1911 grip safety: why?

[Old Fuff]

jc2:

It wasn't intended to be thumb cocked.

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

 

[jc2]

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

 

[1911Tuner]

Lanyard Loop

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

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

 

[MCgunner]

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

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

 

[Azrael256]

The Army never endorsed hammer-down-on-a-loaded-chamber (Condition 2) carry, but only Condition 3 (empty chamber, loaded magazine) and Condition 1 (Cocked-and-locked.)

That is my impression as well. From FM 23-35 Automatic Pistol Caliber .45 M1911 and M1911A1:
"The slide and hammer being thus positively locked, the pistol may be carried safely at full cock and it is only necessary to press down the safety lock... when raising the pistol to the firing position." The grip safety tang being useful for lowering the hammer is mentioned, but not as a method for carry.

Two other things strike me as very interesting from this manual. They indicate a completely differend mindset about the pistol. First, there are two safeties on the pistol: the grip safety and the disconnector. The thumb safety is just a convenient add-on that locks up the slide and hammer. The other (Tuner is about to feel a disturbance in the force) is "If it is desired to make the pistol ready for instant use and for firing the maximum number of shots with the least possible delay, draw back the slide, insert a cartridge by hand into the chamber of the barrel, allow the slide to close..."

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

 

[1911Tuner]

Exceptions

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

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

 

[1911Tuner]

A Disturbance in the Force

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

Nannoo! Nannoo!

 

[MCgunner]

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

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

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

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

 

[1911Tuner]

Addendum to the Disturbance

Oh yeah...

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

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

 

[Jim Watson]

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

 

[Azrael256]

Nannoo! Nannoo!

Hey, I didn't write it. Blame the army!

Why would you need a non-slip grip on a hammer...on a gun...that should never be carried in Condition 2?

It does stand to reason that the spur and serrations are there for a reason other than looking cool. The whole attutude surrounding the manual of arms has changed dramatically over the years. Reading the old FM, they're almost describing a different pistol.

 

[Old Fuff]

jc2:

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

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

"1. The hammer spur was made wider by adding flanks to both sides of the hammer in order to provide more thumb contact during cocking."

Subsequent changes lengthened the hammer spur. Then in 1913 Army Ordance considered, (but rejected) an entirely different hammer with a long but narrow hammer spur that was almost vertical. It was proposed by a cavalry officer, so that it (the hammer) "could be more easily cocked by hand."

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

 

[jc2]

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

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

 

[AirForceShooter]

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

AFS

 

[1911Tuner]

Wedge

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

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

 

[sm]

You smart folks know better than I ...

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

 

[Old Fuff]

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

 

[MCgunner]

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

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

 

[Whirlwind06]

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

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

 

[gc70]

It does stand to reason that the spur and serrations are there for a reason other than looking cool.

I sorta' like the 'looking cool' option.

 

[Old Fuff]

Crappy ammo?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jc2]

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

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

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

 

[Old Fuff]

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

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

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

 

[Jim Watson]

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

 

[jc2]

OF -

Regardless of FM-23-35, the practice of carrying the pistol with the hammer down on a loaded chamber was far more common then going cocked & locked until Jeff Cooper.

It probably was in non-military circles. Your original question to me, however, concerned intent--not what was actual practice with non-military users (which doesn't necessarily equate to what was intended which is what I thought you and I were talking about based on your Post #26 comments to me).

As for cocked & locked before Cooper, it was evidently common in some campaigns in the Pacific. From Ordnance Went Up Front by Roy F. Dunlap:

In the Pacific pistols were chiefly valuable against infiltrating Japs sneaking into our areas at night, and in foxholes or close-quarters fights handguns were easy to point and shoot in a hurry. I saw dozens of .45's carried loaded and at full cock at all times in front areas of the Ast Cavalry Division, with the thumb safey in place.

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