Carrying Single Action with Hammer Down

[pale horse]

This topic rears it ugly head every few months just like the 9mm vs the 45acp. In both cases the bottom line is this CARRY WHAT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH AND CARRY IT THE WAY YOU TRAIN TO USE IT. Nothing more or less. Its getting tired and worn out debating these same topics that come up and end in the same way. If you really dont want to carry it cocked and locked DONT. However if it is faster for you to carry it cocked and locked DO IT. Dont force your uber way of carry on someone else, its their choice to carry their weapon the way they want to.....

So drop it.

 

[Drakejake]

I admit that I am concerned about manually lowering a hammer on a live round. I can understand that people wouldn't want to do this on a single action. I also understand that many people would rather not manually cock the pistol before firing it. I wouldn't say such people are wrong. I will say that the idea of keeping a single action cocked and locked for weeks, months, or years doesn't appeal to me. I don't want to stress the spring in my Star PD since I probably could not find a replacement. But I think this duscussion is useful.

Drakejake.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You've pretty much laid it out -- Condition 3 is pretty bizzare for a horseman. And how do you uncock a M1911 one-handed?

That means, even if you DO put it in condition 2 at first, you still have to holster it in condition 1, as long as you remain mounted.

Now, the gun was in the inventory some three-quarters of a century, and over that time, many an firearms-challenged man wrote doctrine (for example, the current manual on pistols and revolvers shows the wrist grip and "teacupping" as ways to shoot a pistol, but doesn't illustrate the Weaver grip.) So we can expect to find errors and myths in manuals written later.

But at the time, handling a pistol on horseback was something many armies were concerned about. And note that the US Army did not go with some of the foreign 'solutions" -- like rowel hammers (for cocking on the leg) or holsters designed for cocking one-handed.

 

[MoNsTeR]

I think the fact that JMB's original design submission(s) lacked a thumb safety, and the fact that both the 1911 and BHP were designed with unusably small thumb safeties and huge hammer spurs, indicates what condition it was designed to be carried in.

This is, of course, purely academic at this point, but there it is all the same.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The original design lacked a GRIP safety -- that was added at the Army's insistance.

But clearly, the insistance that a safety be added is an indication that the Army's envisioned tactical usage of the gun differed from Browning's technical vision.

 

[seeker_two]

Sorry, Vern...

History of the 1911

First one JMB sent to the pistol trials. No safeties there...

Condition 2 mandated in the beginning & not a bad carry method now...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Sorry Seeker two -- that's NOT the pistol the Army adopted.

John M. Browning was NOT the commander of the Army.

The ARMY wanted a pistol that could be carried in what we call Condition One today, and when Browning produced a pistol that didn't meet those needs, they sent him back to the drawing board.

I repeat, the Cavalry acted as what today we call the "Functional Proponent" for the pistol, and they wanted one that could be put on safe and holstered.

IF what the ARMY wanted was a pistol that could have the hammer lowered one-handed, they'd have accepted a pistol with no safety lock and never asked for a grip safety.

 

[seeker_two]

IF what the ARMY wanted was a pistol that could have the hammer lowered one-handed, they'd have accepted a pistol with no safety lock and never asked for a grip safety.

They did...the Colt SAA.

What they wanted was an automatic pistol that could be drawn, fired, and made safe for reholstering w/ one hand while mounted. Most "horse soldiers" of that time were still carrying SAA's even when the rest of the Army went to DA revolvers, so thumb-cocking a hammer was not foreign to them. In fact (as stubborn as they were toward change), they probably WANTED one that could be thumb-cocked (remember, the Luger design was rejected twice). Since they had had ND's w/ the SAA's d/t the cocked hammers, they wanted something that wouldn't discharge when holstered or dropped--regardless of the hammer position.

When JMB & Savage entered their .45 pistols in the service trials, both entries were sent back several times for design modifications. The two finalists were literally "designed by commitee". Fortunately for us, the 1911 was a success.

As I said before...

Condition 2 mandated in the beginning & not a bad carry method now...

 

[Country Boy]

CARRY WHAT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH AND CARRY IT THE WAY YOU TRAIN TO USE IT. -pale horse-

Amen.

Personally, I have a problem pulling the trigger on a gun I don't want to discharge when there is a loaded round in the chamber, but to each his own.

If there was a decocking lever, that would be a different story. By pulling the trigger, I set into motion a chain of events that normally ends in a round being fired. I don't want my thumb to be the only thing keeping a bullet from going into a safe backstop. I don't believe that is safe, even if I have done it hundreds of times.

But refer to quote in bold above.

 

[treeprof]

I will say that the idea of keeping a single action a single action cocked and locked for weeks, months, or years doesn't appeal to me. I don't want to stress the spring in my Star PD since I probably could not find a replacement.

Not true. Springs wear largely from repeated stretching an compression, not constant tension or compression. And you can buy most any spring you need from Wolff, incl. for Star .45's.

http://www.gunsprings.com/SemiAuto/StarNF.html#StarPD

I'll repeat my comment from the other thread: don't make firing the gun any more complicated than necessary. The beauty of the SA auto is the absence of a lot of unnecessary foreplay before the action starts. But lots of folks are uneasy with C&L carry, and if that's you, then I think you need a different carry piece - one you're comfortable carrying w/out having to worry abt so much stuff.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And, as I said, the M1911 was designed for just that sort of carry -- the addition of a thumb safety and a grip safety produced the C&L carry. Without those safeties, the hammer could have been lowered one-handed. With them, no need to lower the hammer, just lock the safety and holster the gun.

 

[Handy]

Vern,

There is no evidense that the Army in 1911 was both designing a pistol and a completely new mode of carry. Certainly, the safety was added due to the difficulty of decocking one handed, but that doesn't imply that the normal carry method was the same.

Had it been available, the 1911 would probably have been built with a decocking lever. Certainly, the very similar P35 Radom was built with a decocker (since they had now been invented) and dispensed with a safety altogether. But the Army board did the best they could at the time and provided a safety that might be used until the action is over.

It's very easy to imagine those men being comfortable cocking their pistols on the draw. It is not so plausible that a man on horseback, wearing gloves, is going to want to find the miniscule safety on the early 1911 just so he could fire it.

Add to that the lower quality of springs at the time, safety concerns surrounding a new (cocked) carry mode and the use of an inertial firing pin and wide spur hammer. It seems extremely unlikely that these post-Victorian horseman would have made that many leaps of faith in the adoption of a handgun.

C&L carry evolved during and after WWII. What Cooper had to say was not old news; it was a surprising new way to carry a handgun, not a 50 year old military practice.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Let's review the bidding:

1. In general, military weapons are carried unloaded, and only loaded on the order of an officer or NCO. Unit SOP will determine when the order is given.

2. Changes to the original Browning design clearly point toward using the safety lock, not lowering the hammer, when it is desired to make the pistol safe, yet leave it loaded.

3. When the M1911 is loaded, it is very difficult for a mounted trooper to manually lower the hammer -- and in combat, virtually impossible.

4. I know of no early manual showing or prescribing the gun be carried chamber loaded, hammer down (Condition 2.)

5. I do know of early manuals showing the gun being carried cocked and locked.

Clearly the intent of the Functional Proponent -- the Cavalry -- to have a pistol which could be safely carried cocked-and-locked. And the design changes demanded by the Army point in exactly that direction.

Modern Pistol Technique takes advantage of that design.

Modern Pistol Technique did NOT redesign the pistol, or suddenly make safe what had previously been unsafe.

The M1911 is safe to carry cocked and locked. It has always been safe to carry that way, and that safety comes by virtue of Army requirements introduced during the early design phases.

 

[Handy]

Which old manual?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The two earliest I have seen are a Cavalry manual of the 1920s, the property of a friend whose father served in horse cavalry, and FM 22-5, with editions going back to the beginning of time in the Infantry School library at Fort Benning.

FM 22-5 even included drill for pack mules and horse-drawn artillery and covered the manual of arms mounted and dismounted.

 

[Mannlicher]

There are some scary things tossed around in this thread. No rational person, no knowledgable person would carry ANY single action .45, a Colt or clone (which the Star is for most intentions) with the hammer down on a round.

 

[seeker_two]

Let's review the review...

1. At the time of the 1911's introduction, most countries were still using service REVOLVERS (incl. the USA) which were kept loaded. The Cavalry kept their SAA's loaded & ready to fire at all times. I doubt they would want an autopistol that didn't allow the same level of preparedness (i.e. Luger)

2. Granted, however that was for use ONLY when the shooter was mounted and needed to safe his weapon after firing--not before. Most troops tend to prepare their weapons for combat BEFORE combat. Not hard to load the 1911 & lower the hammer BEFORE you mount your horse.

3. See above.

4. Granted. But I don't have an original JMB owner's manual handy.

5. In the scenario mentioned in #2, it would be holstered C&L. But not before. In fact, most military manuals mandate Condition 3 carry--but most of those came well after the 1911's introduction.

I also look at another organization that widely used the 1911 pistol--the Texas Rangers. Colt & the Rangers have had a special relationship going back over a century. The accepted practice for the Rangers was to carry their 1911's Cond. 2 and cock on the draw. And no one from Colt told them to do it any different...

 

[Handy]

No rational person, no knowledgable person would carry ANY single action .45, a Colt or clone (which the Star is for most intentions) with the hammer down on a round.

Why?


You might read this before you answer, if it applies:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13620&perpage=25&highlight=hammer&pagenumber=1

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Seeker Two:

"1. At the time of the 1911's introduction, most countries were still using service REVOLVERS (incl. the USA) which were kept loaded. The Cavalry kept their SAA's loaded & ready to fire at all times."

Actually not true -- revolvers were loaded only on command. For most duty and training, the revolver was unloaded. Units going into action loaded on command, same as today.

"2. Granted, however that was for use ONLY when the shooter was mounted and needed to safe his weapon after firing--not before."

Which was critical -- especially for horse cavalry. That's why the grip safety -- which made it almost impossible for a man on horseback to lower the hammer was added -- because the preferred method was to put the gun on safe, not to lower the hammer.

"Most troops tend to prepare their weapons for combat BEFORE combat. Not hard to load the 1911 & lower the hammer BEFORE you mount your horse."

The command to load for mounted action was almost always given from horseback. The pistol was locked and carried in "raise pistol" as the unit approached the enemy.

3. See above.

4. Granted. But I don't have an original JMB owner's manual handy.

JMB didn't write the manual -- the Army did. It was an Army pistol, after all, and incorporated features mandated by the Army, even over JMBs objections.

"5. In the scenario mentioned in #2, it would be holstered C&L. But not before."

That's correct. And it was designed to permit safe C&L carry under those circumstances, by specific changes to Browning's original design.

"In fact, most military manuals mandate Condition 3 carry--but most of those came well after the 1911's introduction."

As I said, military manuals DID mandate Condtion 3, or even unloaded carry UNTIL the order to load was given -- but once the pistol WAS loaded, it was normally carried cocked and locked, not with the hammer lowered.

The crux of this argument is simple -- the pistol was designed for cocked-and-locked carry WHEN loaded and not immediately needed. Hammer down carry was not part of the original Army concept, and the Army demanded changes to Browning's original design that moved AWAY from hammer-down carry and TOWARD cocked-and-locked carry.

 

[Gerald McDonald]

In the firearms manual 23-35 on page 19 line I it states (this is for range use) to never lower the hammer on a loaded cartridge, the pistol is much safer cocked and locked. Makes it sound like they didnt want the hammer down on a live one.

www.sightm1911.com/manual/manual.htm

 

[Vern Humphrey]

And let that be the last word in THIS argument.

The manual in question is dated 1940, and prepared under the proponancy of the Chief of Cavalry. The referenced sub-paragraph reads:

"i. On the range, do not load the pistol with a cartridge in the chamber until immediate use is anticipated. If there is any delay, lock the pistol and only unlock it while extending the arm to fire. Do not lower the hammer on a loaded cartridge; the pistol is much safer cocked and locked." (My emphasis.)

 

[Handy]

Hey Vern,

Why do you say that the grip safety prevents decocking with one hand? Ever tried it? The grip safety is deactivated by the hammer itself.

 

[Edward429451]

Why do you say that the grip safety prevents decocking with one hand? Ever tried it? The grip safety is deactivated by the hammer itself.

No offense man but I think prevents as a modifier speaks to people of common sense as a given because handling a Colt type 45 like that would be undeniably negligent and reckless.

Even if you can do it in practice, fine motor skills go out the window when under stress or adrenelin.

 

[Cthulhu]

Handy,

I was mainly referring to Jems post, as your posts are usually logical (although sometimes uncogent .) I wanted to make sure that you were not advocating carrying a 1911 (or 1911 type, if we refer to the original posted question) in condition 2. I have no problem with advocating condition 2 when it comes to double action auto's. The CZ-75 is indeed very safe to carry in such a manner, despite the standard models lack of a decocker. Lowering a lever action's hammer to half cock is also acceptable in my mind, as that is a designed safety position. But lets address the question at hand, and compare apples to apples.

Its been argued at length about the relative safety of carrying C&L or hammer down . Even including improbable situations involving a weapon dropped forcibly and perfectly square on its muzzle, there is little difference in the mechanical safety between the two. If the situation above did occur, both are equally likely to discharge.

Some posters on the fence about carry conditions often say that they are uncomfortable with carrying the gun cocked. Some believe that the safety may suddenly come off, leaving a holstered cocked pistol. Lets examine this possibility. If you are wearing a holster with a thumbreak or safety strap, there is a piece of leather/kydex between the hammer and firing pin, and there is virtually no possibility of discharge if the grip safety is depressed and the trigger some how pulled. If it is an open topped holster or the strap is disengaged, then the pistol still needs to have the grip safety depressed and the trigger, shrouded in stiff leather/kydex/nylon, must still be pulled.

We should search out how many cases are on record of carry-type, C&L 1911s discharging while in a holster that covers the trigger and, of those, how many resulted in an injury of the wearer or bystander.

 

[seeker_two]

Vern:

Actually not true -- revolvers were loaded only on command. For most duty and training, the revolver was unloaded. Units going into action loaded on command, same as today.

I doubt too many horse soldiers waited for a command to load their revolvers. Besides, loading a SAA on horseback is fairly difficult. That would be something done BEFORE combat (like chambering a round in a 1911.)

Which was critical -- especially for horse cavalry. That's why the grip safety -- which made it almost impossible for a man on horseback to lower the hammer was added -- because the preferred method was to put the gun on safe, not to lower the hammer.

Yes---during combat. Not before.

JMB didn't write the manual -- the Army did. It was an Army pistol, after all, and incorporated features mandated by the Army, even over JMBs objections.

I would think JMB would have some say--being that it was his design & all..

The manual in question is dated 1940, and prepared under the proponancy of the Chief of Cavalry. The referenced sub-paragraph reads:

OK, but in 1940, the Cavalry went from grain-fed to gasoline-powered transportation. In that regard, Cond. 3 was mandatory on ALL weapons b/c no one wanted ricochets in their tank or jeep.

I'm not saying Cond. 1 is a poor choice for carry (it's a great way), but I don't think you can dismiss Cond. 2 out of turn, either. Carry the way you train & train the way you carry.

The grip safety is deactivated by the hammer itself.