Never understood the need to carry a DA/SA pistol in Condition One.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What a load.

"I'm confident that I've trained enough to draw my weapon while keeping my finger off the tringer until I'm on target. That makes my training hurdle lower than the cocked and locked carriers"

Dropping the safety on a 1911 platform pistol is a non-issue for those with even a 3 year-old's level of coordination.

I'm not out to flame anyone, but that's just about the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
 
Boy, you people keep going on and on.

Have I ever said that the 1911 was NOT designed to be cocked and locked? I have never said that. I don't personally think the 1911 is a good CCW.

There are pistols designed to be CCW and those that are not. The 1911 is not designed to be a CCW firearm. It was designed to be a sidearm for the military.

Does anyone think when John Browning designed the 1911 he thought "man, this would make a GREAT concealed carry firearm."? I imagine the answer would be no.
 
Of course he did stchman, why do you think he made a firearm that last almost 100 years? Because he thought, "Hey, I bet people will re-make my design over 1000 time and I'm the bomb-diggity.". . . . in case you haven't picked up on my sarcasm I just felt like throwing that into the mix.

I do agree with you though, I don't believe it was meant to be a CCW, but it is nice that people can do it.
 
Have I ever said that the 1911 was NOT designed to be cocked and locked?
Click to expand...

Well...If you had said that, you'd have been correct. It wasn't designed to be carried cocked and locked. It was designed so that it could be, but not specifically to be.

The first pistols that were submitted to the army for testing didn't have thumb safeties.
The US Cavalry requested one so a mounted soldier could place the gun on-safe and reholster it in order to regain control of an unruly horse...not so that it could be carried cocked and locked full-time.

The pistol was essentially designed by a committee. Browning didn't necerssarily design what he wanted. He designed what he was asked for...and he didn't do it alone. It was joint effort between Browning and a team of Colt's top engineers. If the thumb safety hadn't been specified, it wouldn't have one. Simliarly...if the people who were paying the bills had requested a grip safety on the P-35/High Power...it would be wearing one today. Bet on it.
 
Does anyone think when John Browning designed the 1911 he thought "man, this would make a GREAT concealed carry firearm."? I imagine the answer would be no.
Click to expand...

The 1911 is considered by many of us, from guys like me who have never even come close to shooting anyone (Avoid the fight is my motto.) to guys like Cooper, to be the most effective handgun for self defense.
Given that that is true (And many don't agree, thank God for free will!) if you can conceal a full size 1911 and two to four extra mags you are pretty well equipped.

DAO is, from my experiences, only good for short range responses. Prove me wrong, take a full size 1911 with a 4 lb trigger to a range and shoot it at 50 feet, then do the same with your DAO weapon. If you are like most people the group from the DAO gun will be three to four times as large! If you are backed into a corner and gang bangers are shooting at you from 50-100 feet I hope you have a 1911.
But I refuse to waste time trying to change the mind of anyone who feels the way you do, I've been shooting 1911's since 1971, and from that limited experience of mine (I own at least 50 handguns, almost all autos.) the 1911 is the handgun that all others fall short of.

But it doesn't shock me to hear that a firearms instructor doesn't agree about the 1911 or condition one carry. You don't have to be perfect to be an instructor. One instructor I had said to never draw a weapon to defend anyone other than close family. He explained his reasons, all found in a court of law afterwords, but the argument that a few CHL holders at Virginia Tech changing the outcome falls flat with that kind of selfish ideology!

I suggest you learn the 1911, shoot it for a few years, and then come back and talk about this. :)
 
The 1911 is considered by many of us, from guys like me who have never even come close to shooting anyone (Avoid the fight is my motto.) to guys like Cooper, to be the most effective handgun for self defense.
Given that that is true (And many don't agree, thank God for free will!) if you can conceal a full size 1911 and two to four extra mags you are pretty well equipped.

DAO is, from my experiences, only good for short range responses. Prove me wrong, take a full size 1911 with a 4 lb trigger to a range and shoot it at 50 feet, then do the same with your DAO weapon. If you are like most people the group from the DAO gun will be three to four times as large! If you are backed into a corner and gang bangers are shooting at you from 50-100 feet I hope you have a 1911.
But I refuse to waste time trying to change the mind of anyone who feels the way you do, I've been shooting 1911's since 1971, and from that limited experience of mine (I own at least 50 handguns, almost all autos.) the 1911 is the handgun that all others fall short of.

But it doesn't shock me to hear that a firearms instructor doesn't agree about the 1911 or condition one carry. You don't have to be perfect to be an instructor. One instructor I had said to never draw a weapon to defend anyone other than close family. He explained his reasons, all found in a court of law afterwords, but the argument that a few CHL holders at Virginia Tech changing the outcome falls flat with that kind of selfish ideology!

I suggest you learn the 1911, shoot it for a few years, and then come back and talk about this. :)
Click to expand...

So anyone that does not carry a 1911 is screwed? Well, I guess I better run right out and buy one seeing as they are the ULTIMATE firearm.

CCW firearms are not intended or are they to be used at 100 feet. If you think you are going to be engaged at long range from gang bangers then you better CCW a rifle.

I have shot quite a few 1911s and quite frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about. Big, bulky, heavy, low capacity, century old technology. Not to mention the takedown on one is an incredible PITA compared to modern firearms.

With that said, just because it is not my cup of tea does not make it bad. If you like 1911s then you should buy them.

This thread started out by me saying that I don't think a 1911 would be a good CCW gun.
 
stchman your digging yourself further into a hole here, I carry condition 3 myself I have practiced drawing and racking and coming on target to many times to count I feel Im good at it. What these other folks are doing is no different as long as they practice they will be very safe, its a personal choice. There is no law saying one way or the other cannot be used. If condition 1 was that bad there would be a law against it. the whole point here is to establish what you are comfortable with and practice it. There is also the possibility your instructor sensed your apprehension when you talked to him and agreed with you because he thought it may be a wise choice for you to start out that way.
 
"CCW firearms are not intended or are they to be used at 100 feet."

What in the world are you talking about? If someone is shooting at me from 33 1/3 yards, and maybe approaching me, I will need to shoot if I can't safely evade.

Honestly, you need to give up the arguing and do some studying with folks that know what they're talking about.

John
 
You may want to take into acount that you are responsible for every shot fired. Fliers are more common with the heavy double action trigger pull of dao's so that could mean hitting someone behind the bad guy (kids on a bus, mom coming home from shopping, etc.)
 
...completed my CCW class and the instructor and I agreed 100%.
Click to expand...
No surprise. I also agree 100% with whatever my paying customers spit out. Well, at least I do so in front of them. Of course, if their position is detrimental to my revenue maximization efforts, I'll try and find a way to disagree with them.

Like the title says, you don't understand it. Maybe the instructor doesn't understand this either. Pity... instructors should know better, or at least it would be nice if instructors knew what they were talking about. But maybe he's just agreeing with a guy whose handing him money. When a business is searched for on the internet, the search will bring up any reviews that have been posted about that business. Anyone with a computer can post a review, legit or not. Who needs some guy posting a negative review about your business, for all to see, for eternity. Not me. Brown-nose the customer from start to finish. I'm sure he doesn't want a bad review from one of his customers over the fact that the customer has some strange ideas that he had to disagree with.
 
Last edited:
People have been able to remember to swipe off the safety for more than 100 years, Concealed or unconcealed. You can choose to carry your small DAO LCP and I'll stick to my SAO full size carried C/L.
 
"Have I ever said that the 1911 was NOT designed to be cocked and locked? I have never said that. I don't personally think the 1911 is a good CCW"

You dug your own hole right here.

Plus, you are voicing your opinion, as we are, but like you had stated: You just went thru your CCW class. I've been carrying CCW since 1993. Years teach you quite a bit. Basically what I'm saying is..... You don't even know what you think that you know....

I don't carry a 1911 for CCW. I carry a plethora of revolvers and pistols. Of course your instructor agreed with you! YOU PAID HIM!!
 
The manual of arms of any modern handgun needs to be learned by the owner/operator. If the weapon is beyond their ability or comprehension, they had better find the best "compromise". The OP has an idea about his limitations, whether real or imagined, or maybe he just feels better about placing a "limit" on what he needs to know or do with his chosen personal defense weapon. A SA auto, or a DA/SA auto, is by no means too complicated for some, and MAY be their best choice. I found an interesting comment above that many shooters now may not be able to manually decock a cocked and loaded 1911, etc. Well, they really don't have to, unless they want to end up in Condition 2 (loaded chamber, hammer down.) With a 1911 style gun, just remove the magazine, snick the safety off, and rack the slide, unloading the gun. Fooling with the hammer when you don't HAVE to is probably NOT a good idea. We are talking autos here, right? Revolvers need a different set of procedures. DA/SA? Use the decock/ safety if the hammer has to be lowered on the live round for the next DA shot, or to be carried that way. The only DA/SA auto that I can think of that doesn't currently DROP the hammer safely on the live round is the CZ, and care NEEDS to be exercised to put it hammer down on the live round, (although there ARE finite and safe procedures for the "B" model with the firing pin safety.) As many others have pointed out, training is the key, and although people devote or respond to different levels of training (some get mind bock, some absorb like a sponge), this may mean that a certain tool is chosen because of those limitations. A police agency often chooses a weapon because it is a simpler tool to train with, not, maybe, because it is the best in the best of hands. Let's not put down the TOOL just because SOME people can't or WON'T learn to use it.
 
My argument for the 1911

Seargent York did not forget to drop the safety of his 1911 when facing a multitude of Germans.
John Dillinger considered the 1911 the best CCW around.
I shoot and carry 1911's because it is my personal favorite pistol design to carry and shoot after owning, carrying and shooting many others. I am 41, I started shooting when I was 5.
I forget to drop my safety when shooting as often as I forget to put my key in the ignition when starting my pickup truck.
There are lesser and greater pistol designs than the 1911; obviously your CCW instructor does not have as much experience with the 1911 as he does some of the more modern DA pistols.
 
RonBernert said:
"I'm confident that I've trained enough to draw my weapon while keeping my finger off the tringer until I'm on target. That makes my training hurdle lower than the cocked and locked carriers"

Dropping the safety on a 1911 platform pistol is a non-issue for those with even a 3 year-old's level of coordination.

I'm not out to flame anyone, but that's just about the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Click to expand...
Anyone with a three year-old's IQ understands that a one step process is simpler than a two step process, no matter how simple the second step is. Let's see if you can wrap your mind around this: You are a skilled mall-ninja who trains daily. The chances that you will screw up your draw are 1 in 1,000. The chances that you will forget to disengage the safety is also 1 in 1,000. The chances that you do one or the other are 2 in 1,000.

Last time I checked 2 in 1,000 was more than 1 in 1,000.

You may believe that the probability that you will forget to disengage a safety is very, very low and that the benefits of the safety (or the particular gun) outweigh that small risk. That is the argument that's been hashed over here. It is, however, a well-established fact that increasing the number of steps in a process increases the chances of the process going awry. Ask anyone with a background in manufacturing, process design etc. No matter how much you dislike it, it's the truth.
 
The first pistols that were submitted to the army for testing didn't have thumb safeties.
The US Cavalry requested one so a mounted soldier could place the gun on-safe and reholster it in order to regain control of an unruly horse...not so that it could be carried cocked and locked full-time
Click to expand...

Within a long thread that pursued this idea, a number of people scoffed at the idea that there could be such a thing as an “unruly horse”. It has been so long since people actually used horses as transportation that the idea of a "unruly" horse is ludicrous to those whose only knowledge of these animals is from Cowboy movies.

Anyway, here is a recorded and recent example of horses spooking, for reasons beyond the comprehension of ludicrous humans, killing one, injuring more:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_bf8e9118-8a3d-11df-9305-001cc4c002e0.html

One person was killed and dozens injured when two horses pulling a buggy in Bellevue’s Heritage Day parade plowed into spectators along the route.

Police have said the horses got spooked after they rubbed heads and the bridle of one fell off
Click to expand...
More on this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/us/05parade.html?src=me

The M1911 was to be carried with one in the chamber and the hammer down in a flap holster. That was how the Army (the customer) decided it was to be carried. Obviously too many accidental discharges happened so the Army changed that to one in the chamber, thumb safety applied in a flap holster. Still too many accidental discharges occurred so it became standard operating procedure to carry the thing nothing in the chamber and hammer down.

SmallArmsManual1913Coverpage.jpg
SmallArmsManualpgs90-91.jpg
SmallArmsManualpgs92-93.jpg


M1911 fan boys, to justify the way they want to carry the thing, cocked and locked, have twisted history to suit their purposes. They are not the first and will not be the last to justify their actions on self perpetuated myths.

It is, however, a well-established fact that increasing the number of steps in a process increases the chances of the process going awry. Ask anyone with a background in manufacturing, process design etc. No matter how much you dislike it, it's the truth.
Click to expand...

Which is why I am all for reducing the number of steps in the process. As Scotty said it: "the more complicated the plumbing the easier it is to plug up the drain".

I like simple, especially if my life is at risk.
 
Last edited:
To wombat13:

You cannot reason with them. For some reason they believe added steps in a process decreases the likelihood of mishaps???!!!!!!!! If you do forget to sweep a safety then you must be a moron or something.

In my mind the fewer steps needed to accomplish a task means LESS likelihood of something going wrong. What am I thinking?????!!!!!!

I find nothing wrong with a 1911, just not my cup of tea. I said in my OP that I thought the 1911 would not be a good CCW pistol. Hell, there are probably folks out there that carry a 9" .44 Magnum as a CCW. Still does not make it the best choice.
 
Pizzagunner said:
Yeah, that'd be that lowest common denominator thing rearing its head. It's a hard fact of life here that a great many people have had to train and fire much more complicated firearms platforms than handguns under extreme stress and performed to their training.

I am beyond tired of certain folks who apparently can't walk and chew gum at the same time making out stress firing to be some mentally crippling event. To comfort themselves concerning their own perceived shortcomings under pressure, rather than train they turn to some perceived mechanical advantage to overcome themselves.

If you are so shaky, heart hammering, tunnel vision, blah, blah, blah, under stress that you can't manage a simple function like sweeping off a safety you're likely only going to make a bunch of noise and down range liabilities in any actual shooting.
Click to expand...
I suppose there are four possibilities here:

1. You've been in combat and fired your weapon in defense of your nation. In that case, thank you for your service.

2. You are a police officer who has fired your weapon in the line of duty. Again, thank you for your service.

3. You are in neither of the first two groups but you've had to fire your weapon in self-defense on multiple occasions and so you know extensively about stress firing. In that case, I'm sorry things have been so tough for you and I am glad you're okay.

4. You don't fall into any of the above categories, don't know what you're talking about, and are just another internet tough guy. In that case, pi** off.

As for me, I'm fortunate that I've never had to a fire a weapon in a situation where my safety or anyone else's was at risk. I'm also smart enough to realize that nobody knows how they will act in that kind of a situation until they've been there. Consequently, I try to keep things simple. The fewer things that I need to train, the more I can focus on those important steps.
 
This thread started out by me saying that I don't think a 1911 would be a good CCW gun.
Click to expand...

and the thread continues on because a lot of people disagree. Were you expecting a different kind of reception? :)

People will continue carrying the 1911 for the foreseeable future. It's very far from obsolete, and modern handguns have yet to develop dramatic enough advances that the SA automatic becomes completely undesireable. Sure, there have been great advances such as the transfer bar and hammer block safety. But that which a gun lacks also comprises what it is.

Whoa, that last sentence was deep. I'm levitating in my chair right now.
 
stchman said:
To wombat13:

You cannot reason with them. For some reason they believe added steps in a process decreases the likelihood of mishaps???!!!!!!!! If you do forget to sweep a safety then you must be a moron or something.

In my mind the fewer steps needed to accomplish a task means LESS likelihood of something going wrong. What am I thinking?????!!!!!!

I find nothing wrong with a 1911, just not my cup of tea. I said in my OP that I thought the 1911 would not be a good CCW pistol. Hell, there are probably folks out there that carry a 9" .44 Magnum as a CCW. Still does not make it the best choice.
Click to expand...
I know there are many leos, active duty/retired military, etc. on this board and I appreciate their service and what they contribute. I also detect the whiff of mall-ninja in many of these threads. The more bravado in the post, the more likely it is from a mall-ninja in my estimation. I suspect that the men who have been there and done that realize that the amount of training that was necessary to get them through it safely is not what the vast majority of private-ccw holders are able to obtain (due to lack of time).
 
Wombat-
"4. You don't fall into any of the above categories, don't know what you're talking about, and are just another internet tough guy. In that case, pi** off."
By your own accord, this is you!

I HAVE been shot at. I HAVE had to use a (dig this) 1911 based pistol for self defense. I HAD bullets flying my way (more than once). I DID NOT forget the safety. I TRAINED with the gun.

Basically, You don't know.
 
To wombat13:

That's a bunch of BS. 1911s are the greatest thing to be placed on this earth since water. How can you say anything to the contrary???? :)

Agreed, there are a lot of folks out there that talk tough and say they will remain as cool as a cucumber if/when a bad situation happens.

On the other had I hope I never have to use my pistol to defend my life, but I will if forced to do so.

I have trained with my pistol that I use to defend myself with and am a pretty decent shot with it.

How will I react under extreme stress of a confrontation with a bad guy? I don't know. I would prefer that I pull the gun and the bad guy runs away (no shots fired). I am of the mindset that if I pull my pistol all I need to do is pull the trigger. I am sure I will have enough on my mind if/when that time comes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Great Scot
  • Locked
Condition Three?
Replies
23
Views
587
Great Scot
Great Scot
B
  • Locked
  • Poll
Carrying a DA/SA pistol with manual safety off?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Exmasonite
E
R
  • Locked
Revised conditions of readiness
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
RetiredUSNChief
RetiredUSNChief
M
  • Locked
Condition One Carry Questions
Replies
10
Views
735
mountaindrew
M
C
  • Locked
DA/SA pistol with the reset of a Glock?
Replies
24
Views
1K
Nnobby45
N
Back
Top