chaosrob said:
The gun was never designed to be carried cocked and locked, the thumb safety was an add on by request of the military so that it's cavalry could temporarily safe a loaded pistol It was not a part of JMB's design, see the M1910.
Just because more than one of you is screaming does not mean you are right, I have been listening to a bunch of people down the road from me in Ferguson screaming in unison but they are dead wrong as well. You can call the analogy a "smokescreen" but it is dead on, you want people to carry a gun the way you want them to carry it or it is dead wrong, regardless of their comfort level. That does not seem like a stance situated very well from a safety, or rational standpoint
YOU to focused on the first part of the phrase in question while disregarding the second part -- here underlined:
"if you're uncomfortable using a gun as it was DESIGNED TO BE USED (when it is likely to be used). You also attributed to me positions I did not take. That was the "smokescreen" reference -- you seemed to be obfuscating the real points of discussion.
I have several friends who served in combat in Vietnam and two others, including a cousin, who later served in Iraq. (These were guys who saw a lot of combat.) I was in the military but never had to do anything riskier than eat at the Chow Hall or fly in a military aircraft. Three of the four carried 1911s. One was a Tunnel Rat.
Do you seriously think the three guys using 1911s were carrying them Condition 3 (empty chamber) or Condition 2 (chambered round but hammer down)
while on patrol or otherwise at risk? Back at the base they probably did go to empty chamber and hammer down.
A civilian
carrying a weapon when out and about obviously feels at risk. He or she feels there is some chance that he or she may need to use that weapon while away from home -- otherwise s/he wouldn't be carrying. I would argue THAT felt need and situation is the civilian equivalent of the military "on patrol": it's arguably much less risky than a soldier on patrial, but it's still a matter of personal concern to anyone nvolved.
It may seem an unfair question, but if
someone feels the risk level is so low that he or she isn't going to have to respond very quickly,
how much time do you really think they'll have? Have
you had a chance to try the exercise where someone standing 25 feet away comes at you with a rubber knife while you try to draw and fire an airsoft pistol? It's an eye-opening exercise. Try it when you also have to rack the slide, first. (That assumes that both hands are free!) Your eyes will get even bigger! And keep in mind that in doing this drill, you knew UP FRONT, what was coming -- you were, practically speaking, 100% situationally aware! Maybe these folks ought to try that drill/exercise?
One veteran who had used the 1911 in combat wrote the following on this forum. I added the underlining:
A Field Manual is... an interpretive study, based on trial and error. FM's are pretty much suggestions that get used for kindling the minute something written in them doesn't work out. They are pretty much the biggest running joke in the Army. Unit SOP's (based on the FM's) are more important, and when the SOP's start disagreeing in mass numbers with the FM, the FM gets changed.
It didn't take the Army long to figure out that Condition 2 was a bad idea. I feel sorry for the test subjects. 
Our SOP was to carry the 1911 with an empty chamber and the holster taped shut for the jump, then remove the tape and go to condition one on the ground.
Another participant in that same discussion made the following observation. I added the underlining here, too:
It really doesn't matter what the first manual said ... if, after using it in the field, the Army determined that cocked-and-locked was the best choice -- and that remained SOP thereafter. Field experience beats conjecture set down on paper, every time.
AFAIK the M9, which is DA/SA and supposedly would solve AD problems with single actions, is now typically carried with an empty chamber by military personnel. That means what, exactly, other than the Army doesn't spend any time whatever on pistol training?
The U.S. military's general approach training people to do anything is to use KISS (
keep
it
simple
stupid). The military must train geniuses and morons with a standard procedure. The trainers themselves aren't always the brightest bulb in the pack, but they get it done and they train a lot of folks. Most of the folks who are trained to use a handgun don't get THAT MUCH training. And they may fire that weapon once or twice a year to demonstrate a minimal level of proficiency.
The folks who DO carry and are likely to use handguns in combat sometimes get different, more advanced training. (One fellow I know has served as an instructor at FT. Bragg for several years, working with Special Ops troops -- and he tells me they do things differently, including force on force training with simunition (non-lethal training ammo.) Some of them use 1911s, carried cocked and locked.
None of them go into a simulated "risk"/training situation with an empty chamber. I'm pretty sure they don't do it in real-life situations, either.
You are absolutely right to suggest that someone ought to do as he or she thinks best. But I'd argue that there's more involved than just a person's right of self-determination or self-expression. There are practical issues that some seem to want to ignore. Time may be the most critical one.
.
