Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!
- Thread starter Slamfire
- Start date
- Status
HisSoldier
Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,330
For the record;
I couldn't believe that 1911's made before a certain time were not heat treated in the places that really seem to need it. My gunsmith has a 1914 Gov't issue 1911, so I asked if I could test it with my Rockwell tester.
The two places I tested were the bottom of the slide where the disconnector rides and the side of the barrel in the chamber area (But where the indenter mark wouldn't show).
I was totally flabbergasted! Both areas were dead soft! The strength differences between annealed carbon steel and heat treated carbon steel are so huge that I can hardly believe my own eyes. I didn't test the frame since the greatest strength requirements are in the slide and barrel.
I knew you were a wealth of info Tuner, but this was a total shock to me that you were right on this one, I figured you had to be wrong. Theoretically the 1911 could be made much lighter with stronger alloys, though cracked frames and slides are too common to make that leap.
But it's not like you said Kimber barrels were made of MIM or anything outrageous like that.
I couldn't believe that 1911's made before a certain time were not heat treated in the places that really seem to need it. My gunsmith has a 1914 Gov't issue 1911, so I asked if I could test it with my Rockwell tester.
The two places I tested were the bottom of the slide where the disconnector rides and the side of the barrel in the chamber area (But where the indenter mark wouldn't show).
I was totally flabbergasted! Both areas were dead soft! The strength differences between annealed carbon steel and heat treated carbon steel are so huge that I can hardly believe my own eyes. I didn't test the frame since the greatest strength requirements are in the slide and barrel.
I knew you were a wealth of info Tuner, but this was a total shock to me that you were right on this one, I figured you had to be wrong. Theoretically the 1911 could be made much lighter with stronger alloys, though cracked frames and slides are too common to make that leap.
But it's not like you said Kimber barrels were made of MIM or anything outrageous like that.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
The the same question applies...to both. If it weren't meant to be a safety...why a captive notch? Why not just a simple shelf that would serve the same purpose?
On the 1873 SAA...Remember the words of J.B. Books:
"If your insides tell ya to load six...load six. Maybe that's what the captive half-cock was for. To let the defender load six when action was iminent...the same as the Army's mandate for Condition One with the 1911.
Yeah. When somebody makes a statement like that, it sorta puts the rest of his expertise in question. heh
Well...as to that...The pistol wasn't intended to be dropped on a hard surface from a height of 10 feet.
Lanyard loops had a purpose, same as everything else.
So again...Why a captive, trigger group disabling half cock just to be used as an "interceptor" for the hammer? It could have worked just as well with something simpler...on both guns.
NMGonzo
Member
Designed or not to be carried cocked and locked; to me that is the best way to carry my 1911's.
Hi 1911Tuner,
You'd said -
Do you mean resting on a Percussion Cap?
Cap and Ball Revolvers use "Percussion Caps" rather than 'primers' in any usual sense of the term.
Except that there is nothing 'dangerious' about having the Hammer 'down' on an inertial Firing Pin design, such as the original Colt-Browning Model 1911...
As for those Cap and Ball Revolvers which allow resting the Hammer between Loaded Chambers, why insist one would have to 'rest' the Hammer on a live Percussion Cap?
If, in concluding some exigency, if need be, if Cocked over a live Chamber, one de-cocks to Half Cock, re-Holsters, and, establishes whatever arrangement one wishes at liesure.
If the Arm is needed sooner than liesure for re-arrange occurs, one merely draws, goes from Half Cock to full Cock and fires.
Why make all this so un-necessarily fraught with complication?
Then why so much distortion and omitting in your insistances?
SA-Army wise...if Cocked and electing not to fire afterall, one relieves the Hammer to Half Cock, re-holsters, and, establishes whatever arrangement one wishes, later, at liesure.
If the Arm is needed sooner than liesure occurs, one merely draws, returns to full cock, and, fires.
I am sorry if my having said that de-cocking was 'easy' had offended you.
When I try it, it seems 'easy'.
I should have said that it is 'forthright', leaving to the individual, and his or her level of ability dexterity or sense, to decide for themselves what is 'easy', or, what is 'difficult'.
I would suggest though, as my own personal opinion, that if a person lacks the manual dexterity to go from full cock to half cock and back again, with a SAA or Cap and Ball SA, that they maybe should consider staying clear of SAA and Cap and Ball SA, and stay with something they can operate, instead.
As if there are any Metallic Cartridge Guns which do not have a firing Pin of some sort?
Why isn't it like a Mauser? An S&W? Or pick anything at all at random?
The M1911, and the Colt SAA are so entirely different in the manner of their Firing Pins, as to really prelude any comparison where one would say they are 'like'.
They are as different as different can be.
M1911 has an inertial, interior captive firing Pin.
SAA, the Firing 'pin' is part of the unambiguously exterior Hammer.
A Striker Firing Pin is more 'like' the M1911, than a SAA Colt Firing Pin is...in so far as they both are at least 'round', internal, and elongate anyway.
See above...partial quotes one-at-a-time, yet covering your entire mentions of your short post...
The issue is not about 'partial quotes', but rather, the quality of use, or disingenuous abuse, they are put to.
A guy asks what to do if a Single Action is cocked, how to de-cock...I provided a sincere pactical instruction.
You take part of it out of context, then badly pretend to explain what I had already explained well, while making it sound as if I had spoken carelessly or foolishly, which I had not done.
Why do this?
Anyway...
That offended me, and, if you want to keep rubbing it in and adding to it with smug asides, alright, I get the drift.
No idea...
But as for me, I fail to see how re-Holserting a SAA or Colt Cap and Ball Revolver brought from full cock to half cock, that is, re-Holstering on Half cock mode, while on Horseback, during Battle or other exigency, would be such a supposed faux-pas, especially as no practical alternative is known, nor offered, by anyone.
You'd said -
Do you mean resting on a Percussion Cap?
Cap and Ball Revolvers use "Percussion Caps" rather than 'primers' in any usual sense of the term.
Except that there is nothing 'dangerious' about having the Hammer 'down' on an inertial Firing Pin design, such as the original Colt-Browning Model 1911...
As for those Cap and Ball Revolvers which allow resting the Hammer between Loaded Chambers, why insist one would have to 'rest' the Hammer on a live Percussion Cap?
If, in concluding some exigency, if need be, if Cocked over a live Chamber, one de-cocks to Half Cock, re-Holsters, and, establishes whatever arrangement one wishes at liesure.
If the Arm is needed sooner than liesure for re-arrange occurs, one merely draws, goes from Half Cock to full Cock and fires.
Why make all this so un-necessarily fraught with complication?
Then why so much distortion and omitting in your insistances?
SA-Army wise...if Cocked and electing not to fire afterall, one relieves the Hammer to Half Cock, re-holsters, and, establishes whatever arrangement one wishes, later, at liesure.
If the Arm is needed sooner than liesure occurs, one merely draws, returns to full cock, and, fires.
I am sorry if my having said that de-cocking was 'easy' had offended you.
When I try it, it seems 'easy'.
I should have said that it is 'forthright', leaving to the individual, and his or her level of ability dexterity or sense, to decide for themselves what is 'easy', or, what is 'difficult'.
I would suggest though, as my own personal opinion, that if a person lacks the manual dexterity to go from full cock to half cock and back again, with a SAA or Cap and Ball SA, that they maybe should consider staying clear of SAA and Cap and Ball SA, and stay with something they can operate, instead.
As if there are any Metallic Cartridge Guns which do not have a firing Pin of some sort?
Why isn't it like a Mauser? An S&W? Or pick anything at all at random?
The M1911, and the Colt SAA are so entirely different in the manner of their Firing Pins, as to really prelude any comparison where one would say they are 'like'.
They are as different as different can be.
M1911 has an inertial, interior captive firing Pin.
SAA, the Firing 'pin' is part of the unambiguously exterior Hammer.
A Striker Firing Pin is more 'like' the M1911, than a SAA Colt Firing Pin is...in so far as they both are at least 'round', internal, and elongate anyway.
See above...partial quotes one-at-a-time, yet covering your entire mentions of your short post...
The issue is not about 'partial quotes', but rather, the quality of use, or disingenuous abuse, they are put to.
A guy asks what to do if a Single Action is cocked, how to de-cock...I provided a sincere pactical instruction.
You take part of it out of context, then badly pretend to explain what I had already explained well, while making it sound as if I had spoken carelessly or foolishly, which I had not done.
Why do this?
Anyway...
That offended me, and, if you want to keep rubbing it in and adding to it with smug asides, alright, I get the drift.
No idea...
But as for me, I fail to see how re-Holserting a SAA or Colt Cap and Ball Revolver brought from full cock to half cock, that is, re-Holstering on Half cock mode, while on Horseback, during Battle or other exigency, would be such a supposed faux-pas, especially as no practical alternative is known, nor offered, by anyone.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Oyboten...Sometimes partial quotes are all that's needed to convey a thought, and sometimes it's all that's needed to make a point. I mainly do it to keep other readers from having to wade through several paragraphs just to understand what my response io about. We all do it from time to time.
We can probably argue this until hell freezes over without resolve...but a few things will have to stand.
I'm not a proponent of half-cock carry, and have never done it...and I'm certainly not arguing for it...but there has to be a reason for the captive notch beyond means to simply arrest the hammer. We all understand that the preferred carry condition is C&L...but this thread is about design and intent...not about preference or personal habit.
So, I'll try to keep it focused on that point.
Whenever the question of intent is raised, we all tend to focus on one single point...in this case Cocked and Locked...without considering all the angles and all the design features. We do it because it fits our beliefs and our preferences. Truth is...We'll probably never know exactly what Browning's intent was. He may have never had one...or at least not a singular intent as to how the pistol should be carried. He may have pointed out the features of the half cock, and the Army decided that carrying the gun in that condition didn't fit their needs or requirements...and it was simply ignored. We weren't there. We didn't witness what transpired.
Browning had a penchant for redundancy in his designs, and he also very often assigned a dual role or a dual function for many parts and groups of parts. The extractor is its own spring. The disconnect is a connector and a disconnector. The barrel provides a means for locking the breech and for delaying the unlocking. The list is long.
One thing that's pretty clear is that there's a reason for every feature, and that reason may not always be clear or even evident...or even noticed...but there's a reason...an intent. I've had people argue that the pistol being its own tool box for complete disassembly is coincidence...but it's not. It was deliberate. Intent.
People have argued that half cock was never intended to provide a safe carry function...or even as a safety at all...but the design suggests otherwise. If it were no more than a means to arrest the hammer, it could have been much simpler...but it not only performs that function...it completely disables the whole fire control group and will not allow any function of the parts in the group that could potentially fire the gun until the hammer is recocked. The trigger won't move. The hammer won't move. The sear won't move. If that doesn't meet the requirements for a safety...I don't know what does.
We can probably argue this until hell freezes over without resolve...but a few things will have to stand.
I'm not a proponent of half-cock carry, and have never done it...and I'm certainly not arguing for it...but there has to be a reason for the captive notch beyond means to simply arrest the hammer. We all understand that the preferred carry condition is C&L...but this thread is about design and intent...not about preference or personal habit.
So, I'll try to keep it focused on that point.
Whenever the question of intent is raised, we all tend to focus on one single point...in this case Cocked and Locked...without considering all the angles and all the design features. We do it because it fits our beliefs and our preferences. Truth is...We'll probably never know exactly what Browning's intent was. He may have never had one...or at least not a singular intent as to how the pistol should be carried. He may have pointed out the features of the half cock, and the Army decided that carrying the gun in that condition didn't fit their needs or requirements...and it was simply ignored. We weren't there. We didn't witness what transpired.
Browning had a penchant for redundancy in his designs, and he also very often assigned a dual role or a dual function for many parts and groups of parts. The extractor is its own spring. The disconnect is a connector and a disconnector. The barrel provides a means for locking the breech and for delaying the unlocking. The list is long.
One thing that's pretty clear is that there's a reason for every feature, and that reason may not always be clear or even evident...or even noticed...but there's a reason...an intent. I've had people argue that the pistol being its own tool box for complete disassembly is coincidence...but it's not. It was deliberate. Intent.
People have argued that half cock was never intended to provide a safe carry function...or even as a safety at all...but the design suggests otherwise. If it were no more than a means to arrest the hammer, it could have been much simpler...but it not only performs that function...it completely disables the whole fire control group and will not allow any function of the parts in the group that could potentially fire the gun until the hammer is recocked. The trigger won't move. The hammer won't move. The sear won't move. If that doesn't meet the requirements for a safety...I don't know what does.
Guillermo
member
I was going to make a joke but According to the American Dictionary of Idioms you are on the right track as to the meaning of the term. the "slipping of a guns hammer so that it goes of unexpectedly" is what it says.
Half-cock was the safe position on a flintlock firearm. The flint was not back far enough to cause a spark if it fell, and it allowed access to the pan (flash in the pan )
Of further interest is tha fact that we "cock" the hammer because early cocking pieces resembled a rooster's head.
)Of further interest is tha fact that we "cock" the hammer because early cocking pieces resembled a rooster's head.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
It originated in the days of flintlock muskets and fowling pieces. After loading and priming the pan, the hammer was typically lowered to the half-cock position unless it was necessary to fire the weapon immediately. If the loader/shooter got careless in lowering the hammer...bang.
Maybe...Probably...but there was a reason for the captive half-cock on the SSA as well...besides a position to free the cylinder for loading and unloading. Again...If that's all it was there for was a means to load and unload...it didn't have to be captive and disable the hammer and trigger.
Refer back to the quotge from The Shootist: To wit:
"If your insides tell ya to load six...load six."
For those cowboys who had enough forewarning of gettin' up to their rumps in rattlesnakes...it provided a way to load the 6th round and let the hammer rest at a relatively safe position until the shootin' started, or to top off the gun during a lull...that didn't require further manipulation of the gun besides closing the loading gate. A dual purpose function. There was also a quarter-cock notch that served as a "safety" catch, but unlike the half-cock to load the 6th round...did require actually lowering the hammer. With the half-cock, all that was required was to load the round...close the gate...reholster and wait.
gordy
Member
the half cock on a saa is for loading, load one, skip one, load four. lower on a empty hole.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Awwww...Why not?
Me too...or the accepted standard of hammer down on an empty hole...but I forego the rolled up double sawbuck. Might need that for burgers and such.
For secure holster carry...hammer nose between chambers works fine. I tend to think that leaving the gun on half-cock after loading the 6th round would more than likely be used for one of those "Get ready boys. They're comin" moments in which the gun is in hand, and not returned to the holster.
Hi 1911Tuner,
The Quote you'd quoted:
To which you'd replied -
Why did Single Action Cap and Ball, and, SAA have a 'Half Cock' position for the Hammer?
Could it be that this allowed an operative to manually rotate the Cylinder?
Since rotating the Cylinder is necessary to Load and Cap a Cap and Ball Revolver, and, is necessary to Load and or expell spent Cartridges, in a Metallic Cartridge SA, such as the Colt Single Action Army?
Could that possibly be why both had a 'Half Cock' option for the Hammer and Mechanism?
Can you tell me please, how one would conveniently rotate the Cylinder otherwise? For Loading and Capping a Cap and Ball Revolver, or, for Loading as well as ejecting spent Cartridge Cases in a SAA?
P.S. -edit-
Sorry, had not yet seen your subsequent post addresssing this, sort of.
The Quote you'd quoted:
To which you'd replied -
Why did Single Action Cap and Ball, and, SAA have a 'Half Cock' position for the Hammer?
Could it be that this allowed an operative to manually rotate the Cylinder?
Since rotating the Cylinder is necessary to Load and Cap a Cap and Ball Revolver, and, is necessary to Load and or expell spent Cartridges, in a Metallic Cartridge SA, such as the Colt Single Action Army?
Could that possibly be why both had a 'Half Cock' option for the Hammer and Mechanism?
Can you tell me please, how one would conveniently rotate the Cylinder otherwise? For Loading and Capping a Cap and Ball Revolver, or, for Loading as well as ejecting spent Cartridge Cases in a SAA?
P.S. -edit-
Sorry, had not yet seen your subsequent post addresssing this, sort of.
Last edited:
Far as why the Colt-Browning Model 1911 had a 'Half Cock' position for the Hammer -
So did all prior Colt Browning Autoloading Pistols.
So did virtually every sort of Pistol, Revolving Pistol/Revolver, Rifle, Musket, Shotgun etc. From Flint through Percussion through Metallic Cartridge.
I imagine, by the advent of the M1911, everyone had come to be used to a Half Cock position being a Hammer-Lock position option which one would expect to be present.
On the M1911, going momentarily to Half-Cock allows an easier pulling back of the Slide, if about to dis-assemble, or, as may be, should one wish to do it that way.
Otherwise, clearly, mechanically, "yes", the Half Cock on a M1911 is not a practical or wise mode for being used as a so-called 'Safety', nor, a good choice for a mode of readyness.
If I had to guess why a Half Cock position was provided on the M1911, my guess would be, that it was in keeping with everything else which had existed continuously prior for hundreds of years in all small Arms having exposed Hammers, and, was a feature which would seem conspicuously and disquietingly absent, if not present.
So did all prior Colt Browning Autoloading Pistols.
So did virtually every sort of Pistol, Revolving Pistol/Revolver, Rifle, Musket, Shotgun etc. From Flint through Percussion through Metallic Cartridge.
I imagine, by the advent of the M1911, everyone had come to be used to a Half Cock position being a Hammer-Lock position option which one would expect to be present.
On the M1911, going momentarily to Half-Cock allows an easier pulling back of the Slide, if about to dis-assemble, or, as may be, should one wish to do it that way.
Otherwise, clearly, mechanically, "yes", the Half Cock on a M1911 is not a practical or wise mode for being used as a so-called 'Safety', nor, a good choice for a mode of readyness.
If I had to guess why a Half Cock position was provided on the M1911, my guess would be, that it was in keeping with everything else which had existed continuously prior for hundreds of years in all small Arms having exposed Hammers, and, was a feature which would seem conspicuously and disquietingly absent, if not present.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Sort of...maybe...possibly...probably. All these adjectives can apply, or maybe none of them.
I'm not stating anything as factual. I'm bringing attention to the function of certain features and asking of a long dead designer/engineer:
"Why did you do this? Why did you do it that way if your true intent for that function to be X and not Y?"
Drawing on what I know of machine tools and production machinery, I'm arriving at certain conclusions that...while they may not be entirely accurate...they seem to make the most sense. Logical conclusions based on what the part actually does rather than what I believe it was meant to do. I've had to step back and adjust prior beliefs on more than one occasion. The half-cock notch itself, in fact. Time was that I completely accepted that it was a hammer arrest function only, and never intended to be a safety position...not even a temporary one during a lull or waiting for the bogies to appear on the horizon...but that captive feature just kept nagging at me. The nagging just got louder after Colt introduced the Series 80 hammer redesign.
The original/captive half-cock is a safety. Was it Browning's intent to carry the gun full-time on half-cock..or just as a temporary thing under certain conditions? I don't know.
It seems so, since that's how he designed all his other "hammer" guns. I think he understood perfectly the need for a pistol to be carried instantly at the ready...yet he never included a manual safety on one until it was asked for by the U.S Cavalry.
Other arms of the era reflect the possible or even probable intent to use half-cock as a safety. Most notably, the Model 1894 Winchester rifle and their Model 1897 shotgun. They also disable firing until the hammer is returned to full cock. So, why not pistols and revolvers?
Again, I'm not advising anyone to use it as a safety. I'm just pointing out that the notion that it was never intended to be one, and should never, ever be used as one may be a little...flawed.
Be well. Keep studying. Something will eventually jump out at you and cause you to ask:
"What is it for?
I'm not stating anything as factual. I'm bringing attention to the function of certain features and asking of a long dead designer/engineer:
"Why did you do this? Why did you do it that way if your true intent for that function to be X and not Y?"
Drawing on what I know of machine tools and production machinery, I'm arriving at certain conclusions that...while they may not be entirely accurate...they seem to make the most sense. Logical conclusions based on what the part actually does rather than what I believe it was meant to do. I've had to step back and adjust prior beliefs on more than one occasion. The half-cock notch itself, in fact. Time was that I completely accepted that it was a hammer arrest function only, and never intended to be a safety position...not even a temporary one during a lull or waiting for the bogies to appear on the horizon...but that captive feature just kept nagging at me. The nagging just got louder after Colt introduced the Series 80 hammer redesign.
The original/captive half-cock is a safety. Was it Browning's intent to carry the gun full-time on half-cock..or just as a temporary thing under certain conditions? I don't know.
It seems so, since that's how he designed all his other "hammer" guns. I think he understood perfectly the need for a pistol to be carried instantly at the ready...yet he never included a manual safety on one until it was asked for by the U.S Cavalry.
Other arms of the era reflect the possible or even probable intent to use half-cock as a safety. Most notably, the Model 1894 Winchester rifle and their Model 1897 shotgun. They also disable firing until the hammer is returned to full cock. So, why not pistols and revolvers?
Again, I'm not advising anyone to use it as a safety. I'm just pointing out that the notion that it was never intended to be one, and should never, ever be used as one may be a little...flawed.
Be well. Keep studying. Something will eventually jump out at you and cause you to ask:
"What is it for?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Ease up, ttheel and let your pore ol' punkin' head rest. No need to read it. Just use the feature marked: "Unsubscribe" and it'll disappear off your screen.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I know. It's one of those hot button topics that pops up about 4 or 5 times a year...usually as a "Do you carry Cocked and Locked" but this time, it was presented as a discussion on mechanical function and design intent. Of course, it devolved into a carry mode discussion...but that was never Slamfire's...intent.
I carry in Condition 2 only rarely. It's C-1 99.9% of the time for me...but it's because I choose to use the option...not because it's mandated.
I carry in Condition 2 only rarely. It's C-1 99.9% of the time for me...but it's because I choose to use the option...not because it's mandated.
- Status
