Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!

[TG13]

Call me crazy, but I prefer condition zero for carrying 1911s. You still have a grip safety along with the safety in between your ears. If you're carrying in a high quality holster with the trigger totally covered I don't see how this can be unsafe. Why the XD is considered safe without a manual thumb safety, but the 1911 needs to be carried cocked and locked is beyond me. Trigger safeties do nothing. Hell, I think a 1911 carried condition zero is definitely safer than a Glock.

i think this is one reason why Springfield put a thumb safety on the XD45s.. i don't know why they did not carry the thumb safety across the entire XD line..

Glocks are only partially cocked, unlike the XD..

i think that the 1911 was intended to be carried hammer down to prevent dirt and grime from getting between the hammer and the firing pin.. this is another reason that they were in full flap holsters.. the option of holstering with the thumb safety on, was to prevent an AD while reholstering on horse back.. but, not the intended form of carry within the holster..

there are many modern reasons to carry C&L'd, many of which are valid and do not apply to the original carry condition of the original 1911..

you can carry either way, now.. and it's more a matter of preference, than what is was originally designed for..

 

[EddieNFL]

When did the military buy Springfield (Imbel) slides to put on old Colt frames?

USMC issues Springfields and Kimbers to certain units.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Designed to be carried Cocked and Locked: Not!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History is constantly being reinterpreted to meet the needs of today.

The field manual says nothing about how the gun was designed or for what purpose of carry. It simply explains how the military wants the gun carried.

I highly recommend reading “The Government Models” by William H.D. Goddard to see the wonderful pictures and progression of Brownings automatic pistol design. I also recommend the “Colt .45 Service Pistols Models of 1911 and 1911A1 Charles W. Clawson”, but the pictures are not as good.

Neither of these books have proof that the 1911 was designed to be carried in Condition 2 either.

In fact, to date there are no known blueprints or JMB design notes that state how the gun is to be carried, at least not known by the 1911 community. There is a marked difference between design and application. The manual and books are about application, not design.

You are interpretting history to meet your own needs.

 

[REAPER4206969]

When did the military buy Springfield (Imbel) slides to put on old Colt frames?

In 2002, an article in American Handgunner Magazine stated that "Marine armorers from the Precision Weapons Section, MCBQ" are making 789 MEU (SOC) 1911's. The revised parts list included barrels, bushings, link pins, sear springs, ejectors, firing pin stops, mainspring housings and mainsprings, all from Nowlin Manufacturing.[8] Slides were ordered from Springfield Armory, with front sight pins, beavertail safeties and recoil spring guides came from Ed Brown. Novak was contracted for rear sights, Wilson Combat provided extractors and mag release buttons, while King's Gun Works supplied ambidextrous thumb safeties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEU(SOC)_pistol

 

[cwdotson]

C&L

If the 1911 ended up the way it did and as stated by some of these posts, with a design modification to secure a contract under apprehension of a hypothetical situation with prancing stallions (or geldings, oer mares), AND that end package is still considered by so many as the ultimate design package for pistol combat/defense, that happy accident, that serendipity, is on par with the "discovery" of penicillin.cwd

 

[gc70]

USMC issues Springfields and Kimbers to certain units.

Buying new 1911s makes perfect sense (at least to me ) - cobbling together parts guns, not so much.

 

[rellascout]

Neither of these books have proof that the 1911 was designed to be carried in Condition 2 either.

In fact, to date there are no known blueprints or JMB design notes that state how the gun is to be carried, at least not known by the 1911 community. There is a marked difference between design and application. The manual and books are about application, not design.

You are interpretting history to meet your own needs.
__________________

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

 

[woad_yurt]

Lets go back to the original post by Slamfire, the 1911 was not designed to be carried in condition 1. Period. In reference to the Calvary, after an engagement in which the pistol was used, the slide safety was engaged, the pistol holstered, until a very excited horse was brought under control....

If someone holsters their pistol, aren't they carrying it? It may be for 5 minutes or it may be for much longer, depending upon the level of chaos at the time, but they are nonetheless carrying it cocked and locked.

 

[REAPER4206969]

Buying new 1911s makes perfect sense (at least to me ) - cobbling together parts guns, not so much.

I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA.

 

[gc70]

I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA.

So you would prefer an old frame, made when metallurgy techniques were far less sophisticated, than a quality new frame. For my part, I would prefer a new frame, with a selection of new parts, properly put together as a custom gun.

 

[X-Rap]

I bet these aren't put together by some jobber in his garage. I think the MC has some pretty qualified Armorers for pistol assembly at that level.
Givin the frames are still in spec and the work done well I would take one of those parts guns in a heart beat.

 

[REAPER4206969]

So you would prefer an old frame, made when metallurgy techniques were far less sophisticated, than a quality new frame.

Yes. I also wouldn't call most modern bare frames "quality."

 

[kanook]

Nice to see a parts list to make one like the forces are playing with. And Yes I would rather have a parts gun custom fitted vs a new make it go bang

 

[EddieNFL]

I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA.

Amen. I have a parts gun I "cobbled" together. Shoots under two at 25. I don't consider myself a gunsmith.

 

[MythBuster]

"I'd much rather have that "parts gun" than a new Kimber or SA."

So would I.

 

[gc70]

Just to be clear, I would also prefer a custom-built gun made with new quality parts over a production model. But I would also want a new quality frame rather than a tired, half-century old frame based on inferior technology. YMMV.

 

[REAPER4206969]

half-century old frame based on inferior technology.

Those frames are forged steel.

 

[ttheel]

I was watching the show Handguns on the Sportsmans channel (direct tv channel 605) last night. Their entire 30 minute episode was on 1911's. They said that a 1911 shoud never be carried in condition 2. That many, many accidents had happened carrying 1911's in this condition. They said choose condition 1 or condition 3 whichever you feel more comfortable with but absolutely under no circumstances carry in condition 2.

 

[gc70]

Those frames are forged steel.

The heat treatment of the older guns was inferior. A new forged steel frame is superior.

 

[woad_yurt]

I think that heat-treating should be judged by whether or not it was sufficient for the job, not by how it measures up, hardness-wise, against other like items. I have a '62 Plymouth and I know that there are new, better alloys and casting processes available nowadays. But, these new alloys or metallurgical processes would not make that car run any differently.

I haven't heard of may G.I. .45s that have fallen apart due to failing steel frames.

 

[ArmedBear]

cobbling together parts guns, not so much.

You haven't seen a nice one, then.

 

[Silent Sam]

How and why it was designed to be carried - don't know, wasn't there. The design does accommodate safe carry cocked and locked which happens to be the best way to do it for my application.

 

[EddieNFL]

You haven't seen a nice one, then.

I have others that fit my definition of nice.

 

[MythBuster]

"I was watching the show Handguns on the Sportsmans channel (direct tv channel 605) last night. Their entire 30 minute episode was on 1911's. They said that a 1911 shoud never be carried in condition 2. That many, many accidents had happened carrying 1911's in this condition. They said choose condition 1 or condition 3 whichever you feel more comfortable with but absolutely under no circumstances carry in condition 2"


Those people are idiots. There is NOTHING unsafe about condition two carry.

 

[1911Tuner]

Oh, Lord. Not this again...

First:

Correct. The safety also blocks the last 1/4 inch or so of the hammer fall.

No, it won't. If the hammer falls, it'll wipe the safety off as easily as you do with your thumb...and faster to boot.

Browning didn't design/intend for the gun to be carried in C1. The first ones that he submitted in 1910didn't even have thumb safeties...so how could it have been his intent.

The "slide locking safety" was the cavalry's idea. They asked...John Moses gave. That simple.

Browning designed it so that it could be carried in C1 should the need arise. "When action is iminent." Once the iminent action thing passed, regs called for it to be returned to C3. I'm pretty certain that many front-line troops placed it in C2 in order to give the visual impression that they were following the rules. Men who are in harm's way kinda tend to ignore the rules and go with what they feel like will give'em an edge on survival.

The gun was designed to give the user a choice. No more and no less. To state that the intent was to carry the gun in C1 24/7 is ludicrous. That it can be doesn't prove intent. It only proves that it can be.

If Browning had any intent at all, it was probably to carry it on half cock with a loaded chamber, since that's how he designed all his other exposed hammer guns...and it actually makes sense, given the original captive half-cock notch. If all it was meant to be was a hammer arresting device, it could have been a simpler shelf...like Colt's Series 80 design. It would have served the same purpose, and it would have been much easier, much faster, and cheaper to machine into the hammer.

The gun gives the user a choice as to how to carry it, and the only true "safe" way to do it is with the chamber empty. That's just common sense. No cartridge...no bang.