW-II era was almost unheard of.

MythBuster
February 4, 2010, 04:43 PM
"It was designed to have numerous options for carry. If it WEREN'T designed to have condition one as an option, then why does the safety ONLY engage when the hammer is cocked?"

Many guns require the hammer or striker to be cocked before the safety can be engaged.

Many guns that no one in their right mind would carry condition one.

REAPER4206969
February 4, 2010, 04:47 PM
Many guns that no one in their right mind would carry condition one.
Name one.

USBP1969
February 4, 2010, 05:11 PM
If the sear hook on the hammer were to break, the sear would be captured by the half-cock notch preventing an accidental discharge. The stud that locks the sear will also not allow the hammer to fall if the safety is engaged.

Eddie, that brought back a memory. When the NRA authorized semi-automatics in PPC competition I decided that I'd give it a try. We had a bunch of match 185 grain SWC FMC in the bunker and the armorer had just finished a 1911 that would group into 1.5" at 50 yards. I practiced diligently for weeks before the match. At the match I was assigned the far right firing point so that my empty casings wouldn't rain down on other competitors. I had been averaging 1984 out of 1500 which wouldn't win, but would be great fun in any case.

Match one was 12 rounds in 25 seconds at 7 yards and then at 15 yards. Seven yards was all X's which was a good start. The NRA required that the semi-auto be shot empty before any reload so that the range officer could see that it was empty during the reload. At 15 yards I fired the first six, dropped the magazine into a large bucket, reloaded and when I pressed the slide release the slide shot forward as did the hammer which was immediately followed by a very unexpected "Bang." The UD stuck the target in its right arm. I somehow got the remaining five into the ten ring, but only barely as I was shaking.

I was quite down-trodden as we went back to score. It was buddy scoring and a police woman next to me scored it 240. (Perfect score) It was not easy to point out the arm shot. (Score = 230)

I hoped I could still post a respectable score, but I had to align the sights each time I dropped the slide, (Just in case) and my front sight was a blur for the rest of the match since I couldn’t stop shaking.

The armorer inspected the .45 and stated that he had reduced the half-cock notch to protect his trigger job, and when the slide went forward the hammer followed and sheared the notch.

He then put it in the Ransom rest with five rounds in the magazine and pressed the trigger. What followed was a complete surprise. It went “full auto” with four of the five rounds going over the trees!

I felt quite badly about the match score, but I was very grateful that the 1911 hadn’t gone full auto during the Regional.

Respectfully,
kent

ArmedBear
February 4, 2010, 05:46 PM
Name one.

Star B

But, as I said, a rational discussion would be about relatively modern, drop-safe, well-designed pistols for carry, not C&R guns.:)

EddieNFL
February 4, 2010, 05:48 PM
I had been averaging 1984 out of 1500 which wouldn't win, but would be great fun in any case.

What did you do for extra credit? :evil:

Jenrick
February 4, 2010, 05:54 PM
rellascout: No LE or US military unit carries a 1911. A 1911 style etc is a different beast. N. Richland Hills PD carries Para's as issue, and the Texas Rangers almost to a ranger carry a 1911 style pistol (I believe their current ones are made by Wilson?).

My department and all others I know of that allow a 1911 style pistol require C&L. Carrying ANY pistol on duty without a round chamber or needing to manually cock the weapon (ie thumb the hammer back, DA triggers are of course not a problem) before firing is a major violation, that can get people fired at most departments/agencies. It certainly is with mine.

-Jenrick

ArmedBear
February 4, 2010, 06:05 PM
No LE or US military unit carries a 1911.

Exactly. "1911" is just a frame spec, and even that's dubious any more. In general parlance, it's a general class of pistol, with more variations than I can count, especially given that you can buy ready-to-customize stripped frames and slides, and do with them what you will. In specific parlance, it's a museum piece. The actual 1911 hasn't been issued by anyone for a very long time.

NMGonzo
February 4, 2010, 06:26 PM
I remember the PD in Albq. NM carried a lot of 1911.
Some still do.

A 20 something year old patrol man actually does.

SwampWolf
February 4, 2010, 06:53 PM
He was carrying a 1911 in condition I and the report stated that the 1911 discharged through the chair with no one being injured on its own! (It should have been easily verified if the trooper left it in its fired condition, with an empty casing in the chamber and the safety engaged.)

Curious: No matter which condition the pistol discharged in, how is it possible that the empty casing could be assumed to have remained in the chamber after having been fired?

Jenrick
February 4, 2010, 11:55 PM
With a 1911 style pistol if the safety is engaged the slide can't cycle as it's locked shut.

You can also get that on self inflicted gun shot wound to the brain (ie suicide most of the time). The hand holding the weapon goes limp as the slide begins to cycle, causing the whole weapon to instead recoil (the penultimate occurrence of limp wristing). As there is literally no resistance to the recoil forces the slide never cycles. We normally check for brass for about 5 minutes, and then the lead detective will clear pistol. I'd say better then 80% of the time the fired casing is in the chamber.

-Jenrick

gc70
February 5, 2010, 12:44 AM
Originally Posted by REAPER4206969
Would you like to guess how the military carry's them now?

When did the military buy Springfield (Imbel) slides to put on old Colt frames?

CPshooter
February 5, 2010, 01:16 AM
Call me crazy, but I prefer condition zero for carrying 1911s. You still have a grip safety along with the safety in between your ears. If you're carrying in a high quality holster with the trigger totally covered I don't see how this can be unsafe. Why the XD is considered safe without a manual thumb safety, but the 1911 needs to be carried cocked and locked is beyond me. Trigger safeties do nothing. Hell, I think a 1911 carried condition zero is definitely safer than a Glock.

On the other hand, the safety being there doesn't hurt. It's nice for the range or if you use a 1911 for your night stand gun. But if I were going to carry a 1911, I'd do so with one in the pipe, hammer back, safety off. A nice leather holster would also be in order. Just my 2 cents.

HisSoldier
February 5, 2010, 01:58 AM
Well, well. The M1911 thumb safety is just a sear blocking safety. There is nothing but a little bit of sear holding that hammer back.

Cocked and locked with a series 70 mechanism may not be as safe as advertized.

You would have to do some serious damage to force the sear to let go with the safety on. A statistically insignificant probability.

Name one.
Star B

I'm not familiar with the B model, but most Stars not only block the sear but also block the hammer back off the sear, this presents an even more imposing problem for statistical probabilities of firing with the safety in the on position, nearly impossible.

TG13
February 5, 2010, 02:52 AM
Call me crazy, but I prefer condition zero for carrying 1911s. You still have a grip safety along with the safety in between your ears. If you're carrying in a high quality holster with the trigger totally covered I don't see how this can be unsafe. Why the XD is considered safe without a manual thumb safety, but the 1911 needs to be carried cocked and locked is beyond me. Trigger safeties do nothing. Hell, I think a 1911 carried condition zero is definitely safer than a Glock.

i think this is one reason why Springfield put a thumb safety on the XD45s.. i don't know why they did not carry the thumb safety across the entire XD line..

Glocks are only partially cocked, unlike the XD..

i think that the 1911 was intended to be carried hammer down to prevent dirt and grime from getting between the hammer and the firing pin.. this is another reason that they were in full flap holsters.. the option of holstering with the thumb safety on, was to prevent an AD while reholstering on horse back.. but, not the intended form of carry within the holster..

there are many modern reasons to carry C&L'd, many of which are valid and do not apply to the original carry condition of the original 1911..

you can carry either way, now.. and it's more a matter of preference, than what is was originally designed for..

EddieNFL
February 5, 2010, 07:42 AM
When did the military buy Springfield (Imbel) slides to put on old Colt frames?

USMC issues Springfields and Kimbers to certain units.

Double Naught Spy
February 5, 2010, 08:28 AM
Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History is constantly being reinterpreted to meet the needs of today.

The field manual says nothing about how the gun was designed or for what purpose of carry. It simply explains how the military wants the gun carried.

I highly recommend reading “The Government Models” by William H.D. Goddard to see the wonderful pictures and progression of Brownings automatic pistol design. I also recommend the “Colt .45 Service Pistols Models of 1911 and 1911A1 Charles W. Clawson”, but the pictures are not as good.

Neither of these books have proof that the 1911 was designed to be carried in Condition 2 either.

In fact, to date there are no known blueprints or JMB design notes that state how the gun is to be carried, at least not known by the 1911 community. There is a marked difference between design and application. The manual and books are about application, not design.

You are interpretting history to meet your own needs.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 09:07 AM
When did the military buy Springfield (Imbel) slides to put on old Colt frames?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/MEU-SOC-pistol-1.jpg/800px-MEU-SOC-pistol-1.jpg
In 2002, an article in American Handgunner Magazine stated that "Marine armorers from the Precision Weapons Section, MCBQ" are making 789 MEU (SOC) 1911's. The revised parts list included barrels, bushings, link pins, sear springs, ejectors, firing pin stops, mainspring housings and mainsprings, all from Nowlin Manufacturing.[8] Slides were ordered from Springfield Armory, with front sight pins, beavertail safeties and recoil spring guides came from Ed Brown. Novak was contracted for rear sights, Wilson Combat provided extractors and mag release buttons, while King's Gun Works supplied ambidextrous thumb safeties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU%28SOC%29_pistol

cwdotson
February 5, 2010, 12:35 PM
If the 1911 ended up the way it did and as stated by some of these posts, with a design modification to secure a contract under apprehension of a hypothetical situation with prancing stallions (or geldings, oer mares), AND that end package is still considered by so many as the ultimate design package for pistol combat/defense, that happy accident, that serendipity, is on par with the "discovery" of penicillin.cwd

gc70
February 5, 2010, 12:56 PM
USMC issues Springfields and Kimbers to certain units.

Buying new 1911s makes perfect sense (at least to me :)) - cobbling together parts guns, not so much.

rellascout
February 5, 2010, 01:20 PM
Neither of these books have proof that the 1911 was designed to be carried in Condition 2 either.

In fact, to date there are no known blueprints or JMB design notes that state how the gun is to be carried, at least not known by the 1911 community. There is a marked difference between design and application. The manual and books are about application, not design.

You are interpretting history to meet your own needs.
__________________

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

woad_yurt
February 5, 2010, 01:25 PM
Lets go back to the original post by Slamfire, the 1911 was not designed to be carried in condition 1. Period. In reference to the Calvary, after an engagement in which the pistol was used, the slide safety was engaged, the pistol holstered, until a very excited horse was brought under control....

If someone holsters their pistol, aren't they carrying it? It may be for 5 minutes or it may be for much longer, depending upon the level of chaos at the time, but they are nonetheless carrying it cocked and locked.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 01:31 PM
Buying new 1911s makes perfect sense (at least to me ) - cobbling together parts guns, not so much.
I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA.

gc70
February 5, 2010, 01:51 PM
I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA.

So you would prefer an old frame, made when metallurgy techniques were far less sophisticated, than a quality new frame. For my part, I would prefer a new frame, with a selection of new parts, properly put together as a custom gun.

X-Rap
February 5, 2010, 01:58 PM
I bet these aren't put together by some jobber in his garage. I think the MC has some pretty qualified Armorers for pistol assembly at that level.
Givin the frames are still in spec and the work done well I would take one of those parts guns in a heart beat.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 02:20 PM
So you would prefer an old frame, made when metallurgy techniques were far less sophisticated, than a quality new frame.
Yes. I also wouldn't call most modern bare frames "quality."

kanook
February 5, 2010, 02:39 PM
Nice to see a parts list to make one like the forces are playing with. And Yes I would rather have a parts gun custom fitted vs a new make it go bang

EddieNFL
February 5, 2010, 02:45 PM
I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA.
Amen. I have a parts gun I "cobbled" together. Shoots under two at 25. I don't consider myself a gunsmith.

MythBuster
February 5, 2010, 03:41 PM
"I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA."

So would I.

gc70
February 5, 2010, 03:52 PM
Just to be clear, I would also prefer a custom-built gun made with new quality parts over a production model. But I would also want a new quality frame rather than a tired, half-century old frame based on inferior technology. YMMV.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 03:59 PM
half-century old frame based on inferior technology.
Those frames are forged steel.

ttheel
February 5, 2010, 04:17 PM
I was watching the show Handguns on the Sportsmans channel (direct tv channel 605) last night. Their entire 30 minute episode was on 1911's. They said that a 1911 shoud never be carried in condition 2. That many, many accidents had happened carrying 1911's in this condition. They said choose condition 1 or condition 3 whichever you feel more comfortable with but absolutely under no circumstances carry in condition 2.

gc70
February 5, 2010, 04:28 PM
Those frames are forged steel.

The heat treatment of the older guns was inferior. A new forged steel frame is superior.

woad_yurt
February 5, 2010, 04:54 PM
I think that heat-treating should be judged by whether or not it was sufficient for the job, not by how it measures up, hardness-wise, against other like items. I have a '62 Plymouth and I know that there are new, better alloys and casting processes available nowadays. But, these new alloys or metallurgical processes would not make that car run any differently.

I haven't heard of may G.I. .45s that have fallen apart due to failing steel frames.

ArmedBear
February 5, 2010, 05:02 PM
cobbling together parts guns, not so much.

You haven't seen a nice one, then.:)

Silent Sam
February 5, 2010, 05:05 PM
How and why it was designed to be carried - don't know, wasn't there. The design does accommodate safe carry cocked and locked which happens to be the best way to do it for my application.

EddieNFL
February 5, 2010, 05:29 PM
You haven't seen a nice one, then.:)
I have others that fit my definition of nice.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a338/EddieF/NHLeather.jpg

MythBuster
February 5, 2010, 05:53 PM
"I was watching the show Handguns on the Sportsmans channel (direct tv channel 605) last night. Their entire 30 minute episode was on 1911's. They said that a 1911 shoud never be carried in condition 2. That many, many accidents had happened carrying 1911's in this condition. They said choose condition 1 or condition 3 whichever you feel more comfortable with but absolutely under no circumstances carry in condition 2"


Those people are idiots. There is NOTHING unsafe about condition two carry.

1911Tuner
February 5, 2010, 05:55 PM
Oh, Lord. Not this again... :rolleyes:

First:

Correct. The safety also blocks the last 1/4 inch or so of the hammer fall.

No, it won't. If the hammer falls, it'll wipe the safety off as easily as you do with your thumb...and faster to boot.

Browning didn't design/intend for the gun to be carried in C1. The first ones that he submitted in 1910didn't even have thumb safeties...so how could it have been his intent.

The "slide locking safety" was the cavalry's idea. They asked...John Moses gave. That simple.

Browning designed it so that it could be carried in C1 should the need arise. "When action is iminent." Once the iminent action thing passed, regs called for it to be returned to C3. I'm pretty certain that many front-line troops placed it in C2 in order to give the visual impression that they were following the rules. Men who are in harm's way kinda tend to ignore the rules and go with what they feel like will give'em an edge on survival.

The gun was designed to give the user a choice. No more and no less. To state that the intent was to carry the gun in C1 24/7 is ludicrous. That it can be doesn't prove intent. It only proves that it can be.

If Browning had any intent at all, it was probably to carry it on half cock with a loaded chamber, since that's how he designed all his other exposed hammer guns...and it actually makes sense, given the original captive half-cock notch. If all it was meant to be was a hammer arresting device, it could have been a simpler shelf...like Colt's Series 80 design. It would have served the same purpose, and it would have been much easier, much faster, and cheaper to machine into the hammer.

The gun gives the user a choice as to how to carry it, and the only true "safe" way to do it is with the chamber empty. That's just common sense. No cartridge...no bang.

gc70
February 5, 2010, 06:23 PM
cobbling together parts guns, not so much.

You haven't seen a nice one, then.

I've seen a few, but they generally used new parts if the purpose of the build was not a restoration.

1911Tuner
February 5, 2010, 06:33 PM
So you would prefer an old frame, made when metallurgy techniques were far less sophisticated, than a quality new frame. For my part, I would prefer a new frame, with a selection of new parts, properly put together as a custom gun.

Too much worry over the frames. It's the slide that takes the beatin'. The "gun" is the slide and barrel. The frame is just a gun mount. That's why the government ordered a couple dozen slides and barrels, plus hundreds of small parts for every complete gun they took delivery on.

smoothdraw
February 5, 2010, 06:35 PM
Condition 1 and Condition 3 only for me. To put the gun in condition 2 is safe hazard. Not the carry condition but just imagine lowering your hammer with 1 in the pipe just to be in condition 2.. The probability that you might lower the hammer improperly and set off the weapon is high.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 06:40 PM
The probability that you might lower the hammer improperly and set off the weapon is high.

People write stuff like this all the time in these threads but I've never seen the data to support the assertion.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 07:30 PM
There was a story posted a few months ago where a man negligently killed his wife by going condition two with his 1911. It was in the news so you could try Google.

EddieNFL
February 5, 2010, 07:43 PM
No, it won't. If the hammer falls, it'll wipe the safety off as easily as you do with your thumb...and faster to boot.

Call me a Missourian; had to see for myself.

Zerodefect
February 5, 2010, 08:30 PM
Not this again!
Just get a Glock allready!


My 1911 cocked and locked is the safest CCW I own. I am completely confident in its ability not to shoot my foot. (unless i say so) I usually carry a Glock G23 cocked and unlocked. ( I still have all my toes!)

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 09:33 PM
There was a story posted a few months ago where a man negligently killed his wife by going condition two with his 1911. It was in the news so you could try Google.

One account? Okay, thanks I'll keep that in mind.

christcorp
February 5, 2010, 09:53 PM
I'd be curious for people who say that Condition-2 is so unsafe, to find some data that shows such a thing. And I don't need to search for it, because I know it's a safe condition. And I also know that if you're smarter than the gun, it is safe to put in into condition-2. And it's not like you are putting it from condition 3, to 1, to 2 over and over again. I have quite a few guns, so it's not like I shot the 1911A1 every weekend. There is no way that my 1911A1 could be unsafe. I go to the range; I shoot the crap out of it; when I'm finished, I do a basic cleaning; (I only do complete break down cleanings of guns 2 times a year); I then put the loaded magazine in; chamber a round; lower the hammer; put the gun in the holster; and go home. And it STAYS in condition 2 until the next time I take it shooting. I don't own any Bar-B-Que guns. I'm not like that. So, how is my condition-2 dangerous??? And even the few times that I've had to remove the magazine and empty the chamber at home, when it was time to reload, it isn't hard to lower the hammer.

Of course, I rarely carry a 1911A1 any longer. Rationalize all you want, it sucks as a concealed carry weapon. Just like there's those here trying to say that it was "DESIGNED" to be carried condition 1; I'm surprised they aren't saying it was "Designed" to be carried concealed. It was made for an external holster. Anyway, I don't carry it much at all. Maybe 1 or 2 days a year. And that's only if there's a specific reason, like I didn't want to take all my guns shooting, so I left my normal carry weapon home. While I like the 1911A1, there's been a lot of improvements over the last 100 years. Name for me; the Sig Sauer P220 45acp. What's not to like? And conversations like this one NEVER exist. And you'd have to sell your soul just to find a thread that is talking negative about a SigSauer P220.

Anyway, when I want to carry a real gun, I carry my sig. But if I do carry my Springfield Armory 1911A1; which I also really like; it is in condition 2. It's in condition 2 in my safe and when it's out of the safe.

Oooooo; almost forgot. For you "HOLY CRAP... CONDITION 2..... NOOOOOOO" crowd. Answer me a very simple question. Why is the hammer made the way it is; including a serrated thumb??? If it wasn't meant to be lowered, it wouldn't be able to be lowered. According to all the "God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit; personally approved the 1911A1 to be carried in condition 1", there is no reason EVER to lower the hammer. If you want to empty, you take the mag out and eject the one in the chamber. So why is the hammer designed for a person to manually lower it???

rellascout
February 5, 2010, 09:57 PM
And you'd have to sell your soul just to find a thread that is talking negative about a SigSauer P220.


Are you kidding me... lets talk stainless steel slides and internal extractors. :barf:

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:06 PM
One account? Okay, thanks I'll keep that in mind.
There are numerous story's of people shooting themselves/others/things while lowing the hammer.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 10:09 PM
Then data should be easy to come by.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:12 PM
Sig Sauer P220 45acp. What's not to like? And conversations like this one NEVER exist.
http://www.sigsauer.com/upFiles/catalog/product/P220R-SAO-detail-L.jpg
http://www.sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCatalogProductDetails.aspx?categoryid=6&productid=151

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:13 PM
Then data should be easy to come by.
No one keeps statistics of random idiots shooting themselves.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 10:18 PM
Actually the government does keep statistics of "random idiots shooting themselves."

What we don't have are statistics describing the number of ND's from firearms owners utilizing Condition 2. I asked for data, I always ask for data, and I get snark instead. The funny thing is, I would change my preference in a millisecond if presented with compelling data.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:27 PM
I would change my preference in a millisecond if presented with compelling data.
If you can't see what's wrong with overriding 3-4 safety's to lower a small, slippery hammer onto a loaded chamber and then cock it back again in a fight, I don't know. http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_freak.gif

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:28 PM
Actually the government does keep statistics of "random idiots shooting themselves."
Do you really think most people that ND call the cops?

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 10:30 PM
If you can't see what's wrong with overriding 3-4 safety's to lower a small, slippery hammer onto a loaded chamber and then cock it back again in a fight, I don't know. Yes, you make it sound quite dangerous. I wish we could find some data to show how dangerous it really is, that would be helpful.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 10:34 PM
Do you really think most people that ND call the cops? Probably not, but does that affect the breakdown of the data from those who did call the cops?

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:35 PM
You can't find something that doesn't exist. Think for yourself, "Is this a good idea?"

SlamFire1
February 5, 2010, 10:35 PM
So why is the hammer designed for a person to manually lower it???

Well, because it was.

The original 1911 hammer has a wide spur with checkering. It is so pronounced that it has pinched the web on the shooting hand of many a shooters. Both the original 1911 hammer and grip frame are designed to allow easy access to the hammer.

These features are not by accident.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:36 PM
Probably not, but does that affect the breakdown of the data from those who did call the cops?
What data?

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:39 PM
These features are not by accident.
It was used to recock for a second strike on a hard primer. While that is not a good tactic, it was popular back then.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 10:49 PM
You can't find something that doesn't exist. Think for yourself, "Is this a good idea?"

I've read many reports of hammer follow upon slide release, doesn't that speak directly to the inherent danger of C&L?

Anyway, been thinking, and truth be told it has been quite a few months since I lowered the hammer on a live round. Because once I do it, it stays that way, for a very long time.

What data?

As I mentioned previously, we do have data of "random idiots shooting themselves."

SlamFire1
February 5, 2010, 10:52 PM
It was used to recock for a second strike on a hard primer. While that is not a good tactic, it was popular back then

I have done this with M1903's, Lee Enfields, and my M1911. I much prefer this than to opening the action to what might be a potential hangfire.

Throughout this thread you've provided some really good technical data, not just opinions or repeats of opinions posted on the internet. IMO, you blew it with this post.

A quick search turned up this:

http://www.m1911.org/technic_forum.htm

Thank you for the link, it lead to a list of interesting articles. However, I don't know which one you were specifically referring to.

However, the one that says "How trigger parts interact?", the cutaway pictures show that the thumb safety is a sear blocking safety. The thumb safety does not appear to be holding the hammer, or camming the hammer back.

You hit that hammer hard enough to shear the hammer notch, or the sear tip, or if the hammer is pulled back and dropped on the sear, causing an over ride, what is there to prevent the hammer from hitting the firing pin? :confused:


http://www.m1911.org/images/cut-away1.jpg

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:55 PM
You hit that hammer hard enough to shear the hammer notch, or the sear tip, what is there to prevent the hammer from hitting the firing pin?
The half cock interceptor notch.

christcorp
February 5, 2010, 10:56 PM
It was used to recock for a second strike on a hard primer. While that is not a good tactic, it was popular back then.
So there's no way in the world that it was designed or used to lower the hammer? You know that for a fact? You've got some official report that says it was to ONLY be used for a 2nd strike? And what someone's brother's girlfriend's father's plumber's golf coach who stayed at a holiday inn express; doesn't count.

As Supernaut mentioned, I too have NEVER read/seen any type of study that shows people have accidental discharges in or going to condition-2. I would bet that it is so rare, that it is about the same frequency as other accidental discharges. I remember as a little kid that my baby sister was SO SCARED of a monster under her bed. And no matter how many times I or my parents tried to explain to her that it just didn't exist, she was still just as scared. There are some people that are just so scared of lowering the hammer on a pistol. Even though the proof and data isn't there to show that it's dangerous. And I can definitely think for myself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lowering the hammer on a 1911A1.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 10:59 PM
So there's no way in the world that it was designed or used to lower the hammer?
Where did you read that in my post?

KurtC
February 5, 2010, 11:00 PM
Page 19, Section 25, Paragraph i

http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/manual.htm

Double Naught Spy
February 5, 2010, 11:17 PM
Once again, the manual does not necessarily indicate design intent, just application of the design as it exists.

christcorp
February 5, 2010, 11:18 PM
Well, you said it was used to recock for a second strike. You didn't say recock for a second strike AND TO LOWER the hammer when imminent danger is not present.

So being you only mentioned the 1st part, I assumed that was what you believed the hammer was used for. And Kurt; I have copies of many of the army field manual. And while you can't speak for anyone else, if you admit that the field manual says that your suppose to carry the weapon in Condition-3, unless you're expecting to draw the weapon; I can admit that condition-2 also isn't the preferred method.

But again, single action pistols like the 1911A1 is not as safe as double actions that don't have hammers and firing pins under constant tension. There are definitely a number of safeties, but the ONLY safer than a hammer or firing pin that is down and not under tension, is to have no round in the chamber at all. Condition-3. So; as long as we understand our weapon's limitations, capabilities, and potential hazards; and remain aware of them during our handling of; then how we carry it isn't that important.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 11:25 PM
I find it an interesting breakdown TBH. C&L advocates are trusting the gun not to malfunction, and Condition 2 advocates are trusting themselves not to malfunction. Fascinating really.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 11:28 PM
C&L advocates are trusting the gun not to malfunction, and Condition 2 advocates are trusting themselves not to malfunction.
Ya that's what it is. http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_freak.gif People who carry a 1911 in any other condition than 1 are scared to death of their own pistol.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 11:29 PM
My goodness did you read that wrong or what?

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 11:32 PM
There is no other reason to carry a 1911 in C2/3 then fear/misunderstanding of the firearm and/or fear of their own incompetence.

SuperNaut
February 5, 2010, 11:34 PM
Allrighty then.

You win REAPER4206969, the thread is yours.

Oyeboten
February 5, 2010, 11:49 PM
As a prospective Cavalry Sidearm, I believe the one-handed use, and, being able to bring the Arm from the Holster and to Battery/ready with one hand, was a consideration.


The Thumb 'Safety' permitted the M1911 to be carried fully Cocked with a chambered Round and a full Magazine, and, for the operative to disingauge the 'Thumb Safety' when wishing to fire, and, to re-apply the Thumb-actuated 'Safety' once done firing, or as may be.


I do not understand how there could be anything controversial about this.


The Model 1905 .45 Automatic, had no exterior 'safety' appendages.


I assume, one carried it Hammer 'down' on a live round, or, carried it Hammer 'down' on an empty Chamber, or, carried it at Half-Cock with a live round chambered.


These had an inertial Firing Pin, as did the later M1900-M1902 and M1903 'Pocket' .38 Automatics, where, carrying Hammer 'down' with a round chambered was relatively safe....maybe even better than 'relatively' safe.


The M1911 was an inertial Firing Pin design also...far as that goes.

REAPER4206969
February 5, 2010, 11:54 PM
Allrighty then.

You win REAPER4206969, the thread is yours.
Is there any other logical reason? C2/3 carry does not, in anyway make the pistol a more efficient defensive/offensive weapon. C1 does.

X-Rap
February 5, 2010, 11:55 PM
I wonder what those old Cavalry Troopers did with their SA 45 Army Colts when they cocked them and decided not to shoot. Did those revolvers have decockers?

christcorp
February 6, 2010, 12:37 AM
Is there any other logical reason? C2/3 carry does not, in anyway make the pistol a more efficient defensive/offensive weapon. C1 does.
Supernaut; let me try.

Reaper. Super's comment about "TRUST" was aimed at forcing the 1911A1 owner to make a choice. The choice is:

"Do I trust the gun MORE than I trust MYSELF"

In other words, if you don't believe in Condition-2, then it's because you DON'T trust yourself. And you'd RATHER TRUST your gun, by keeping it in Condition-1.

In other words, you, Reaper, trust your gun MORE than you trust yourself.

That is indeed a paradox that one must contemplate. If you can't trust yourself, above all other things in life around you, then why would you even think about owning a gun? You might believe that you, the human, the gun handler, could possibly have an "ACCIDENT" while putting the 1911A1 into Condition-2. But for some reason, you believe that the process of going to condition-1, and the gun itself, is actually safer than the human.

This brings a new light to the old adage of "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People". So maybe, our 1911A1's have gotten so good, that if a scenario comes up where we want to use the gun to shoot something or someone, the gun won't ALLOW it. That's because the gun is more trustworthy than the shooter.

Me personally; I trust ME more than I trust a piece of mechanics made up of springs and metal. I'll stick with condition-2. Or more than likely, I stick with my double action Sig P220 so I get the best of all worlds.

REAPER4206969
February 6, 2010, 12:42 AM
In other words, if you don't believe in Condition-2, then it's because you DON'T trust yourself.
No, It's because condition two is worthless for a SAO pistol.

EddieNFL
February 6, 2010, 07:40 AM
I've read many reports of hammer follow upon slide release, doesn't that speak directly to the inherent danger of C&L?

It speaks directly to the inherent danger of idiots working on firearms. Or the idiots who refuse to have them repaired.

How would you load it without releasing the slide? No, holding the trigger back is not a viable option; having the firearm repaired is.

silversport
February 6, 2010, 07:48 AM
...but we're pretty sure the magazines are used to load the bullets into the bottom, right???...I mean they do fit in the top thingy...:D
Bill

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 07:49 AM
Let's address the safety concerns over carrying in C1.

A few years back, I demonstrated the function to a guy who was also unconvinced that the gun wouldn't spontaneously fire from C1.

I had a junk hammer and sear in the box. First, I removed a full 1/8th inch from the sear crown to simulate a failure. Not only did the half-cock notch grab it and arrest the hammer...the hammer held full cock, and actually fired and functioned normally for about 30 rounds...and when the hammer started to follow the slide...the half-cock caught it every time.

As with any gun, safety depends mainly on the handler. While it's possible for a 1911 to experience hammer follow when chambering the top round, unless something is bad wrong...the half cock will stop the hammer. The key to not shooting yourself in the foot...or your dog in the rump...is to maintain muzzle control, and keep the gun pointed in a safe direction whenever loading it. Dirt is a good backstop. A 2-foot thick stack of dry newspaper will also work.

EddieNFL
February 6, 2010, 07:53 AM
In other words, if you don't believe in Condition-2, then it's because you DON'T trust yourself. And you'd RATHER TRUST your gun, by keeping it in Condition-1.

A different viewpoint: You don't trust yourself to be cognizant of the condition of you weapon. You're afraid you will somehow wipe the safety off, depress the grip safety and pull the trigger. You're also afraid you'll may something to break the hammer causing the gun to discharge.

You're not afraid of fine motor skills diminishing under stress and you trust Mr. Murphy to keep his very large nose out of your business.

I trust my training with C1. I have no need of C2.

SlamFire1
February 6, 2010, 08:45 AM
http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/manual.htm

page 19

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 avid displacing the safety lock.

In this 1940’s manual, the Army did not fully trust cocked and locked or they would not have inserted this warning. They must have experienced accidental shootings after the thumb safety got wiped off.

That would explain why it was standard procedure in many units to carry the thing with nothing in the chamber and hammer down.

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 08:57 AM
They must have experienced accidental shootings after the thumb safety got wiped off.

They probably had some unintentional discharges after the thumb safety got wiped off, the gun was held in a firing grip, and the trigger was pulled.

The grip safety still blocks the trigger. Depressing the grip safety and pulling the trigger makes the gun fire.

Try an experiment with an empty gun. Cock it and leave the safety in the fire position. Carry it around the house in an open-topped holster every day for a month. At the end of the month, the hammer will still be cocked.

We're assuming a functional grip safety and no trigger ticklin' during the test period.

EddieNFL
February 6, 2010, 09:24 AM
Try an experiment with an empty gun. Cock it and leave the safety in the fire position. Carry it around the house in an open-topped holster every day for a month. At the end of the month, the hammer will still be cocked.

If the hammer does fall, it's not the fault of the gun. Short of some type of freak accident, the moron who put it in the holster is to blame.

SuperNaut
February 6, 2010, 09:40 AM
It speaks directly to the inherent danger of idiots working on firearms. Or the idiots who refuse to have them repaired.

I've also read reports of brand new 1911's experiencing hammer follow.

How would you load it without releasing the slide? No, holding the trigger back is not a viable option; having the firearm repaired is.

True, but my point is that the C1 crowd often go on about the "danger" of C2 and the "numerous" accounts of people who shoot themselves when lowering the hammer, even though we also have "numerous" accounts of the half-cock notch failing.

p.s. All, this is The High Road and using terms like "fearful/incompetent/idiot/moron" to describe posters is not in line with the board's rules.

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 09:47 AM
I've also read reports of brand new 1911's experiencing hammer follow.


So have I. Seen it happen. That's why the owners' manuals instruct the owners to perform a slide-drop test before loading it , and occasionally after the gun has been used as part of the safety function tests. If the hammer follows the slide...the gun is malfunctioning and needs to be repaired.

Hammer following to half-cock is usually caused by inertial trigger bounce, and also usually a simple matter of insufficent sear spring tension on the middle leg. This very often comes as a result of deliberately removing tension from the spring in order to achieve the Holy Grail...the 3.5-pound trigger pull. It's also usually a simple matter of bending the center leg forward and placing more force against the trigger. Sometimes it also requires tweaking the left leg of the spring to place more force on the sear. Sometimes it requires replacing the sear spring...but not often. It's a machine. It sometimes requires maintenance.

Springs can and do weaken over time and with use. That's a fact. Replacing them once in a while is just good sense.

EddieNFL
February 6, 2010, 09:54 AM
p.s. All, this is The High Road and using terms like "fearful/incompetent/idiot/moron" to describe posters is not in line with the board's rules.

Unless someone in this thread has managed to unintentionally fire a 1911 while in C1, I haven't used any of the above terms to describe any poster. If it applies, please contact me and I'll apologize for hurting your feelings.

If anyone knowingly carries a firearm that could inadvertently fire in any condition, all of the above applies...except fearful.

EddieNFL
February 6, 2010, 09:58 AM
Springs can and do weaken over time and with use. That's a fact. Replacing them once in a while is just good sense.

Yet I've been called foolish (a direct violation of THR rules) for changing springs on a regular basis.

SuperNaut
February 6, 2010, 10:01 AM
EddieNFL

My feelings and the rules of THR are not connected in any way. My goal is to keep the thread from getting locked. Historically these types of threads get locked when normally level-headed THR members start tossing around epithets.

TBH, I have no idea why people get so worked up about this topic.

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 10:15 AM
Yet I've been called foolish (a direct violation of THR rules) for changing springs on a regular basis.

Yep, Eddie. Folks who are penny wise and pound foolish will do that. Springs are cheap.
Every spring in the pistol can be replaced for about 15 bucks.

In reality, the sear spring is the least likely of all to go bad, assuming that it was right to start with, and that it's a good quality spring. That said, I go ahead and replace them at about the 20,000 round mark anyway. Not because they're not performing, but because it just makes good sense...and because it's cheap.

SuperNaut
February 6, 2010, 10:22 AM
Springs are cheap.
Every spring in the pistol can be replaced for about 15 bucks.

Thanks for reminding me, it's about time to swap out the springs in my Springfield.

BossHogg
February 6, 2010, 10:24 AM
Heck I can't even keep up with all the conditions. I have a Star PD ,not a true 1911,that I can engage the safty with the hammer down,condition 5 maybe.

But to carry in that condition I would have to disengage the safety then cock the hammer, not good.So cocked and locked for me.

SuperNaut
February 6, 2010, 10:32 AM
BossHogg,

Yeah the conditions are definitely confusing and tied to a specific model of 1911. One of my 1911's is a Para LDA double-stack and I have no choice but to carry it in C1 (or C3 I suppose). Also like your Star, the safety can be engaged at any time.

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 11:25 AM
like your Star, the safety can be engaged at any time.


Also unlike the 1911, the thumb safety on the Star actively blocks the hammer when it's engaged.

christcorp
February 6, 2010, 12:37 PM
I bought my first 1911A1 in the early 80's. It is my current springfield armory. Now; the first thing about guns with me, is that I don't remodel them. I might add accessories; but each of those can be removed. Even rifles. I've only changed out stocks on 1 rifle, and that's been my AK-47 style so I could hold it better. Other than that, if I don't like the way a gun feels when I pick it up, I won't buy it. The reason I mention that, is because I don't want anyone WASTING THEIR TIME giving me suggestions about swapping, changing, bla bla bla.

I bring this up, because I am left handed, and my first 1911A1 springfield I bought has the hammer safety on the left side for right handed people. For me, that safety is a total waste of time. Again; save your breath and don't recommend putting on ambisexual safeties or anything similar. Not going to happen. So save your breath. Yes, the grip safety and others do indeed make it a safe gun, but I'm not going to carry the gun in condition 0. So, I became a "Master" of condition-2. And this is one reason "SOME" people use condition-2 and don't have any problems. Just like some people have learned how to rack the slide with 1 hand, some people have learned how to decock a 1911A1 with perfect safety. And they can draw the weapon and cock it AS FAST or maybe even faster, then a traditional person can draw the weapon and turn off the safety.

It all comes down to practice and training. We've all seen the episodes on tv where the guy can accurate shoot a 6 shot revolver in LESS than 2 seconds. We've seen what some of these cowboy action shooters can do. So anyone who says that condition 2 CAN'T be done safely is ignorant, and doesn't understand guns at all.

I am not saying that anyone SHOULD carry in condition-2. I'm just saying that anyone who says the 1911A1 SHOULDN'T be carried in condition-2 has no idea what they are talking about. And that for SOME people, condition-2 is the BETTER, FASTER, and more RELIABLE way of making the weapon ready for defensive purposes. And while some people want to believe that the 1911A1 was INTENDED and DESIGNED to be carried in condition-1; (Which obviously is a crock considering there was no thumb safety on the darn thing when it was first brought into service), so it was condition 0, 2, or 3. I just wanted to point out that there are a number of reasons why a person might carry a 1911A1 differently than what you think is the correct or intended way. And again; please don't demonstrate that you can't read, can't comprehend, english isn't your primary language, or any other thing that shows your ignorance; by recommending an ambisexual thumb safety. I already told you I don't want that, and it's not an option. I have right at 50 years old; have been shooting for 40+ years. Have owned well over 100 guns. And I buy and adapte to using guns the way they were made. That's how I like it. And that's why if I carry a 1911A1, it's in condition-2. And I am most probably safer with it in condition-2 that a large portion of the people who carry in condition 1. Why; because there's a lot of retards out there.

But as I've said in other threads, 99% of my carrying isn't done with a 1911A1 any more anyway. There have been a lot of better weapons come out in the last 100 years. And while I love the 1911A1, I find the P220 to be a BETTER weapon. As well as many SA/DA weapons that have decockers and better ways to carry the weapon. But for the 1911A1, condition-2 is very safe and very fast.

cesarv
February 6, 2010, 01:31 PM
Maybe you should get an ambisexual safety:D.

Jenrick
February 6, 2010, 02:37 PM
I could care how JMB or the army designed the 1911/1911A1 to be carried. The fact of the matter is a lot of people carry it C&L, and a lot of people carry it C2, or even C3. Does it matter what the guy next to you does? Has anyone come to your house or stopped you on the street and demanded that you thumb the hammer back and engage the safety? You might get some converts with a rational explanation of WHY You prefer one over the other. You can probably have a very enjoyable discussion of various sources and historical references as to HOW it was historically carried. But short of finding a journal entry or a patent statement from JMB there is NEVER going to be an answer as to how it was INTENDED/DESIGNED to be carried.

The threaded started off antagonistic (the Not! in the title set the tone), and has in general gotten more heated and less factual as it has ran. The C1/C2/C3 argument has been done to death, and this is just a poor example of one.

-Jenrick

SwampWolf
February 6, 2010, 03:07 PM
Maybe you should get an ambisexual safety.

Or maybe even a unisexual one. That way, either gender could use it in a pinch. :)

EddieNFL
February 6, 2010, 04:05 PM
And that for SOME people, condition-2 is the BETTER, FASTER, and more RELIABLE way of making the weapon ready for defensive purposes.

Could you provide an example?

HisSoldier
February 6, 2010, 05:25 PM
The heat treatment of the older guns was inferior. A new forged steel frame is superior.

I don't know where these ideas come from. Perhaps it was from when Springfield Armory (Working under government management, of course) did low tech heat treating. Any high quality gun maker of 1911 or even well before that knew how to heat treat steel to very close specifications. This is one of the internet myths I'd like to try to correct.
Many of the 1911 A1's made during WWII were supposedly made without heat treating, but if it was done it was done intentionally to speed production.

However, the one that says "How trigger parts interact?", the cutaway pictures show that the thumb safety is a sear blocking safety. The thumb safety does not appear to be holding the hammer, or camming the hammer back.

No, it doesn't cam the hammer back as per the Star design.

You hit that hammer hard enough to shear the hammer notch, or the sear tip, or if the hammer is pulled back and dropped on the sear, causing an over ride, what is there to prevent the hammer from hitting the firing pin?


I can't imagine hitting the hammer hard enough to break the sear, we are talking about an extremely rare event perpetrated by an idiot. Drop a 1911 from 200 feet and it could go off! Drop a 1911 from 200 feet onto a persons head and it could kill him too.

BHP FAN
February 6, 2010, 06:09 PM
His Soldiers's post number 666? Scary!Seriously folks,I think John Browning would die laughing at this thread,if he wasn't already dead.

BlayGlock
February 6, 2010, 06:34 PM
The guy down the street from me runs a little gunsmithing shop. He is retired army special forces, served in Nam. One day I walked in his shop to pick up a transfer and I had my 1911 on my hip carrying it cocked-n-locked. He told me that when he was in the army if they carried a 1911 like that they would get in trouble. Im not sure why, I personally do not know anyone who carries a 1911 ever have any problems carrying condition 1.

RJM
February 6, 2010, 06:45 PM
I'm a civilian and just don't care how the military has trained or currently trains to carry a 1911. I don't use the same holsters, nor do I carry in the same manner as the army, I am not bound by the rules of a military rule book. I like to carry IWB and cocked/locked, safety activated with a 1911. It is safe to carry a 1911 this way and the 1911 is designed to be carried this way.

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 06:49 PM
The heat treatment of the older guns was inferior. A new forged steel frame is superior.

And...

I don't know where these ideas come from.

It's not a myth. It's a fact. The older pistols weren't heat treated at all.

In mid-1936, Colt began using a hardened steel insert in the breechface to forestall peening and deformation around the firing pin port. Known as the "Recoil Insert" it can be seen in guns from then until 1946, when Colt started fully hardening their slides. Many people notice the light circle and assume that it's a machining mark...but it's the insert. Heat treatment of the frames also began at that time, just a few months later.

The WW2-era contract slides were spot hardened in key areas. Namely...at the end of the slide for about an inch...at the slidestop notch...and at the thumb safety recess. Aside from that, they were dead soft, as were the barrels.

TG13
February 6, 2010, 07:10 PM
It's not a myth. It's a fact. The older pistols weren't heat treated at all.

but, earlier 1911s could have been heat treated at a later time..

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 07:27 PM
but, earlier 1911s could have been heat treated at a later time..

None that I've ever seen or heard of, and there isn't any mention of it in Clawson's guides.

SlamFire1
February 6, 2010, 09:37 PM
You consider that the seniority level of an Officer assigned to a board, these would be men who had served 20 years, perhaps longer. These Officers who served on the selection boards and troop trials should have been familiar with the Colt Single Action Army as many would have carried that revolver at one time or another.

It would be interesting to find out how many served in the Indian Wars, the invasion of Cuba, and the pacification of the Philippines.

Making a Colt SAA ready would have consisted of cocking the hammer with the thumb, and making a Colt SAA safe consisted of lowering the hammer.

Lowering the hammer on a M1911 would have an action they were comfortable with and it would have been a practice they were used to. I highly suspect that holstering a pistol with the hammer cocked would have appeared un natural, unsafe and frightening.

You look at the manuals, the evolution of the various models, the practices of the period, the M1911 was designed to be carried condition two.

but, earlier 1911s could have been heat treated at a later time..

I doubt it. Heat treatment is a complicated process, something not to be done except at the manufacturer. I was told that the M1911 slide was tricky to heat treat due to warpage issues.

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 09:48 PM
I was told that the M1911 slide was tricky to heat treat due to warpage issues.


Yup. That's why they used the recoil inserts in the breechface. They couldn't heat-treat the existing slides. Later on, with better steels and advanced technology, they were able to do it.

stolivar
February 6, 2010, 10:02 PM
"You look at the manuals, the evolution of the various models, the practices of the period, the M1911 was designed to be carried condition two."

Not true at all. The M1911 was only carried in condition 2 because the Army thought all service men were idiots and did not know what they were doing. The army still treats all of its troops like little children.

Steve

1911Tuner
February 6, 2010, 11:34 PM
Look guys. The pistol is designed to allow safe carry in any one of four conditions of readiness...as you please. We're all aware that Condition One is the fastest into action, but if you're okay with carrying the gun empty with the slide locked and the magazine in your pocket...that's cool. Who am I to insist that you do it my way?

Lowering the hammer can be executed safely and easily if you know how. Hint: Get control of the hammer before you touch the trigger and point the gun in a safe direction. It's that simple.

The bottom line is that no loaded gun can be completely safe. The level of safety depends greatly on the handler.

Now, for John Brown's sake, can we just let it take a nap?

christcorp
February 7, 2010, 12:33 AM
Could you provide an example?
Actually Eddy, I don't need to. If you doubt me, then find some article that shows that someone died because they carried their 1911A1 in condition-2, and couldn't get a shot off fast enough. I already gave you an example; me; but you don't want to accept that. I can draw the weapon, cock it, aim, and accurately fire off a shot, faster than I can with the thumb safety on. And please don't say that's just a lack of practice on my part. That would be pure ignorance. Being left handed, growing up, people tried to get me to do things the "Right" way. No thank you. I am very good at adapting. I don't need or want an ambi safety or a left handed gun. I can handle the gun just the way it is.

But by all means, if you can find an article showing a person who was injured or died because they carried their 1911A1 in condition-2, I will definitely rethink my position.

Frank Ettin
February 7, 2010, 03:36 AM
Well, whatever. I'll still carry my 1911 in condition 1.

EddieNFL
February 7, 2010, 07:58 AM
Actually Eddy, I don't need to. If you doubt me, then find some article that shows that someone died because they carried their 1911A1 in condition-2, and couldn't get a shot off fast enough. I already gave you an example; me; but you don't want to accept that. I can draw the weapon, cock it, aim, and accurately fire off a shot, faster than I can with the thumb safety on. And please don't say that's just a lack of practice on my part. That would be pure ignorance. Being left handed, growing up, people tried to get me to do things the "Right" way. No thank you. I am very good at adapting. I don't need or want an ambi safety or a left handed gun. I can handle the gun just the way it is.

But by all means, if you can find an article showing a person who was injured or died because they carried their 1911A1 in condition-2, I will definitely rethink my position.
I do not doubt you can safely carry and operate in C2.

I do doubt C2 is physically the BETTER, FASTER, and more RELIABLE way of making the weapon ready for defensive purposes. Psychologically? You bet.

I can disprove the faster; the better and more reliable are subjective.

The Lone Haranguer
February 7, 2010, 08:58 AM
Mr. Browning may not have designed it to be in Condition One 24/7, but it certainly is an option which I would take advantage of. IMO it is the most efficient way to carry it, in terms of speed into action and safety.

1911Tuner
February 7, 2010, 09:25 AM
Mr. Browning may not have designed it to be in Condition One 24/7, but it certainly is an option which I would take advantage of.

Exactly. It's an option that the design allows, and nothing more.
As far as Browning goes...he didn't design the gun alone and he didn't have complete autonomy. He was asked for a given feature, and he provided it. It was an assignment. The Army asked for a grip safety and they got one. Later, they asked for a thumb safety, and they got that, too.

It's been said that Browning "corrected" the design flaws of the 1911 with the P35...but that's also a myth. He had very little influence over the final design. He died nine years before it was completed. Like the 1911, the P35 was an assignment, and the features that were demanded were incorporated into the finished product.

If a grip safety had been mandated by the people signing the checks, the High Power would be wearing a grip safety today.

christcorp
February 7, 2010, 02:42 PM
I do not doubt you can safely carry and operate in C2.

I do doubt C2 is physically the BETTER, FASTER, and more RELIABLE way of making the weapon ready for defensive purposes. Psychologically? You bet.

I can disprove the faster; the better and more reliable are subjective.
Actually, I would argue back, that for a left-handed person, condition-2 CAN be the better, faster, and more reliable method. Assuming a right handed thumb safety, etc... Again, put in the variables as presented and don't add new ones. A basic 1911A1 off the shelf, normal safeties, etc... For me, the left handed person, condition-2 is better and faster. That's a fact. It's not opinion. Now, is that a fact for all people? No, not at all.

HorseSoldier
February 7, 2010, 02:59 PM
Three or four day old thread with over 200 posts? Wow.

Personally, I don't see much point in looking at what the original military regulations say about how to carry the 1911 -- military regulations and field manuals tend to be written by people who are so ignorant of fighting skills that the end result isn't much different than asking the Counterstrike kids on line how it should be done.

Particularly as far back as the beginning of the last century.

As other people have noted, whether or not they carried C&L'ed in WW2 or Vietnam or whatever, the reality is that military users of the 1911 today carry it cocked and locked because students of how to actually fight the weapon system have found that more adaptive. Our rifle marksmanship training from 1911 was also pretty laughable and anything but combat focused back then -- that doesn't make modern training less valid.

EddieNFL
February 7, 2010, 03:05 PM
A basic 1911A1 off the shelf, normal safeties, etc... For me, the left handed person, condition-2 is better and faster. That's a fact. It's not opinion.

And with an ambi-safety, you would be faster from C1. Fact, not opinion. Better and more reliable remain subjective.

HisSoldier
February 7, 2010, 03:30 PM
His Soldiers's post number 666?

Well, everyone has to have a post # 666 if they hang around long enough. :D


I don't know where these ideas come from.
It's not a myth. It's a fact. The older pistols weren't heat treated at all.


I didn't know that. I can't imagine designing this gun to have soft steel lockup areas.

So you would prefer an old frame, made when metallurgy techniques were far less sophisticated,


That part is a myth. Heat treating was pretty well advanced by 1911.

They couldn't heat-treat the existing slides. Later on, with better steels and advanced technology, they were able to do it.

A common technique is to machine after heat treatment, that eliminates most warpage. I very much prefer machining 28-32 RC steel over annealed steel, better finish is one reason that comes to mind. The frames on milspec 1911's are not very hard, 22-27 for the frame. The slides are called out harder 33-46, 46 RC is getting a little tougher to machine but the point is moot since it appears they did heat treat slides after machining, I'd love to see a full description of the process.

christcorp
February 7, 2010, 05:30 PM
And with an ambi-safety, you would be faster from C1. Fact, not opinion. Better and more reliable remain subjective.
Bye Bye Eddie. You just lost all respect for arguing. Go back and read. If you want to change variables, you can make the answer come out any way you want to. I took stats in college too.

SharpsDressedMan
February 7, 2010, 06:49 PM
For information puposes, a Series 80 Colt is completely safe in Condition 2, because of the firing pin block. You HAVE to depress the trigger while the hammer is cocked to engage the series 80 mechanism. Conditon 2 with the earlier 1911 mechanism does allow the gun to fire if dropped, and luck is not with you that day ( a friend of mine experienced a drop-fire). Condition 1 is established enough as "safe", or safer, that MOST people will find it the best. I am left handed, and for the 1911 pattern guns that I have that DO NOT have an ambi-safety, I use empty chamber and rely on a VERY rehearsed draw and rack to employ those guns. As has been mentioned numerous times, situational awareness will, in almost ALL circumstances, prevent the bad guy taking you cold and stupid. In reality, if you are already down to the split second to respond to his pointing a gun at you, or swinging with a knife, you are probably ALREADY out of luck. Whether you draw, swish safety, and fire, or draw-rack-fire, probably won't matter much. Better to walk around with one in the chamber and safety OFF if you are in THAT kind of an envorinment (which is what a lot of G.I.'s used to do, regulastions be damned in combat). Better yet, recognize the threat and draw your gun AHEAD of the encounter.

MythBuster
February 7, 2010, 08:47 PM
1911 tuner wrote,

"No, it won't. If the hammer falls, it'll wipe the safety off as easily as you do with your thumb...and faster to boot."

That is correct on SOME 1911's. Some, depending on how everything is fitted and how tight the detent is, the safety will block the fall of the hammer.

MythBuster
February 7, 2010, 08:51 PM
"For information puposes, a Series 80 Colt is completely safe in Condition 2, because of the firing pin block. You HAVE to depress the trigger while the hammer is cocked to engage the series 80 mechanism. Conditon 2 with the earlier 1911 mechanism does allow the gun to fire if dropped,"

If the gun is dropped on the muzzle it is possible that inertia can cause the firing pin to hit the primer hard enough to set it off.

The same thing can happen in condition one so what is your point?

Condition 2 carry is just as safe or safer than condition one.

EddieNFL
February 7, 2010, 09:50 PM
I tried it on a series 70 and it wiped it off quite easily. The safety has a definite snap when disengaged. Not sure I would want it much stiffer. Too lazy to disassemble others to check. Maybe next time I clean one.

1911Tuner
February 7, 2010, 10:14 PM
That is correct on SOME 1911's. Some, depending on how everything is fitted and how tight the detent is, the safety will block the fall of the hammer.

Not on any that I've ever seen. I think maybe the safety is being impeded by the plunger...and how easily it lets the safety move into the OFF position...but that's about all there is that can impede the hammer if the half cock gets past the sear. I wouldn't count too heavily on that happening except as a fluke. Plungers wear. Springs take a set. The design doesn't provide for the safety stud to block the hammer.

On southpaws and 1911s....

I've got a friend who is a lefty, and carries a 1911 cocked and locked...without an ambi-safety. After much diligent practice, he's learned to knock the safety off with his index finger just as the gun starts to clear leather. He's quick with this method. Works for him.

Cocking the pistol from condition two can also be accomplished with surprising speed.
The hammer is cocked while still in the holster, just as the fingers find the grip. Again...Practice is the key to making it work. If one is determined and resourceful enough, the stumbling blocks can be countered.

X-Rap
February 7, 2010, 10:38 PM
I don't care for the draw and rack method only because it takes two hands and one of those could be incapacitated, I also would avoid any manipulations of safeties and hammers while in the holster or during the draw since i think reflexes deteriorate quickly as stress is applied.
Thats just me I guess.

gc70
February 8, 2010, 01:07 AM
Originally Posted by gc70
So you would prefer an old frame, made when metallurgy techniques were far less sophisticated,

Originally Posted by HisSoldier
That part is a myth. Heat treating was pretty well advanced by 1911.

Since the older 1911s were not heat treated, the state of the art in other heat treating applications in 1911 is moot.

Originally Posted by 1911Tuner
It's not a myth. It's a fact. The older pistols weren't heat treated at all.

1911Tuner
February 8, 2010, 05:21 AM
I also would avoid any manipulations of safeties and hammers while in the holster or during the draw since i think reflexes deteriorate quickly as stress is applied

As to that, every motor movement tends to degrade under extreme stress. That's why we do things repetitively...in order to program muscle and nerve memory, and work to make it an autoresponse. Hammers were often cocked before the draw with single actions, and safeties are often thumbed off during the draw with 1911s by a good many people. I do it myself. Of course, I'd never be so presumptive to insist that anyone else do the same. Just suggestions for experimentation to see if it works for a given individual. Another tool in the box, so to speak.

I don't care for the draw and rack method only because it takes two hands and one of those could be incapacitated,

Exactly so, and...just usin' your comment to make a point...this is a point that's often made...often by the same people who observe that (some) autopistols are prone to malfunctions unless held firmly with both hands. I guess they feel like that incapacitated hand will be magically restored to function when the time comes to fire.

Oyeboten
February 8, 2010, 06:08 AM
I wonder what those old Cavalry Troopers did with their SA 45 Army Colts when they cocked them and decided not to shoot. Did those revolvers have decockers?


It is easy to de-cock a Single Action Colt or comparable Cap and Ball Revolver, with one hand, the holding Hand, as it were.


With Thumb on the Hammer Spur, one pulles the Trigger in an usual way, and, lets the Hammer part way down, then, releasing the Trigger, and letting the Hammer down gently with the Thumb, to then be brought up just enough to stay at half cock, or, while on half-cock, move the Cylinder to a dead round, and lower the Hammer fully, or, when provided for by the design,move the Cylinder to a between-CHambers part of the Cylinder, and lower the Hammer there, or, as one please


While contemorary M1911 derivitives may claim superior metalurgy, personally, I would never trust any of them to be as reliable, trouble free and durable as any early, 'plain', M1911.


For many decades, reports of feed troubles, parts breakage, or other non-reliabilty issues were very scarce, no matter the rigors and mud and War or other rough use.


Now a days, any forum or group, the troubles people have with all their new clones and derivitives is vastly more frequent and varioous than anything attributed at the time to early M1911s.

If using +P+ or whatever HOT Ammunition which is well over original spec, then sure, electing a M1911 Model/type/Brand which is a derivative or clone that supposedly has 'superior metalurgy' may be a good thing to do.



Otherwise, the Metalurgy of the time was just fine for the 1911, and had nothing to apologise for then or now.

1911Tuner
February 8, 2010, 06:47 AM
It is easy to de-cock a Single Action Colt with one hand, the holding Hand, as it were.

And even more hazardous due to the hammer nose...firing pin...resting directly on a primer unless the trigger was released at the last bit in order to catch the hammer on the tiny safety notch.

Decocking/hammer lowering on anything does require care and focus on the task at hand...no matter the design. It's not something that is typically done when one is in a hurry or under stress. Would anybody here operate a decocking lever with the gun pointed at anything that matters...or would they point the gun is a non-critical direction before doing it?

For what it's worth...Whenever I operate a gun equipped with a decocking function, I still control the hammer before actuating it...because I'm careful, and because I don't trust any mechanical device 100%.

It almost seems like people assume that the rule that states:

"Keep the gun pointed in a safe direction:

...will be strictly adhered to whenever handling all other designs...but that everybody will suddenly get stupid while decocking a 1911.

:scrutiny:

Oyeboten
February 8, 2010, 08:02 AM
Would it be too much to hope for 1911Tuner for you to quote my short mention in it's entirety?

Rather than abusing it out of context as you have?


Thank you.

1911Tuner
February 8, 2010, 08:16 AM
Okay. A cap and ball revolver hammer would rest directly on a primer, which is even more hazardous than a hammer resting on an inertial firing pin. Yeah. I know about the between chamber notches.
That requires added manipulation of the gun. The cartridge firing SAA can do that, too. The question is lowering a hammer.

I used the SAA as a sole example because it has a firing pin...like a 1911...in order to make a more direct correlation. Sorry that you took it as an affront or...abuse.

Anybody else ever used a partial quote in order to get to the meat of the matter? I assume that it would be acceptable for me...but that might be too much to hope for. :)

So, anyway...Is everybody super careful with everything except a 1911? Is it only the 1911 that they become careless with? If so...Why?

EddieNFL
February 8, 2010, 08:24 AM
Bye Bye Eddie. You just lost all respect for arguing. Go back and read. If you want to change variables, you can make the answer come out any way you want to. I took stats in college too.
Buh, Bye!

EddieNFL
February 8, 2010, 08:37 AM
Now a days, any forum or group, the troubles people have with all their new clones and derivitives is vastly more frequent and varioous than anything attributed at the time to early M1911s.

That's true about any product that's been around 100 years. Not because they were any better, but because of communications, or rather lack of.

Buying 1911s is like buying a car. You can't expect the same performance from a fly by night, low ball company as you get from those dedicated to turning out a quality product.

IMO Glock is arguably the most dependable manufacturer out there. Allow anyone to build them and check the internet, or whatever we have in a decade and see what the reputation for Glock style firearms will be.

61chalk
February 8, 2010, 09:25 AM
I carry my 1911 IWB, one in the chamber an hammer all the way down...the reason
why I carry this way is its the best for "me". But was surprized at a handgun show I
saw yesterday an the guy teaching said "NEVER" try to put the hammer down on a
1911 loaded, an then demonstrated his lack of practice an allowed the gun to fire on purpose to show why. An again said "NEVER" carry in condition 2. I have a real problem
with this statement...growing up for years I had singleshot shotguns..if I didn't shoot I
would put the hammer back down...did this for years, but guess this guy would say "NEVER" do that either...I Have "NEVER" had a misfire because of this on shotgun or my 1911....an yes I always make sure where its pointed when doing so.

X-Rap
February 8, 2010, 09:37 AM
Quote:
I wonder what those old Cavalry Troopers did with their SA 45 Army Colts when they cocked them and decided not to shoot. Did those revolvers have decockers?


It is easy to de-cock a Single Action Colt or comparable Cap and Ball Revolver, with one hand, the holding Hand, as it were.


With Thumb on the Hammer Spur, one pulles the Trigger in an usual way, and, lets the Hammer part way down, then, releasing the Trigger, and letting the Hammer down gently with the Thumb, to then be brought up just enough to stay at half cock, or, while on half-cock, move the Cylinder to a dead round, and lower the Hammer fully, or, when provided for by the design,move the Cylinder to a between-CHambers part of the Cylinder, and lower the Hammer there, or, as one please

That is the point I've been trying to make, the thumb safety on the 1911 is for securing/making it safe while eliminating all the manipulations required with other weapons of the era. To say it was not ment to be carried that way is just false, if a trooper was in action and needed to safe the weapon it took only that swipe and it could be holstered and the horse brought under control or what ever other activity he was required to do while not able to be attentive to the weapon.
In today's world as has been said the police officer or citizen typically carries under the condition of imminent danger with regards to weapons condition whereas a soldier by doctrine does not carry with a loaded chamber at all times.

If you enjoyed reading about "Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!