1911 half cock problem; assistance please.

[Greg528iT]

David E says

If 1/2, then something needs to break or already be broken for the hammer to fall.

I agreed it was designed as a "safety."

The real question is: "why would anyone chamber load a 1911, then lower the hammer to 1/2 cock when page 16 of the owners manual specifically states NOT to manually lower the hammer and that the sear engaged in the 1/2 cock notch is NOT a safe carry condition?"

contradictory things.

I've been reading this forum long enough to see that JMB designed the hammer to be a safety and therefore is a safe carry condition.

If the 1/4 cock position is just a cost saving modification (makes sense) that was allowed to be installed on a series 80 pistol with a firing pin block, even if the hammer fell off the shelf the firing pin is blocked and therefore safe. (well you know, as safe as the series 80 firing pin block is) and by admission, the hammer can not generate enough speed to induce a primer strike, then it's also safe (well kind of.. again.. gun = unsafe)

anything on a pistol that is broken = unsafe. Things break, it's part of how this world is, nothing is perfect, things break. Once the gun hit the floor until it is inspected to be unbroken it should be considered unsafe.

 

[Sky]

http://youtu.be/tGrH33uWCVk

Disassembled the 1911 down to the frame. It has been a long time and to many pistols so it was nice to have the visual and verbal from the above video. To my eye there was no damage or excessive wear on any of the components. It appears I have the JMB type hammer on the ACll. I never dreamed there would be so much discussion on the technicalities of the trigger mechanism of the 1911.

This all came about as I was in the study with my wife letting me know we were late and needed to leave. I was not taking the 1911 with me but another pistol. I dropped the mag and took the round out of the chamber and lowered the hammer to the half cock position while placing the pistol on the printer as I left the room. Printer top is glossy and smooth and has a 10 to 15 degree slope to it but the pistol seemed secure. I had planned on doing the every couple of months cleaning and lubing of the pistol but obviously I did not have time to start the procedure. Printer did a diagnostic while we were gone and when I came home the 1911 was on the floor. Stuff happens.

All the safeties work and the pistol functions just fine except with a hard pull it will snap the hammer to full closed? Weird....All parts looked almost new with no deformation or breakage.

 

[1911Tuner]

All the safeties work and the pistol functions just fine except with a hard pull it will snap the hammer to full closed?

Then the captive notch is either damaged or it's out of spec.

Because JMB wanted them to in the original patent?

I don't think so.

Because they're trying to re-enact their great grandad's last cavalry charge?

By placing a loaded gun on-safe and pulling the trigger?

You must know some strange people.

The 1911 was specifically designed to be able to be able to lower the hammer using one hand (SAA took two hands). That's why the hammer releases the grip safety when you pull it further back than full cock. You pull the hammer back with the thumb of your hand, then pull the trigger with the trigger finger of the same hand and carefully lower the hammer. All of this is described in the patent.

Exactly..and the half-cock is also described as the "Safety Position."

The later addition of the thumb safety pretty much negated the use of the half-cock as a safety, but the captive notch remains...so it can be used as a safety if the owner so chooses. So can Condition 1, 2, or 3. They're all options. I never advise anyone to use one over the other. I outline the choices, explain the functions, and leave it to them to decide.

 

[Sky]

All the safeties work and the pistol functions just fine except with a hard pull it will snap the hammer to full closed?

Then the captive notch is either damaged or it's out of spec

I figure that^^ is the case too; but in a sneaky way I was very pleased nothing was sheared or broken.

 

[45_auto]

Because they're trying to re-enact their great grandad's last cavalry charge?

By placing a loaded gun on-safe and pulling the trigger?

You must know some strange people.

Okay, how do you lower the hammer to half-cock on a loaded 1911? It'd take a lot more than strange to be able to do it without pulling the trigger.

 

[David E]

I figure that^^ is the case too; but in a sneaky way I was very pleased nothing was sheared or broken.

But if a hard pull of the trigger drops the hammer from a captive 1/2 cock, SOMETHING is wrong and needs to be fixed.

 

[rcmodel]

Well, you don't do it with it on safe I betcha.

And I don't lower the hammer to the half-cock on a loaded 1911.

Either lower it all the way down against the slide, or leave it cocked & locked.

Had the OP's gun been left to fall on the hammer in either postion, nothing at all would have happened to it.

rc

 

[1911Tuner]

But if a hard pull of the trigger drops the hammer from a captive 1/2 cock, SOMETHING is wrong and needs to be fixed.

Not unless he actually uses it as a safe carry position. As long as it stops the hammer from following the slide all the way down, it functions exactly like a flat shelf.

 

[David E]

And...you've got documentation of all these lawsuits, I suppose?

I didn't say there were 1000's of lawsuits, only 1000's of people using 1000's of 1911's uncovered the flaw(s) of the 1911. A few of those resulted in lawsuits.

You don't snark me and I won't respond in kind. That way, we can maintain a little civility.

Sure. Just don't get all over me on statements I never made.

On a quick side note, what's your desired hammer hook spec? PM me if you wish, but I'm just after a number. Thanks.

 

[Greg528iT]

1000's of people using 1000's of 1911's who discovered the design flaw(s) and apparently sued Colt enough to mandate a warning that the "1/2 cock notch is not a safe way to carry it" on page 16 of the owners manual.

at least use the edit function to change what you said. the "and" indicates 1000s sued.

Page 16? is that out of the Series 80 owners manual? We've already determined that a Series 80 had moved from the SAFE 1/2 cock to the 1/4 cock shelf. Most likely due to cost cutting constraints.

 

[1911Tuner]

Most likely due to cost cutting constraints.

And that was likely because the captive notch wasn't being used very much...if any...because Jeff Cooper's Modern Pistol Technique had spread far enough that practically everybody was carrying cocked and locked.

i.e. "If it's not being used anyway, what's the point?"

 

[David E]

at least use the edit function to change what you said. the "and" indicates 1000s sued.

At least read the rest of it "sued Colt ENOUGH."

I can see where you can interpret it to be 1000's of lawsuits, but you can also interpret it the way I meant it. Which was to show that one man, doing something 24 or even 1000 times successfully, can't compare with 1000's of men's experiences.

Page 16? is that out of the Series 80 owners manual?

Why, no, it's Page 16 of the Colt Series 70 Model. Ten seconds on google would've shown you that.

We've already determined that a Series 80 had moved from the SAFE 1/2 cock to the 1/4 cock shelf.

I brought up the distinctly two different types of hammer, the one with 1/2 cock and the one with 1/4 cock, to help the OP determine if he really had a problem, since they function differently.

the SAFE 1/2 cock

Colt says carrying a 1911 chamber loaded is NOT a safe way to carry it in their Series 70 manual. Argue with them that they are wrong, not me.

Most likely due to cost cutting constraints.

As has been already pointed out, with current maching technology, cost has nothing to do with it. If that's the case, then why change something that supposedly has worked without a hitch for 70+ years? Maybe.....just maybe...there was a problem.

 

[Greg528iT]

Argue with them that they are wrong, not me.

What Tuner is saying, I agree with, and you did once.. that the original 1/2 Cock JMB designed is a safety and stated such on the patent for the 1911.

with current machining technology, cost has nothing to do with it.

you must not know much about current or past machining technology. Cutting the 1/2 cock notch into a hammer takes MORE time. More time = more money. MIM technology was NOT used when Colt went to the Series 80 pistol way back when. Now that Colt can acquire parts that are MIM, yes the cost would be somewhat mute, but, then they would have to change the drawings, (more money)

 

[David E]

What Tuner is saying, I agree with, and you did once.. that the original 1/2 Cock JMB designed is a safety and stated such on the patent for the 1911.

I have never disagreed that JMB designed 1/2 cock as a safety, so you're misrepresenting what I said. I also said that there is often a big difference between "intent" of the design and what works best in actual use.

you must not know much about current or past machining technology. Cutting the 1/2 cock notch into a hammer takes MORE time. More time = more money.

Ok, since you obviously know about these things, how much more time? Please be specific.

Now that Colt can acquire parts that are MIM, yes the cost would be somewhat mute, (SP) but, then they would have to change the drawings, (more money)

Time will tell.

 

[jimbo555]

If it's a copy of a series 80 colt it's normal for the hammer to fall from half cock. My Colt new agent does it and Colt told me it's normal. It's not enough distance to fire a round,I tried it.

 

[icanthitabarn]

OH NOOOOOOO

 

[1911Tuner]

Ok, since you obviously know about these things, how much more time? Please be specific.

He's correct. I touched on that earlier. The captive notch is an added step. Because it's a small cut, it's not exactly a hogging procedure, and because it creates a relatively thin cross-section...it requires a bit of finesse. It requires tooling like jigs and fixtures and setup time. It also ties up a machine and a machinist...per hammer cutting station.

When Colt went to the new Series 80 design, the hammers were blanked...a sort of punch and die operation...to within a few thousandths of finished dimension, requiring basically no more than a finishing cut done in one pass, and it's very likely that the hammer hooks and the quarter-cock shelf are done on the same machining center with the same setup.

In contract work, any step that can be eliminated will be eliminated. Time is money when there's a deadline. So, the question remains.

Why go to the trouble and expense to machine a captive notch if all it was supposed to be was a means to arrest the hammer when a flat shelf would serve exactly the same purpose?

 

[David E]

He's correct. I touched on that earlier. The captive notch is an added step.

The question remains: How much longer? Hours? Minutes? Seconds?

Why go to the trouble and expense to machine a captive notch if all it was supposed to be was a means to arrest the hammer when a flat shelf would serve exactly the same purpose?

This statement is totally opposite of what you've been arguing all this time....and I agree with it.

 

[1911Tuner]

The question remains: How much longer? Hours? Minutes? Seconds?

Well, I don't know, David. In the time that I was in a tool and die shop, none of it was spent machining 1911 hammers.

This statement is totally opposite of what you've been arguing all this time....and I agree with it.

Uh...no, it's not exactly opposite to what I've been saying. Let me rephrase it.

Why go to the trouble and expense of machining a captive notch unless it's intended to be used as a safety?

If all it was ever intended to be was a means to arrest an errant hammer, it would have been a lot faster and cheaper to have simply cut a flat shelf...even with a hammer that's completely machined from barstock.

Let's keep in mind that this was a contract for tens of thousands of pistols, and eventually hundreds of thousands. A savings of 10 cents and 10 minutes per hammer would make a serious difference...and this isn't even considering freeing up a machine and a man so that they could be put to other uses and further expedite delivery of the contract.

Neither Colt nor any of the other contractors who built the guns were in it for giggles. They were in it to make money. Time and machinery...and every single man hour...is money.

 

[Old Fuff]

Sometimes to find answers it is necessary to go back and do what both Tuner and I have done - study the history from the beginning.

The basic 1911 pistol evolved from earlier ones that begin at Colt's when they introduced the first of a series of Browning/Colt designed pistols. It was called the "Automatic Colt Pistol. Browning's Patent, Calibre .38” and also "Colt's Pistol, Model 1900. It had neither a safety lock (manual safety) or grip safety. The hammer had a half-cock notch, and it was intended to be used as a carry position. Browning had used the same feature for the same purpose on earlier lever-action rifles produced by Winchester, and the 1893 and '87 pump-action shotguns.

As it was originally designed Colt's 1903 Pocket Pistol had an enclosed hammer, and both a safety lock and grip safety, but there was no half-cock position on the hammer. Colt added a half-cock ledge later.

All of the pistols that were designed by Browning that had exposed, “thumb-cockable” hammers also, without exception, had half-cock notches that could be, and were expected to be carry options. A second purpose was to catch a hammer that was unintentionally released from falling to the point where it could impact the firing pin. The latter requires either a notch or ledge; the former should have a notch that will hold the sear captive.

 

[David E]

Well, I don't know,....

Interesting....

Why go to the trouble and expense of machining a captive notch unless it's intended to be used as a safety?

Why do you insist on repeatedly beating this dead horse on a circular rabbit trail? I never disagreed over what JMB's original intent was.

Despite JMB's original intent, Colt, the original manufacturer, states on page 16 of the Series 70 owners manual that it's not safe to carry a 1911 on 1/2 cock. Your argument is with them, not me.

 

[GLOOB]

^I agree. Perhaps the actual practice did not live up to the original intent. Or perhaps it's just lawyers going overboard.

Either way, most modern safe pistol designs rely on firing pin blocks. The mass of the firing pin is a bit more manageable to design a block for, compared to relying on the sear (same bit of metal that must also allow a crisp 5 lb break, stoned and shaped to perfection) to hold a half cock notch in the case of a fall on the back of the hammer, which can put an incredible amount of force on this part considering the gun weighs 100 times more than the firing pin.

Would it stop a drop-fire? If used properly, it most probably would. Could it cause more damage to the gun than if the hammer were all the way down? Yeah, I'd think so. In the latter case, you might dent the hammer spur. But you'd just be compressing the hammer face against the back of the slide, and there'd be pretty close to zero chance for a drop-fire. You wouldn't be crushing a little piece of the sear against the 1/2 cock notch and trusting that something isn't going to fracture (hammer, hammer pin, sear pin) and allow a drop-fire. If not that, then another valid worry - that you will bend/round/chip/break the tip of the sear and ruin your trigger job or even create an unsafe sear engagement. And if this seems fanciful, take a few seconds to ponder the amount of force that can be garnered from dropping a 16 oz framing hammer, then multiply that by 3. Yeah, fall out of the holster when ur taking a dump, no problem. Fall off of a deck, down a stairwell, flung during an altercation, motorcycle accident, etc, and just imagine.

Now, I'm sure Colt's manuals wouldn't touch the subject of manually lowering the hammer, at all. But for people who plan to CARRY a chambered round with hammer down, despite the warnings against, it seems like it is technically better to have the hammer all the way down. Consider that this is nearly the whole entire reasoning behind an inertial firing pin to begin with! And the 1/4 cock notch actually makes it safer and easier to lower the hammer all the way. I don't think this needs any explanation.

 

[bigfatdave]

after all this back-and-forth ...
do we know what is going on inside Sky's pistol yet?

because it is all sort of silly until we know what type it should have and what type it has after the fall

 

[1911Tuner]

Despite JMB's original intent, Colt, the original manufacturer, states on page 16 of the Series 70 owners manual that it's not safe to carry a 1911 on 1/2 cock.

Liability concerns, David. It's not the carry at half-cock that they're worried about. It's getting it there that's risky, especially when they don't know how many people actually understand how to do it. Like Condition Two...once it's there, it's fine. Getting it there is another matter. Keep reading. You'll probably come to the part that cautions you not to load the gun until you're ready to shoot it. Maybe you should carry it empty with the magazine in your pocket. That way, it's completely safe.

Interesting....

Why do you find that so interesting? I've never made a hammer, nor have I ever worked in a job shop that made hammers. Do you expect someone who's never studied Spanish to be able to speak it fluently? Mass production is something I was involved with for most of my life. Machine shops and tool and die shops, I've got experience with setup, machine time, and projected tool life.

If an engineer or designer can figure a way to save 10 cents and 10 minutes on a part that's involved in a million unit contract, the front office breaks out the champagne and writes a sizeable bonus check.

The OP has contacted me and asked me to close the thread. It's probably time to let it die. His original question has been addressed, and so has the question of the purpose of the half-cock...both Series 80 and pre-80.