"Improving" the 1911
- Thread starter wally
- Start date
- Status
XavierBreath
Member
alumltd, I'm surprised you got the next round to feed.
Fuff, Tuner....... If the purpose of the thumb safety was to lock the slide to prevent the pistol from being thrown out of battery on reholstering, and the 1911 was designed to be carried in Conditions two and three, then why, pray tell, can the thumb safety only be engaged when the hammer is cocked?
I do not doubt your breadth of knowledge, and your study of Browning's ideas, but this is a puzzlement to me. Shouldn't you be able to engage the "slide safety" AKA thumb safety in Conditions two and three if this were the case?
Fuff, Tuner....... If the purpose of the thumb safety was to lock the slide to prevent the pistol from being thrown out of battery on reholstering, and the 1911 was designed to be carried in Conditions two and three, then why, pray tell, can the thumb safety only be engaged when the hammer is cocked?
I do not doubt your breadth of knowledge, and your study of Browning's ideas, but this is a puzzlement to me. Shouldn't you be able to engage the "slide safety" AKA thumb safety in Conditions two and three if this were the case?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Why?
XavierBreath asked:
If the purpose of the thumb safety was to lock the slide to prevent the pistol from being thrown out of battery on reholstering, and the 1911 was designed to be carried in Conditions two and three, then why, pray tell, can the thumb safety only be engaged when the hammer is cocked?
*************
Having to reholster on the run while trying to calm a spooked horse is one reason. Placing the gun in Condition One "If action is iminent" and reholstering while waiting for it to start is another.
XavierBreath asked:
If the purpose of the thumb safety was to lock the slide to prevent the pistol from being thrown out of battery on reholstering, and the 1911 was designed to be carried in Conditions two and three, then why, pray tell, can the thumb safety only be engaged when the hammer is cocked?
*************
Having to reholster on the run while trying to calm a spooked horse is one reason. Placing the gun in Condition One "If action is iminent" and reholstering while waiting for it to start is another.
XavierBreath
Member
You mean Browning thought Condition one might be a good thing if one might use the weapon rather than carry it about as a badge of authority?
Yes, holstering the weapon with a round in the chamber is safer in Condition one whether you are calming a spooked horse, or whether your hands are shaking from the mortar rounds exploding around you.
Again, I don't doubt your knowledge and research, but if the thumb safety was placed on the pistol to keep the slide in battery when holstering, and the 1911 was designed to be carried in Conditions two and three, then it would only make sense for the thumb safety to be configured to engage and block the slide from being thrown out of battery in Conditions two and three as well as Condition one.
I remain puzzled.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
2 and 3
Xavier...If it's in 2 or 3, the hammer's down. It don't got no need of a manual safety.
As to that...the manual safety was added at the request of the Cavalry, and for the reasons cited. The 1910 prototypes only had the grip safety.
Quote:
>You mean Browning thought Condition one might be a good thing if one might use the weapon rather than carry it about as a badge of authority?<
************
Contrary to European armies, the 1911 pistol was never meant to be a "Badge of Authority." It was adopted to be the primary arm of the Cavalry
and was meant to be deployed as a front-line weapon whenever needed by the infantry...such as late-night raids into enemy trenches where the Springfields and Enfields of the day were too long and slow rate. The pistol, dagger, and truncheon came into their own in such actions...the pistol generally being reserved to shoot their way out and across No man's Land after the requisite havok was wreaked.
Xavier...If it's in 2 or 3, the hammer's down. It don't got no need of a manual safety.
As to that...the manual safety was added at the request of the Cavalry, and for the reasons cited. The 1910 prototypes only had the grip safety.
Quote:
>You mean Browning thought Condition one might be a good thing if one might use the weapon rather than carry it about as a badge of authority?<
************
Contrary to European armies, the 1911 pistol was never meant to be a "Badge of Authority." It was adopted to be the primary arm of the Cavalry
and was meant to be deployed as a front-line weapon whenever needed by the infantry...such as late-night raids into enemy trenches where the Springfields and Enfields of the day were too long and slow rate. The pistol, dagger, and truncheon came into their own in such actions...the pistol generally being reserved to shoot their way out and across No man's Land after the requisite havok was wreaked.
XavierBreath
Member
But the slide can still be thrown out of battery on reholstering in 2 and 3.
So, every cavalry troop received a 1911, not just the Captain and First Sergeant then?
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
1910
See! If I knew who the picture belonged to, I'd list credits...but I can't remember where it was. I copied it from another, older post.
See! If I knew who the picture belonged to, I'd list credits...but I can't remember where it was. I copied it from another, older post.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Slide
Quote:
>But the slide can still be thrown out of battery on reholstering.<
***********
Not nearly as easily as with the hammer forward. The mainspring is a formidable force. Rack the slide with and without the hammer cocked, and you'll see what I mean.
Plus...Reholstering in 2 or 3 wasn't usually done in a mad rush, like when a body's under fire.
Quote:
>But the slide can still be thrown out of battery on reholstering.<
***********
Not nearly as easily as with the hammer forward. The mainspring is a formidable force. Rack the slide with and without the hammer cocked, and you'll see what I mean.
Plus...Reholstering in 2 or 3 wasn't usually done in a mad rush, like when a body's under fire.
XavierBreath
Member
Here's a better pic.
It's standard procedure, then and now to press the rear of the slide with a thumb while holstering a semi-auto pistol. Many semi-auto pistols have performed fine and been holstered safely over the years without a handy dandy slide locking safety.
I guess the thumb safety on the 1911 is just a failed idea. That darned Army SNAFUs everything......
FWIW, the thumb safety was incorporated on serial number 6 of the 1910.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
*sigh*
It's standard procedure, then and now to press the rear of the slide with a thumb while holstering a semi-auto pistol. Many semi-auto pistols have performed fine and been holstered safely over the years without a handy dandy slide locking safety.
*************************
Well, yeah...Pressin' on the rear of the slide works "handy dandy" enough...provided that the gun handler has the time, the opportunity, and the presence of mind to do it, (Not to mention the full use of both hands. Cavalry...Full flap holster...Machineguns in the trenches...Remember?) instead of being preoccupied with other matters. Look, XB...I'm not arguin' the merits or disadvantages of the system. The question was asked..."Why?" I just related what the transcripts said. Okay?
If the fact that the gun has to be off-safe in order to clear it is frightening...which is basically what this debate is about...carry somethin' else. It never bothered me. I've always understood that "safety" doesn't come from mechanical devices, and just rely on keepin' my finger off the trigger, and keepin' the gun pointed in a non-lethal direction.
Cheers now...Y'hear?
It's standard procedure, then and now to press the rear of the slide with a thumb while holstering a semi-auto pistol. Many semi-auto pistols have performed fine and been holstered safely over the years without a handy dandy slide locking safety.
*************************
Well, yeah...Pressin' on the rear of the slide works "handy dandy" enough...provided that the gun handler has the time, the opportunity, and the presence of mind to do it, (Not to mention the full use of both hands. Cavalry...Full flap holster...Machineguns in the trenches...Remember?) instead of being preoccupied with other matters. Look, XB...I'm not arguin' the merits or disadvantages of the system. The question was asked..."Why?" I just related what the transcripts said. Okay?
If the fact that the gun has to be off-safe in order to clear it is frightening...which is basically what this debate is about...carry somethin' else. It never bothered me. I've always understood that "safety" doesn't come from mechanical devices, and just rely on keepin' my finger off the trigger, and keepin' the gun pointed in a non-lethal direction.
Cheers now...Y'hear?
XavierBreath
Member
I'm not arguing either Tuner, I'd just like to see these transcripts. Is there a link online or something? Are these transcripts quoted in a book somewhere?
If a soldier is too preoccupied to remember to thumb the slide on reholstering, can you then expect him to remember to engage the thumb safety? That does not make sense. It's replacing a simple motion contained in a gross movement with a more complex motion that is not contained in the gross movement to accomplish the same goal.
The proposed purpose behind the design feature just does not match up with the feature's execution into the pistol. Surely Browning was not that poor a designer. Again, why does the thumb safety only engage in Condition one if it was designed to be used in Condition two and three? Could it be that the safety was not designed for the safe reholstering of a cocked weapon, but rather for the safe carry of a cocked weapon? If Browning's thoughts are on paper somewhere as to the purpose of the thumb safety, I'd like to read it myself.
Do you have a link or even a text that can be obtained somewhere? If it involves purchasing yet another book on the 1911, that is fine, I'd just read it and add it to my collection.
Cheers. No cool emoticon here.
If a soldier is too preoccupied to remember to thumb the slide on reholstering, can you then expect him to remember to engage the thumb safety? That does not make sense. It's replacing a simple motion contained in a gross movement with a more complex motion that is not contained in the gross movement to accomplish the same goal.
The proposed purpose behind the design feature just does not match up with the feature's execution into the pistol. Surely Browning was not that poor a designer. Again, why does the thumb safety only engage in Condition one if it was designed to be used in Condition two and three? Could it be that the safety was not designed for the safe reholstering of a cocked weapon, but rather for the safe carry of a cocked weapon? If Browning's thoughts are on paper somewhere as to the purpose of the thumb safety, I'd like to read it myself.
Do you have a link or even a text that can be obtained somewhere? If it involves purchasing yet another book on the 1911, that is fine, I'd just read it and add it to my collection.
Cheers. No cool emoticon here.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Point/Counterpoint
Quote:
>If a soldier is too preoccupied to remember to thumb the slide on reholstering, can you then expect him to remember to engage the thumb safety?<
********
Well...I'm sure that some didn't remember, but simply flicking a safety on is fast and simple, for those who did remember. It's not about guarantees anyway. It's about reducing or increasing probabilities.
Also...Cavalry conscripts were likely trained to engage the safety when the need arose to reholster the pistol in the middle of a fight.
Any time that a modification is done to "prevent or insure"...you can substitute the words..."reduce or enhance", because nothing is fail-safe. It's not about guarantees. It's about reducing the chances that the weapon will malfunction at a critical time. Good for the military unit, since it increases the liklihood of achieving its objective due to fewer casualties, and good for the individual soldier because it increases his odds of going home alive and in one piece.
As far as Browning being a good or bad designer, remember that he didn't just sit down and whip up the blueprints, and he didn't dictate what the final product would be. He was asked for something, and he provided it. That's what he was hired to do. The Army asked for a manual safety that locked the slide forward...and he simply gave'em what they wanted. That's the long and the short of it. The 1911 wasn't a Gift from God that came through the genius of the Prophet John. It was designed by a committee. To many of us...some would say too many...the 1911 is a veritible shrine. To Browning, it was just another assignment. Once it was completed, he probably didn't give it a lot of further thought unless he was specifically asked about something.
I don't know where you can view the transcripts. I saw'em about 35 years ago, and they were older than dirt. I do remember that the reason for the slidelocking safety was not much more than a footnote...likely a suggestion made by someone who considered all the angles and thought that it would
reduce the probability of a Murphy Moment for some poor slob who'd rather be at home raisin' a garden.
Quote:
>If a soldier is too preoccupied to remember to thumb the slide on reholstering, can you then expect him to remember to engage the thumb safety?<
********
Well...I'm sure that some didn't remember, but simply flicking a safety on is fast and simple, for those who did remember. It's not about guarantees anyway. It's about reducing or increasing probabilities.
Also...Cavalry conscripts were likely trained to engage the safety when the need arose to reholster the pistol in the middle of a fight.
Any time that a modification is done to "prevent or insure"...you can substitute the words..."reduce or enhance", because nothing is fail-safe. It's not about guarantees. It's about reducing the chances that the weapon will malfunction at a critical time. Good for the military unit, since it increases the liklihood of achieving its objective due to fewer casualties, and good for the individual soldier because it increases his odds of going home alive and in one piece.
As far as Browning being a good or bad designer, remember that he didn't just sit down and whip up the blueprints, and he didn't dictate what the final product would be. He was asked for something, and he provided it. That's what he was hired to do. The Army asked for a manual safety that locked the slide forward...and he simply gave'em what they wanted. That's the long and the short of it. The 1911 wasn't a Gift from God that came through the genius of the Prophet John. It was designed by a committee. To many of us...some would say too many...the 1911 is a veritible shrine. To Browning, it was just another assignment. Once it was completed, he probably didn't give it a lot of further thought unless he was specifically asked about something.
I don't know where you can view the transcripts. I saw'em about 35 years ago, and they were older than dirt. I do remember that the reason for the slidelocking safety was not much more than a footnote...likely a suggestion made by someone who considered all the angles and thought that it would
reduce the probability of a Murphy Moment for some poor slob who'd rather be at home raisin' a garden.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
A Little Humor
Just to overstate the point, since I had a rare few minutes of time on my hands...
The conversation probably went somethin' like this:
General Bullmoose: John! Been tryin' to get in touch with ya, buddy! Pretty good pistole' amigo, but we'd really like to have a manual safety on the left side, and it really needs to lock the slide in battery. I know it's a lot to ask, since you've been burnin' the midnight oil for so long. Can ya do it for us?
JMB: "Why sure thing, pardner. Just gimme a week."
General Bullmoose: "Outstanding!"
Or...if Browning had said:
JMB: "Now hold on there a minute compadre. If we do that, somebody's gonna be concerned about havin' to un-safe the gun before they can clear the chamber. I get bad vibes from this. Bad vibes!"
General Bullmoose: (harrumph) "Look, Browning. The Ordnance Board wants the safety. If you don't want to do it, we'll find somebody who will. Comprende?
Just to overstate the point, since I had a rare few minutes of time on my hands...
The conversation probably went somethin' like this:
General Bullmoose: John! Been tryin' to get in touch with ya, buddy! Pretty good pistole' amigo, but we'd really like to have a manual safety on the left side, and it really needs to lock the slide in battery. I know it's a lot to ask, since you've been burnin' the midnight oil for so long. Can ya do it for us?
JMB: "Why sure thing, pardner. Just gimme a week."
General Bullmoose: "Outstanding!"
Or...if Browning had said:
JMB: "Now hold on there a minute compadre. If we do that, somebody's gonna be concerned about havin' to un-safe the gun before they can clear the chamber. I get bad vibes from this. Bad vibes!"
General Bullmoose: (harrumph) "Look, Browning. The Ordnance Board wants the safety. If you don't want to do it, we'll find somebody who will. Comprende?
OP
OP
wally
Member
When a feature is demanded by the Army, this might be the norm
.Great discussion. So the thumb safety locks the slide at the Army's (customer's) request to solve a potential problem when used by horse soldiers. Explains why this feature is the one thing about the 1911 that never really made much sense to me.
I'd buy a 1911 who's thumb safety didn't lock the slide in a heartbeat, YMMV.
Of all the things makers have messed around with from the "original" this would be the only change I'd find really worthwhile, and to my knowledge nobody has ever offered it.
--wally.
I've never even thought about the difference between locking the slide or not locking the slide. Ha, shooting 1911s for so long it seemed natural.
Does the CZ style, SA version, allow you to apply the safety and rack the slide? The concern is racking the slide with a finger on the trigger...yes?
Does the CZ style, SA version, allow you to apply the safety and rack the slide? The concern is racking the slide with a finger on the trigger...yes?
Oh dear me... such a tempest in a teapot.
X-Breath: If I survive and get back to Arizona I'll make a list of books that cover the background and history of John Browning's pistols in general, and the 1911 in particular. But be aware that some of them are out-of-print and can be very expensive.
During the years the 1911 was under development there was a lot of internal bickering going on within the Army. The Ordnance Department was determined to ditch the revolver and move on to an automatic pistol. The Cavalry however were determined to stick with a six-shooter – the Colt model 1892 and in particular, the model 1909. As the trials continued the horsebackers never failed to throw up any objection they could think of, real or imagined to whatever Colt and Browning came up with, and within the Army they had enough influence to be the tail that wagged the dog.
Now if one had the model 1909 revolver, they pointed out. It could be holstered during an emergency with the hammer cocked, and so long as the trigger wasn’t held back the hammer could fall, but as it did so the trigger would follow down and Colt’s famous “positive” hammer block would prevent a discharge. Not so with Browning’s early pistols, although the half-cock notch was supposed to stop the hammer from going all of the way down. Most of this business was disgruntled nit-picking.
All the Army requested from Browning was a manual safety, but if you study the whole picture you might have noticed that prior to 1910 none of the Browning designed pistols that had exposed hammers and could be thumb-cocked had any kind of manual safety, although some later ones did have a grip safety – but that’s another story. On the other hand all of Browning’s pistols that had internal hammers or strikers, the models 1903/08 Pocket Pistol and 1908 Vest Pocket Pistol being examples. Had manual thumb-operated safeties that also locked the slide when they were engaged. Since this was true without exception, why would Browning change when the Army required him to put a “safety lock” on the 1910 prototype?
I could go on, but I haven’t had my breakfast – or morning coffee...
But rest assured that Tuner (not to mention the poor Old Fuff) have done their homework. Also notice that in a later Spanish Star design the manual safety was modified to block the cocked hammer, not the sear, and that the safety can be engaged regardless if the hammer is cocked or fully down. Had Browning not been a bit ticked off about the Army’s ridiculous (?) demands the safety might have been designed differently.
X-Breath: If I survive and get back to Arizona I'll make a list of books that cover the background and history of John Browning's pistols in general, and the 1911 in particular. But be aware that some of them are out-of-print and can be very expensive.
During the years the 1911 was under development there was a lot of internal bickering going on within the Army. The Ordnance Department was determined to ditch the revolver and move on to an automatic pistol. The Cavalry however were determined to stick with a six-shooter – the Colt model 1892 and in particular, the model 1909. As the trials continued the horsebackers never failed to throw up any objection they could think of, real or imagined to whatever Colt and Browning came up with, and within the Army they had enough influence to be the tail that wagged the dog.
Now if one had the model 1909 revolver, they pointed out. It could be holstered during an emergency with the hammer cocked, and so long as the trigger wasn’t held back the hammer could fall, but as it did so the trigger would follow down and Colt’s famous “positive” hammer block would prevent a discharge. Not so with Browning’s early pistols, although the half-cock notch was supposed to stop the hammer from going all of the way down. Most of this business was disgruntled nit-picking.
All the Army requested from Browning was a manual safety, but if you study the whole picture you might have noticed that prior to 1910 none of the Browning designed pistols that had exposed hammers and could be thumb-cocked had any kind of manual safety, although some later ones did have a grip safety – but that’s another story. On the other hand all of Browning’s pistols that had internal hammers or strikers, the models 1903/08 Pocket Pistol and 1908 Vest Pocket Pistol being examples. Had manual thumb-operated safeties that also locked the slide when they were engaged. Since this was true without exception, why would Browning change when the Army required him to put a “safety lock” on the 1910 prototype?
I could go on, but I haven’t had my breakfast – or morning coffee...
But rest assured that Tuner (not to mention the poor Old Fuff) have done their homework. Also notice that in a later Spanish Star design the manual safety was modified to block the cocked hammer, not the sear, and that the safety can be engaged regardless if the hammer is cocked or fully down. Had Browning not been a bit ticked off about the Army’s ridiculous (?) demands the safety might have been designed differently.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Locked
Quote:
>I'd buy a 1911 who's thumb safety didn't lock the slide in a heartbeat, YMMV.
Of all the things makers have messed around with from the "original" this would be the only change I'd find really worthwhile, and to my knowledge nobody has ever offered it. <
**********************
Well...As the clamor for "safer" guns grows ever-louder, you may see that in the not-so-distant future. A manual safety on the 1911 that doesn't lock the slide would be a slam-dunk for a designer/engineer who had the motivation to do it...and they're all aware that it's going to be an eventuality. Not a matter of "IF"...but when. For those who accept that no manual safety can replace common sense and safe gun-handling habits, it's really a non-issue.
So...patience, lad. It'll come.
Quote:
>I'd buy a 1911 who's thumb safety didn't lock the slide in a heartbeat, YMMV.
Of all the things makers have messed around with from the "original" this would be the only change I'd find really worthwhile, and to my knowledge nobody has ever offered it. <
**********************
Well...As the clamor for "safer" guns grows ever-louder, you may see that in the not-so-distant future. A manual safety on the 1911 that doesn't lock the slide would be a slam-dunk for a designer/engineer who had the motivation to do it...and they're all aware that it's going to be an eventuality. Not a matter of "IF"...but when. For those who accept that no manual safety can replace common sense and safe gun-handling habits, it's really a non-issue.
So...patience, lad. It'll come.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Mo' Safety Stuff
Thinkin' a little further, a very good illustration of the difference between a civilian/LEO/sporting arm and a made-for-war killer of men can be seen in the
Garand/M-14 design. That one actually requires placing a finger or thumb into the trigger guard in order to take it from safe weapon to widowmaker and heartbreaker.
Why?
Well...maybe because it was a little faster to get it out of non-firing mode and get it into the fight...and allowed the rifleman to place a finger on the trigger, with only a simple forward/backward movement needed to fire the rifle. In an arena where split-seconds often count, it doubtless saved more than a few American soldiers' lives, even though it's a fearsome thing for the
average politician.
In the day of the Browning pistols and the Garand rifles...personal responsibility was the order of the day. Now, it seems that we're expected to rely on ingenious devices to keep us from killing the neighbor's cow.
Wonder what we're to make of that?
Thinkin' a little further, a very good illustration of the difference between a civilian/LEO/sporting arm and a made-for-war killer of men can be seen in the
Garand/M-14 design. That one actually requires placing a finger or thumb into the trigger guard in order to take it from safe weapon to widowmaker and heartbreaker.
Why?
Well...maybe because it was a little faster to get it out of non-firing mode and get it into the fight...and allowed the rifleman to place a finger on the trigger, with only a simple forward/backward movement needed to fire the rifle. In an arena where split-seconds often count, it doubtless saved more than a few American soldiers' lives, even though it's a fearsome thing for the
average politician.
In the day of the Browning pistols and the Garand rifles...personal responsibility was the order of the day. Now, it seems that we're expected to rely on ingenious devices to keep us from killing the neighbor's cow.
Wonder what we're to make of that?
A thought leaps to mind on the feature of the safety only allowing itself to be engaged when the gun is in battery (or the hammer is cocked, at least). Perchance this was to prevent some turkeys from trying to rack the slide to chamber a round with the safety engaged and thus the slide locked? I imagine that wou'ldn't be too good for the gun if you really brute forced it.
1911 guy
Member
Thanks for the answer, Tuner and Fuff.
I knew you'd turn up and enlighten us all. I have to admit I'm more of a fan of it's ergonomics and student of it's use rather than it's history and evolution. Nice to listen to some who are once in a while. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
I knew you'd turn up and enlighten us all. I have to admit I'm more of a fan of it's ergonomics and student of it's use rather than it's history and evolution. Nice to listen to some who are once in a while. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
Phil DeGraves
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,531
"I've never even thought about the difference between locking the slide or not locking the slide. Ha, shooting 1911s for so long it seemed natural."
Ditto!
To find out how JMB would have designed it left to his own devices we only need to look at his other previous designs. Few, if any of his rifle and shotgun designs had manual safeties. That means he envisioned them to be carried either:
1. hammer down on empty chamber with a full magazine requiring cycling the action before engagement,
2. cocked an UNlocked leaving the safety up to the shooter who should know enough to keep his fingers out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot, or
3. chamber loaded and hammer CAREFULLY lowered to half-cock or down all the way and manually cocked before engagement.
While most people believe that #3 is the way it was intended, it seems to me that the easiest way to cock the piece under stress is by cycling the action which would imply that he (and the Israelis) preferred #1, or that in the days before a fool was entitled to recompense as a result of his folly, most people would learn how to use the thing and just carry it cocked and unlocked ready to go when the need arose. Personally, it would seem to that this is the case.
Ditto!
To find out how JMB would have designed it left to his own devices we only need to look at his other previous designs. Few, if any of his rifle and shotgun designs had manual safeties. That means he envisioned them to be carried either:
1. hammer down on empty chamber with a full magazine requiring cycling the action before engagement,
2. cocked an UNlocked leaving the safety up to the shooter who should know enough to keep his fingers out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot, or
3. chamber loaded and hammer CAREFULLY lowered to half-cock or down all the way and manually cocked before engagement.
While most people believe that #3 is the way it was intended, it seems to me that the easiest way to cock the piece under stress is by cycling the action which would imply that he (and the Israelis) preferred #1, or that in the days before a fool was entitled to recompense as a result of his folly, most people would learn how to use the thing and just carry it cocked and unlocked ready to go when the need arose. Personally, it would seem to that this is the case.
Not to show my "ignorance" too much, but are there any frame mounted, manual safety guns that don't lock the slide back?
No doubt models with safeties on the slide allow the slide to be racked, but I don't consider a "design" like that be even worthwhile to own IMO.
No doubt models with safeties on the slide allow the slide to be racked, but I don't consider a "design" like that be even worthwhile to own IMO.
OP
OP
wally
Member
You must have skipped my initial post to start the thread where I mentioned the EAA Witness and Beretta 9000S as two examples I know of off hand that do not lock the slide with the frame mounted thumb safety engaged when cocked and locked.
--wally.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
