Great article about the 1911, good and bad

RustyShackelford said:

The 1911 market really boomed around 2000 or so.

Click to expand...

I've wondered how much the hi-cap mag ban of the mid-90s had to do with this. Did it have a little to do with it? A lot? Nothing to do with it?

Peace,

I carried a Taurus PT92 throughout that ban, and acquired magazines for it, full 15 round.

I found the most rounds I fired in self-defense was three, and so I went in search of a package that made those three the largest and most controllable rounds I could.

I tried a S&W M19-3 4" barrel "Combat Masterpiece". I really loved it but there was too much muzzle flip for me, and at the time I didn't know how to deal with the ejector rod that kept backing out and binding the gun.

I did find that I was OK with six rounds, though, so eight rounds would also be OK.

Finally, after lots of research and shunning of the 1911 as an antiquated horse pistol that didn't carry enough, I came to know an older 'smith who liked them and was regionally known for his expertise with that platform. I learned to work on the things for about a year with him, and figured out why they were so reliable. He died and I've continued to learn.

The 1911 can be lowered in the hand so that the muzzle is practically inline with the wrist, and magazine changes can be effected very quickly. Recovery time feels subjectively like about half of the 9mm 92 because the with a low-line pistol, the elbows piston instead of the wrists bending.

I really like the robust design, the grip angle, and all the mods one can do to it that don't effect function.

For me, it was purely a paradigm shift of thought. It had nothing to do with legislation.

Josh

Post #76....

The pistol magazine capacity wasn't a major issue. The AWB ended in 2004. 4 years didn't rock the entire world re; guns & carry issues.

I think the interest in IPSC & more citizens wanting CC licenses pushed the craze for 1911s. Colts & S-As were popular, then Kimber swept in & took the lead.

The 1911 was intended to be carried chambered with the hammer down by the calvary.

Click to expand...

I agree.

John Browning’s Models’ 1900, Model 1902, 1903 Pocket Model, Military Model 1905, M1909, M1910 did not have 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 a way for the cavalry to make the pistol safe with one hand.

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:








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

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.

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 when the hammer was lowered . The Army had to find an alternative, something that did not require redesign of the M1911, and that was creating a procedure that would result in fewer accidental shootings.

So carrying the M1911 cocked and locked was instituted.

But the point is, the M1911 was not originally intended to be carried cocked and locked. All of the decision makers around the table would have been familiar with the Colt SAA revolver, would have been comfortable on lowering the hammer down, and this mode of making the M1911 safe would have been acceptable to them. If you ever handled original GI M1911’s, especially those before the M1911A1 version, you will notice how easy it is to thumb cock the action. The hammer spur is wide and the grip safety does not interfere with access to the hammer. Today’s M1911’s have beavertail grips that make access to the hammer difficult and hammer spurs are reduced in size.

The original configuration M1911 is easy to bring into action by thumb cocking and there were advocates for carrying the M1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer down:

Textbook of Pistols and Revolvers, Major Julian Hatcher, Small Arms Technical Publishing 1935.

“ Thus with the hammer down and resting on the face of the breech and the loaded cartridge in the chamber, the .45 automatic is perfectly safe and the best way to carry it is with the hammer down on a loaded cartridge. Great care should be used, however, in lowering the hammer on to a live cartridge, and two hands should always be used for this job” pg 94.

SlamFire;

Excellent information! Do you know what year the regulation was changed to carrying the 1911 cocked and locked? Did this coincide with the introduction of the 1911A1?

SlamFire;

Excellent information! Do you know what year the regulation was changed to carrying the 1911 cocked and locked? Did this coincide with the introduction of the 1911A1?

Click to expand...

No I don’t. I was very lucky to find that Small Arms Manual in a used bookshop, someone else will need to conduct their own research into when Army carry policy changed from round in chamber, hammer down, pistol in flap holster, to round in chamber, cocked and locked in flap holster. The second condition had to be before WW2, so long that “Cooperites” had no idea of this policy. I am coining the word “Cooperites” as followers of Jeff Cooper. I have not read anything from Jeff Cooper where he states the M1911 was “designed” to be carried one way or another. However, Jeff Cooper and his crowd created self defense games, heavily influenced by the Cowboy “walk and draw” craze of the 50’s, in which you shot a number of rounds in a timed period, with the pistol starting in the holster. Of course the pistol that could be drawn quickest and fired fastest was considered the “best” combat pistol.




The M1911 could win this contest as long as it was carried cocked and locked in an open top holster. Whether it is best policy to walk into a shooting conflict with your pistol in your holster, or better to take the thing out and be ready to shoot, before it erupts, I would go for the latter. But Cooperites have carried their M1911’s cocked and locked for so long, that to justify their carry condition, they claim that the gun was originally designed to be carried this way. It was not. I am confident that their mode of carry would have been considered too dangerous prior to WW1 as a cocked hammer still makes people nervous, and those Army Officers who had seen plenty of accidental discharges with every pistol in service, from Colt SAA, to Colt New Service, would not have been comfortable with the carry mode you see today.

None of this makes any difference to Cooperites as cocked and locked is a matter of faith, not reason, and is fundamental to their belief system.

Slamfire;

Again, thank you...

Slamfire is essentially correct. However! Cooper himself advocated for using any of the modes of carry for the 1911 as needed and practicing them so as to know the gun. It was he, and not the military, who devised the Conditions of Carry 1 through 3 and some add 4.

Quote from pg. 119 of "To Ride Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth"...

In a discussion of why double action pistols are useful and popular for many things, Cooper wrote of the 1911...

"...Many people, myself included, prefer a pistol in a desk drawer or glove compartment, to rest in Condition 2. (I should note here that Bruce Nelson, who knows as much about serious pistolcraft as anyone, never uses Condition 2. I do not fault him, but I like the hammer on an untended pistol to be all the way down-possibly because I am used to houses full of children.) It is easy enough to cock a single action pistol as you pick it up-you do not "quick draw" from off the mantlepiece-but trigger cocking might just be a help under these peculiar conditions. You can always cock it if you have time, and if you have not your range is likely to be arms length."

It was the rise of the post war "Combat" oriented shooting sports, that Cooper led the way on, that led to the prevalence of Condition One carry and hence the dictum that Condition One is "The way Browning Meant It To Be".

tipoc

I tried a S&W M19-3 4" barrel "Combat Masterpiece".

Click to expand...

"Combat Magnum"-to be picky.

You're right, SwampWolf, that was my mistake.

Regards,

Josh

Pretty simple really. Everyon loves the 1911 for all the same reasons. It is very thin for a .45 caliber pistol. If set up right it can be very accurate and reliable. Can have a great trigger. And with all the different stocks, trigger sizes, mainspring shapes and so on it can be made to fit about any hand. But the down side is that the design (even though some have "modernized it") is over 100 years old.
It does take more work to keep them running right than most of the modern offerings from SIG, S&W, Glock, and so on. Most of the modern guns have drop in parts. They usually don't need to be fitted. And a SIG 220 or one of the like can hold it's own in accuracy against any 1911 and keep ticking no matter what. Love my 1911's as works of art, a piece of history, and a great shooting gun. But give me my USP 45c or G30 any day if something bad goes down and their is no gunsmith to work on it if something goes wrong.

SIGLBER said:

But the down side is that the design (even though some have "modernized it") is over 100 years old.

Click to expand...

The internal combustion engine is over 100 years old.

The telephone is over 100 years old.

Radio is over 100 years old.

Quantum theory is over 100 years old.

Wind turbines are over 100 years old.

Josh

SIGLBER said:

But the down side is that the design (even though some have "modernized it") is over 100 years old.
It does take more work to keep them running right than most of the modern offerings from SIG, S&W, Glock, and so on. Most of the modern guns have drop in parts. They usually don't need to be fitted. And a SIG 220 or one of the like can hold it's own in accuracy against any 1911 and keep ticking no matter what. Love my 1911's as works of art, a piece of history, and a great shooting gun. But give me my USP 45c or G30 any day if something bad goes down and their is no gunsmith to work on it if something goes wrong.

Click to expand...

Ummm....pardon me...

But what is the "down side" to a design that's "over 100 years old"?

We're not talking about a gun that's over 100 years old, with 100 years of wear and tear on it. We're talking about a centerfire cartridge pistol, firing perfectly good, modern production centerfire ammunition in guns whose modern manufacture is based on the DESIGN, which is over 100 years old.

Honestly...centerfire semi automatic pistols just haven't changed that much in the last 100-plus years, regardless of the make and model. Different calibers, different materials in construction, different appearances. But they're ALL a variation of function which lends to semiautomatic fire.

Some have a moving slide. Some have a bolt. Some have a fixed barrel and some do not. Some have a unique gas operated action. But they really ain't all that different.

And honestly...where do people get all this "It does take more work to keep them running right than most of the modern offerings from (fill in the blank)?"

I have a Colt 1991A1, unmodified in any way, which has had NO work at all to keep in running. And I've had it since 1991. None of the other Colts that I, or one of my brothers, has had over the decades has EVER had to have "more work to keep them running right than...". At best, he and I have changed the recoil springs out every 5,000 rounds.

NONE of the .45's I ever used in the Navy had any problems.

And what's not "drop-in" about a Colt .45? Customize ANY gun and you may have drop in problems...but a factory one? Nope.


Sheesh.

Most of our firearms operating systems today are evolved, albeit refined, versions of 100 year old designs.

If it ain't broke, make it better!

Ummm....pardon me...

But what is the "down side" to a design that's "over 100 years old"?

Click to expand...

Hmm, well, ahhh -- for those who always have to have the Latest Thing, it isn't the Latest Thing!

t

Vern Humphrey said:

Hmm, well, ahhh -- for those who always have to have the Latest Thing, it isn't the Latest Thing!

Click to expand...

Neither is the old Model 51, but that didn't stop Remington from releasing its successor.

meanmrmustard said:

t
Neither is the old Model 51, but that didn't stop Remington from rereleasing its successor.

Click to expand...

Will they drop that thing (not really familiar with it) or work out the kinks?

Well...I suppose if one just HAS to have the latest thing, so be it.




Like I told someone at work who was talking about the 6th generation iPhone that's out now:

"Awesome! That's six generations of phones I've saved money on by not buying! How much money has that saved me?"

I got a chuckle from him about that!

peacebutready said:

Will they drop that thing (not really familiar with it) or work out the kinks?

Click to expand...

I hope they fix it.

I'm a huge fan of the M51 operating system. It was solid, but overshadowed at the time because of its expense to make.

Now, we are dealing with QC issues rather than enjoying that old 51 in a 9x19 that we were promised.

I'll buy one in a year or two. Gen 2 R51s will be awesome!!!

Let's see...

Over 90% of all bolt action rifles being manufactured today are based on the Mauser 98. Not 1998 mind you but 1898.

Our still widely used and near indestructible basic lever action rifle are also old and still in production. The latter that weren't designed by Marlin were born of the work of Browning (The Winchester 1886, 1892, 1894, and 1895).

We need not discuss machine guns or shotguns (a few of which were also designed by J.M. Browning).

It's lucky Marine snipers have a gunsmith handy to keep those old Remingtons up and running. Rickety old designs. They can barely hit a thing at 1000 yards.

Come to it isn't the AR on to 50 years yet?

tipoc

1911s are popular for a reason. The shoot very well and they are very comfortable. I got sucked in on the articles about the HK45 being the best combat .45 available and bought one. I have medium hands and I could not shoot it accurately or comfortably because of the trigger and wide grip. I like polymer guns in 9mm, but if I'm shooting .45s its going to be from a 1911. I've been shooting them for years and haven't experienced any more failures in them than I have anything else. Mainly just worn out magazine springs causing problems with the last round.

Quoted from RetiredUSNChief: (and Thanks for your service.)
"None of the other Colts that I, or one of my brothers, has had over the decades has EVER had to have "more work to keep them running right than..."

I tire of this, too. Even on the 1911-specific forums, sometimes you'd think there never was a 1911 made that didn't need to be "tweaked, tuned or adjusted" in some way.

Shoot 'em. Clean and lube them. Go shoot 'em again - just like every other model/style of gun I own.

Mine have all been excellent in operation. (Even the dreaded 3" barreled one I used to own!) I have an 11 year-old Springfield that had a few hangups with certain JHP's when it was new. No issues with that one in many years and it never was "tweaked", whatever issue it had worked itself out with rounds fired. I have a newer Colt o1991 that has been 100%. I recently had a Sig C3 that had a minor issue that had to be taken care of under warranty but it had nothing to do with reliability or accuracy. (An out of spec or incorrectly installed series 80 plunger prevented re-assembly after field stripping.) Had I not sent it back it likely would have fired until it was just too fouled to function.

God Bless those gun buyers who are blissfully unaware of what goes on on the forums. They go to a gun shop and choose a 1911 because of looks, feel, tradition, salesmanship at the counter....whatever, and go about their business shooting and enjoying it for many years not realizing what a horrible choice they've made.

One thing to keep in mind is that historically speaking, the firearms market has a history of being absolutely merciless when it comes to making poorly designed and troublesome firearms. There might be a brief marketing flurry based on hype or politics for a particular firearm, but very shortly Father Time puts his mark on these things by stamping them into the dirt, so to speak.

It's difficult enough for good manufacturers to be successful...darn near impossible for bad ones.

100 years of ANYTHING should speak volumes.

This isn't to say improvements and advancements can't be made...just that you can't call something "old" as necessarily being "bad", "outdated", or "inferior" just based on the age of the design.

Cartridge based firearms revolutionized the firearms industry and quickly overran muzzle loading weapons for various very good reasons. However, cartridge based firearms themselves have yet to see ANYTHING on the horizon which even comes close to making them obsolete. Good designs will be around for a LONG time, with few really distinctive and meaningful changes.

There can be feeding problems with the 1911 and hollowpoint ammunition. There are no feeding problems apparently with the 357 SIG with it's necked-down case. That is partly why the Texas DPS dumped the 1911 for the SIGs, which the agency recently dumped for 9mm handguns, which have now been eliminated in favor of the SIGs. It's your life.

There can be feeding problems with the 1911 and hollowpoint ammunition.

Click to expand...

I keep hearing that argument, but honestly...I haven't actually seen it much except on pistols that Dremel Dan has been at or that are hopelessly out of spec.

I've got several stock, unaltered USGI pistols from both world wars that eat Winchester and Remington hollowpoints like grease thru a goose...from proper magazines.

And the few un-Bubba-ed examples that give problems most often give problems with hardball, too.

And about 90% of the issues I've seen were handled with a proper magazine.

And sometimes it's the extractor, which is pretty simple and easy to correct.

I'm startin' to suspect that this is an urban legend.