From a self defense/combat standpoint: what's the deal with thumb safeties?

Status
Not open for further replies.
exactly BeJaRa.
Draw, draw, draw, then draw some more.

manual safties just aint that tricky for some of us.. debate the "stress" factor all you like. anything IS possible..
there is theory on anything..

I read it in someones sig once:
"in theory, there is no difference between practice and theory... In Practice, there is."
 
Right. "Memory" plays little role in close combat. It's drill, drill, drill.

An effective way to use the M1911 is to place both thumbs on the safety as you draw, and index the trigger finger alongside the gun. To fire, you simply close your hand as the sights come on.

This is effective at self-defense ranges and allows you to stop your action in fail-safe mode if you decide not to shoot.
 
FWIW - I'm getting a 2nd 1911 that, unlike my current 1911, has an
ambidextrious safety. I'll be practicing with it and develop the LH 'off'
hand shooting and operation. Get that drill down.

oh, in the earllier post about firing at the 500 yard range
with a NG unit... we used the M1 Garand. Yah'd think they
would have at least had M14s by that time but no. fwiw it
was Central Wash. State

R-
 
I would bet that the small little thumb lever gets a little more complicated and a little harder to remember.
Not really. I use a high-thumb grip on my 1911, that's how I was trained to do it at two different training schools. So dropping the safety off is part of my natural draw and grip. If I don't have a nice clean draw and solid firm grip, it really doesn't matter what kind of gun is in my hand, does it?

This just isn't something that needs to be worried about to this extent.
 
Just to clarify the point of my starting this thread:
I never implied that disengaging a thumb safety is rocket science or anything difficult even under stress although it is one more thing for Mr.Murphy to get a hold on. I was merely wondering if there were any advantages in teaching myself how to use a "thumb safety-gun" over what I'm used to (no thumb safety). There seem to be none (no crucial ones anyway) and for me the thumb safety would be just one more thing to worry about since I've only really practiced with a gun that hasn't got one and am not comfortable with other platforms (yet, anyway).

So thanks for the input everyone, I found the information I was after.
 
If you truly believe that having to pop a safety is something to worry about then you have much to learn regarding combat shooting. But that's OK, keep asking questions and thinking about the answers. You will understand in time. Good luck.
 
Telesway, I think it comes down to what you wrote in your opening post. Single-action pistols can be much easier to shoot accurately than double-action guns. However, they usually come with manual safeties, so we feel compelled to use said safeties. :)

~G. Fink
 
Gordon Fink said:
...I don’t ride the safety with my thumb. The high-thumb grip is overextended and unnatural for my smaller hands....
If you're so inclined, you might want to keep working at it. I also have small hands, and the high-thumb grip was difficult and awkward for me at the beginning. But after a while, I got used to it and now couldn't imagine shooting a 1911 any other way.

FWIW, I've come to the view that there's nothing natural or instinctive about shooting a gun. Among other things, setting off small explosions 12 to 24 inches in front of your face is not a normal act of a thinking human. Proper trigger control essential to good shooting, i. e., pushing the trigger finger straight back with only it moving and not simultaneously tightening your grip, is decidedly unnatural. Keeping your eyes open while those small explosions are going off in front of your face is not natural. Etc.

Training and practice is about making the unnatural, and often awkward, actions necessary to successful performance of a physical task (be it shooting, or driving a car, or whatever else) smooth and reflexive.
 
Very true. Like I said earlier, practice can overcome imperfect ergonomics, but I would rather not fight the pistol. (Good-bye, Glocks!) Nevertheless, I may give the high-thumb grip a try with my latest pistol, which has a wider and longer shelf on the thumb safety.

Now, try not blinking when a .45-caliber revolver is blasting air at your face.… :D

~G. Fink
 
For those that don't like the high thumb grip there is another option.

340100044.jpg


Low-rider safety.
 
I also have small hands, and the high-thumb grip was difficult and awkward for me at the beginning.
I went thru the same thing. I also had to sensitize my grip safety on a couple of them for positive, no question engagement, but now I can't shoot them the way I used to.

The low-mount safety isn't a bad idea but you may have trouble finding a holster to accommodate it.
 
The U.S. m1911 series was not designed as a defensive weapon system, though many people have forced it into that role today.

I didn't read all the posts, so sorry if this has been addressed, but it would be all but impossible to find a combat pistol that isn't a defensive weapon.

Pistols, as much as we all enjoy them, are deficient in every way to a rifle, at least in terms of combat. Obviously a select few can wield them with amazing results, but those people are the exception rather than the rule. Combat pistols across the board, are defensive, not offensive, weapons. It is utterly false to say that the 1911 was designed as an offensive weapon.
 
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK, that having carried many different sidearms over the years, the programming is pretty well ingrained. When I pick up ANY handgun, I sense right away what kind of gun it is. My thumb automatically feels for a safety. If there is any confusion whether it is a frame mounted or positive, safety, a quick glance would clear it up. (I deliberately avoid autos with positive safeties.) This would be near instantaneous with pretty much any auto you can name. I have tried to familiarize myself with guns in general, in addition to just learning my regular carry gun.

All my friends and family carry 1911s. All the local cops carry Glocks. My military issue is a Beretta. This constitutes 99% of the guns I might ever pick up in an emergency, and I know them all very well. I wouldn't have to pause to remind myself what kind of gun it is and how to manipulate the safety.
 
Drail said:
If you truly believe that having to pop a safety is something to worry about then you have much to learn regarding combat shooting. But that's OK, keep asking questions and thinking about the answers. You will understand in time. Good luck.

I have loads to learn about combat shooting. Frankly, I've done none with live rounds (still haven't completed the safety course required here to shoot IPSC due to lack of courses) but that's one of the main reasons I'm here asking dumb questions. :D


Edit: Jst1mr, interesting article. From what I've gathered, the most probable situation in which a civilian would wind up drawing/firing a gun is within a few feet or when tangling on the ground and you see your assailant's mates running your way.

Oh well, I'll still get that 1911 some day! Fiddled with a nice looking Taurus 1911 just yesterday at the gun shop. The grip felt nice and slim compared to the CZ SP-01 Shadow I picked up after that but my next gun is still going to be a CZ (PCR or P-01). The third is going to be a 1911.
 
Origin of the 1911

Quote:
The U.S. m1911 series was not designed as a defensive weapon system, though many people have forced it into that role today. Doing so effectively requires additional training and/or compromises to the pistol’s safety mechanisms, but it is certainly possible.

~G. Fink

To the contrary:
The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers.
As I understand it, the Moros would wrap themselves mummy like, and attack US soldiers with a large sword.
The .38 revolver, which was the Army sidearm of the time, was incapable of stopping them and they would be able to reach their targets, despite hits from the .38.
The 1911 put an end to that ability.
 
Nope, that is not what happened in the Phillippines.
 
TimboKhan said:
I didn’t read all the posts, so sorry if this has been addressed, but it would be all but impossible to find a combat pistol that isn’t a defensive weapon.

Combat pistols across the board, are defensive, not offensive, weapons. It is utterly false to say that the 1911 was designed as an offensive weapon.

It is easier to turn a combat pistol into a defensive handgun than it is to do the reverse. I won’t recap the previous discussion of the U.S. m1911’s development except to say we established that the military didn’t differentiate between types of potential usage.

It’s irrelevant anyway, because this thread has concerned the use of single-action pistols for civilian self-defense. The m1911 series was most assuredly not designed for this role.

~G. Fink
 
The practice of wrapping oneself with bandages, taking drugs and taking an oath to kill a Christian was a practice of the Moros, who were Muslims. The Spanish referred to them as "Juramentados" meaning "oath-bound."

The .38 Long Colt did indeed prove inadequate in these cases, and the Army re-issued the old .45 SAA (the barrels were cut to 5 1/2" during arsenal re-build before issue, resulting in the so-called "artillery model.)

The Army also investigated the caliber issue. Two Colonels, Thompson (Ordnance Corps -- the man who later invented the Thompson sub-machinegun) and LaGarde (Medical Corps) shot and autopsied cadavers, cattle and horses. Their recommendation was the new caliber should not be less than .44.

At the time the M1911 was adopted, pistols were offensive weapons -- for cavalry. The Cavalry was in fact the functional proponent for the new pistol, which explains the redundant safties on the gun -- it was designed for safe handling on horseback.
 
The 1911 was adopted by the U.S. Military as the first autoloading handgun to replace the variety of revolvers that were currently in use.

The .45 ACP cartridge was chosen because of the Moro guerrilla's drug use and high moral. They had found that shooting them with the .45 Colt worked much better...

The reason the 1911 was chosen was because the other companies fighting for the contract either failed to impress the brass (Webley, Knoble, White-Merril and Bergmann), Failed to resubmit a design after changes were suggested (DWM) or failed the field trials (Savage, had 37 failures while the Colt had zero).
 
More useless information:
The pistol was designed to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Army, which, during its campaign against the Moros in Philippines, had seen its trusty .38 revolver to be incapable of stopping attackers. An Ordnance Board headed by Col. John T. Thompson (inventor of the Thompson sub-machine-gun) and Col. Louis A. La Garde, had reached the conclusion that the army needed a .45" caliber cartridge, to provide adequate stopping power. In the mean time, J. Browning who was working for Colt, had already designed an autoloader pistol, around a cartridge similar to contemporary .38 Super (dimension-wise). When the Army announced its interest in a new handgun, Browning re-engineered this handgun to accommodate a .45" diameter cartridge of his own design (with a 230 gr. FMJ bullet), and submitted the pistol to the Army for evaluation.

In the selection process, which started at 1906 with firearms submitted by Colt, Luger, Savage, Knoble, Bergmann, White-Merrill and Smith & Wesson, Browning's design was selected, together with the Savage design in 1907. However, the U.S. Army pressed for some service tests, which revealed that neither pistol (Colt's or Savage's) had reached the desired perfection. The Ordnance Department instituted a series of further tests and experiments, which eventually resulted in the appointment of a selection committee, in 1911.

Browning was determined to prove the superiority of his handgun, so he went to Hartford to personally supervise the production of the gun. There he met Fred Moore, a young Colt employee with whom he worked in close cooperation trying to make sure that each part that was produced for the test guns was simply the best possible. The guns produced were submitted again for evaluation, to the committee. A torture test was conducted, on March 3rd, 1911. The test consisted of having each gun fire 6000 rounds. One hundred shots would be fired and the pistol would be allowed to cool for 5 minutes. After every 1000 rounds, the pistol would be cleaned and oiled. After firing those 6000 rounds, the pistol would be tested with deformed cartridges, some seated too deeply, some not seated enough, etc. The gun would then be rusted in acid or submerged in sand and mud and some more tests would then be conducted.

Browning's pistols passed the whole test series with flying colors. It was the first firearm to undergo such a test, firing continuously 6000 cartridges, a record broken only in 1917 when Browning's recoil-operated machine gun fired a 40000 rounds test.

The report of the evaluation committee (taken from 'The .45 Automatic, An American Rifleman Reprint', published by the National Rifle Association of America) released on the 20th of March 1911 stated :


"Of the two pistols, the board was of the opinion
that the Colt is superior, because it is more
reliable, more enduring, more easily disassembled
when there are broken parts to be replaced, and
more accurate."


On March 29th, 1911, the Browning-designed, Colt-produced .45 Automatic pistol, was selected as the official sidearm of the Armed Forces of U.S.A., and named Model 1911.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top