Safety Off Carry

[ATLDave]

Modern 1911 practice makes an external hammer just a vestigial downside.

IDK if it's a "downside," but there's certainly very little reason to manually manipulate the hammer on a 1911. About the only reason I can think of is that some folks with weak/arthritic hands find it easier to rack the slide during loading if the hammer spring is taken out of the resistance equation by cocking it. And the beavertail safeties that are beneficial with the modern/superior grip technique of getting high and tight would hinder a condition-2 carry approach.

Now, having a hammer mounted on the frame (whether visible or not) has certain advantages over a slide-mounted striker. But the ability to use the hammer as a manual control... meh.

 

[X-Rap]

The condition of carry in the military varied greatly over history and I will believe anyone after what I've heard over the years.
My father was an AP in the late 50's and said they had 2 methods of carry.
One being empty chamber with magazine in place the other was empty chamber with magazine in pouch.
Not even while on guard for the President did they carry loaded pistols.

 

[RX-79G]

No, it does not.

The military has never approved in any fashion of Condition 2 carry of autoloading sidearms. Any assertion that the military intended the 1911 to be carried in condition 2 is an absolute fabrication unsupported by history.

Well, the US army never used the first model Beretta 92 or CZ-75 in any fashion, so your post is pointless.

Unsupported? I just quoted the 1912 manual! Historically, external hammers are on guns so they can be cocked and lowered manually.

And while YOU might not think global military arms practices matter, the US Army has always been largely in lockstep with small arms practices of other nations.

If you would like to post a reference from the 1912 manual or any other early source saying to carry the chamber empty, I'm sure we'd all be interested.

 

[RX-79G]

The condition of carry in the military varied greatly over history and I will believe anyone after what I've heard over the years.
My father was an AP in the late 50's and said they had 2 methods of carry.
One being empty chamber with magazine in place the other was empty chamber with magazine in pouch.
Not even while on guard for the President did they carry loaded pistols.

This is very true. What was acceptable and normal in 1911 was seen as unacceptably risky a few decades later - which is why the military was looking to ditch the 1911 for a DA/SA design as early WWII when they came in contact with the P-38. It nearly happened in 1954, but going to DA was put off again until 1970s.

Now we have the M9 and M11 and are back to carrying Condition 2, just as we intended in 1911.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Unsupported? I just quoted the 1912 manual! Historically

No, you misquoted the manual. You found a part that says the hammer can be lowered by depressing the palm safety, then stated that meant the gun was intended to be carried in condition 2. One does not necessarily follow the other and is an assumption on your part. A false assumption. Just because you can lower the hammer does not mean the gun was designed or intended to carry with the hammer down on a loaded chamber.

If you would like to post a reference from the 1912 manual or any other early source saying to carry the chamber empty, I'm sure we'd all be interested.

Challenge Accepted:
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-35.pdf
Page 19

I. In campaign, when early use of the pistol is not fore seen, it should be carried with a fully loaded magazine in the socket, chamber empty, hammer down. When early use of the pistol is probable, it should be carried loaded and locked in the holster or hand. In campaign, extra maga zines should be carried fully loaded

Here's another source
http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/Untitled-25.htm
Page 25

l. In campaign, when early use of the pistol is not fore- seen, it should be carried with a fully loaded magazine in the socket, chamber empty, hammer down. When early use of the pistol is probable, It should be carried loaded and locked in the holster or hand. In campaign, extra maga- zines should be carried fully loaded.

But I really didn't need to provide those. Anyone who ever served while 1911s were in service knows that 1911s were carried Condition 3.

In fact:

If there is any delay, lock the pistol and only unlock it while extending the arm to fire. Do not lower the hammer on a loaded cartridge; the pistol is much safer cocked and locked.

http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/Untitled-25.htm
Condition 2 is a no no.

 

[RX-79G]

No, you misquoted the manual. You found a part that says the hammer can be lowered by depressing the palm safety, then stated that meant the gun was intended to be carried in condition 2. One does not necessarily follow the other and is an assumption on your part. A false assumption. Just because you can lower the hammer does not mean the gun was designed or intended to carry with the hammer down on a loaded chamber.



Challenge Accepted:
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM23-35.pdf
Page 19


Here's another source
http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/Untitled-25.htm
Page 25


But I really didn't need to provide those. Anyone who ever served while 1911s were in service knows that 1911s were carried Condition 3.

In fact:


http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/Untitled-25.htm
Condition 2 is a no no.

Congratulations. You have found and quoted the 1940 revised manual for the 1911. This is the manual written to replace the methods referred to in the 1912 manual, as I outlined in post #29.

Maybe I wasn't explicit enough, but a manual written 29 years after the 1911s adoption is hardly "early". It is just a few years before the military looked to get rid of the 1911 and its primitive safety systems.

 

[ATLDave]

Congratulations. You have found and quoted the 1940 revised manual for the 1911. This is the manual written to replace the methods referred to in the 1912 manual, as I outlined in post #29.

So your position is that the Army originally intended the 1911 to be carried Condition 2, but then later decided that was problematic and instructed either 1 or 3?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

This is the manual written to replace the methods referred to in the 1912 manual, as I outlined in post #29.

You mean the part you misquoted and are trying to claim it says something completely different than it actually does.

Enough

How does one go about blocking a user in this new interface?

 

[RX-79G]

So your position is that the Army originally intended the 1911 to be carried Condition 2, but then later decided that was problematic and instructed either 1 or 3?

My position is that pistols in 1911 were issued predominantly to cavalry because they could be drawn, cocked and fired with one hand. WWI ended cavalry, so the necessity of a single handed sidearm for support personnel lost out to the relative risk of decocking in field conditions. At that point Condition 2 was abandoned, Condition 1 kept being used "in an emergency" (just like it was in the 1980s) and Condition 3 or 4 used as a stop gap.


Its surprising some people aren't insisting that the cavalry MUST have carried their SAA revolvers cocked as well. Or with the bullets on their belts.

Show me a gun with an external hammer and I'll show you how that hammer is there to be used. 1911, M96, Radom, Beretta 1934 and 950, SA revolver, lever action, etc.

 

[RX-79G]

You mean the part you misquoted and are trying to claim it says something completely different than it actually does.

Enough

How does one go about blocking a user in this new interface?

Misquoted in what way? I quoted verbatim.

Blocking the presentation of information is a great way to insure ignorance.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Misquoted in what way.

No, you misquoted the manual. You found a part that says the hammer can be lowered by depressing the palm safety, then stated that meant the gun was intended to be carried in condition 2. One does not necessarily follow the other and is an assumption on your part. A false assumption. Just because you can lower the hammer does not mean the gun was designed or intended to carry with the hammer down on a loaded chamber.

My position is that pistols in 1911 were issued predominantly to cavalry because they could be drawn, cocked and fired with one hand.

[citation needed]

WWI ended cavalry, so the necessity of a single handed sidearm for support personnel lost out to the relative risk of decocking in field conditions. At that point Condition 2 was abandoned, Condition 1 kept being used "in an emergency"

[citation needed]

I think you have also invented these claims.

 

[RX-79G]

[citation needed]


[citation needed]

I think you have also invented these claims.

I quoted a manipulation of the 1911 that is completely unnecessary to any Condtion 1 or 3 use of the pistol. The 1912 manual only lists a prohibition against continual Cond. 1 carry. But you're saying that a cavalryman, issued a gun with a hammer to replace his revolver, is going to assume that carrying it hammer down is a bad idea, even though the manual talks about doing so? That's a bit of a leap.

Some citations:

Since cavalry troops were going to be the primary combat users of the pistol, several specific design features, like the grip safety and lanyard ring, were mandated by the horse soldiers. (Nothing will turn a cavalry trooper into an infantryman faster than shooting his own horse by accident.) The Browning pistol design was formally adopted by the US Army on March 29, 1911, and thus became known officially as the Model 1911. The US Navy and US Marine Corps adopted the Browning-designed pistol in 1913.

http://www.browning.com/news/articles/history-of-the-1911-pistol.html

It has been issued to us for both mounted and dismounted use; and, there may come a moment in the service of every troop when its use, mounted, may become history of permanent fame and the failure to use it, mounted, may become history of another sort.

http://www.thegunzone.com/1911-cavalry.html

The Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry all had their own ideas about the desired qualities of a side arm, and all three branches shared a deep-rooted preference for revolvers. Among the more valid objections raised by the first trials of the Model 1900 pistol were complaints about unreliable operation, the necessity for two hand operation during loading and cocking, and the lack of safety features. These problems would be corrected, one by one, as Colt and Browning worked together to refine the pistol.

http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/history/hist_dev.htm

Great article:
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2011/5/24/the-trials-of-the-m1911/

 

[Sav .250]

Safety off................Personal choice.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

I quoted a manipulation of the 1911 that is completely unnecessary to any Condtion 1 or 3 use of the pistol.

Lowering the hammer is necessary to return the firearm to resting condition after an inspection with requires the chamber to be opened, as would be done by an officer reviewing his troops. The text you quoted is instructing the soldier that the palm safety must be depressed to lower the hammer.


None of your three articles, outside of confirmation bias on your part, show that the 1911 was a cavalry gun or that Condition 2 carry was ever used. Yes, the cavalry were issued it, but so was pretty much every type of service. The Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry all had input in the 1911s design. Picking two articles quoting it's use by the cavalry is just a terrible example of how horribly flawed your position is because you can't see past your own confirmation bias. There is not a single source anywhere in the world saying the 1911 was ever intended to be, or actually was, at any point carried condition 2 by the Army. The assertion that it was designed to be carried condition 2 is completely unfounded.

And that's my last post on this topic. You are just going to keep inventing fiction.

 

[RX-79G]

Lowering the hammer is necessary to return the firearm to resting condition after an inspection with requires the chamber to be opened, as would be done by an officer reviewing his troops. The text you quoted is instructing the soldier that the palm safety must be depressed to lower the hammer.

Funny, we decocked our Garands by pulling the trigger after inspection.

None of your three articles, outside of confirmation bias on your part, show that the 1911 was a cavalry gun or that Condition 2 carry was ever used.

My references demonstrate that the cavalry was the primary testing agency of the pistols in development, and that the cavalry rejected early designs that required 2 handed manipulation to bring the pistol to bear.

You seem to be suggesting that the army disliked the 1902 pistol's sight safety because it require two hands to use, so they decided on a pistol with an inertial firing pin (which only exists for hammer down carry) and patented single handed decocking grip safety so they could adopt a pistol to be carried with the chamber empty.

(Crickets.)

 

[ATLDave]

I must admit, this turned into a much more interesting thread. I didn't expect much of it, because (as I wrote above) I don't care much one way or the other about the "original intent" of some mechanical engineer... either a particular mode of operation/use works well today or it doesn't.

However, this argument about whether the doctrine in the early years of 1911 use was pro- or anti-condition 2 has been historically/academically interesting. RX-79G's assertions about cavalry practices in the era of WWI caused me to find this manual for non-commissioned cavalry officers from 1917... which is obviously nearly contemporaneous with the adoption/issuance of the 1911: https://archive.org/details/manualfornoncom07deptgoog

Pages 104-110 describe pistol drill and use.

And here's the Small Arms Firing Manual from 1913: https://archive.org/stream/smallarmsfiring03deptgoog#page/n92/mode/2up

Pages 91-98 seem the relevant ones. They rather clearly describe manually lowering the hammer on the 1911 before holstering, and how to cock the hammer when it's time to use the pistol.

I would say that, at least based on the earlier of these sources, RX-79G is probably correct that, at the time of adoption, the cavalry branch of the Army (and perhaps others) anticipated that the 1911 would often be carried hammer-down.

 

[RX-79G]

Great references. Thanks for finding those, Dave.

Of interest, the 1917 manual says on page 103:

147. Except when in the act of firing, the automatic pistol, when actually on the person, whether loaded or unloaded, will be carried cocked and locked. At all other times the hammer will be lowered fully down.

This is interesting for two reasons:
It shows the first sea change from Condition 2 carry to Condition 1 between 1913 and 1917 (for the cavalry). And the "fully down" emphasis reminds us that half cock is not a safe carry position.

 

[RX-79G]

Turning away from the history stuff for a moment, I'm still confused by the OP's comparison of SA hammer down (Cond. 2) and striker guns chambered (Cond. Zero). They really couldn't be more different.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Funny, we decocked our Garands by pulling the trigger after inspection.

God damn.. I'm posting again.

Same for the 1911, but the grip safety must be depressed. As is indicated in the manual.

Pages 104-110 describe pistol drill and use.

At no point in pages 104-108 is the hammer ever lowered on a loaded chamber. The only time lowering the hammer is mentioned is in preparation to placing the firearm in an arms rack. A loaded firearm is never placed in the arms rack so this in not Condition 2.

And here's the Small Arms Firing Manual from 1913: https://archive.org/stream/smallarmsfiring03deptgoog#page/n92/mode/2up

These are the steps for a training drill. That's why only 5 rounds are being loaded in the gun.

 

[ATLDave]

These are the steps for a training drill. That's why only 5 rounds are being loaded in the gun.

I understand that, but I don't think the Army was drilling soldiers on how to quickly cock their hammer-down-on-loaded-chambers guns if they anticipated them never being in that condition. FWIW, I dug those up fully expecting them to support your position that condition 2 wasn't really a doctrinally-recommended state of affairs. But, as I read them, we were probably wrong at least insofar as the era of adoption.

From this historical remove, we may have to guard against forgetting that there were ~25 years between WWI and WWII. Lots of assessments about what is "best practice" can change in that time.

 

[RX-79G]

At no point in pages 104-108 is the hammer ever lowered on a loaded chamber. The only time lowering the hammer is mentioned is in preparation to placing the firearm in an arms rack. A loaded firearm is never placed in the arms rack so this in not Condition 2.

Right. As I indicated, the 1917 manual says that the pistols should be carried at all time in Condition 1. Not 3. No longer 2, but 1.

These are the steps for a training drill. That's why only 5 rounds are being loaded in the gun.

Training for what, do you suppose?

 

[gc70]

Funny, we decocked our Garands by pulling the trigger after inspection.

That is undoubtedly because your unit lacked the ability to manually lower the hammers of your Garands.

 

[RX-79G]

That is undoubtedly because your unit lacked the ability to manually lower the hammers of your Garands.

Yup. And for a 1911 there are 2 ways to do so, one of which demonstrates absolutely that the chamber is empty. The M9 has three ways of lowering the hammer. None of which demonstrate that the external hammer is provided and a method offered to lower it simply for inspections. If the army had adopted the Luger they would have dealt with it just like the Garand.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

the Army was drilling soldiers on how to quickly cock their hammer-down-on-loaded-chambers guns if they anticipated them never being in that condition.

The answer is actually quite simple. The training is the same for both the revolver and the 1911 in this instance, hence the five rounds in the 1911. The exercise clearly states it is a trigger control exercise and the heavy double action of the revolver disrupts that, so all firearms are being shot single action.

Right. As I indicated, the 1917 manual says that the pistols should be carried at all time in Condition 1.

Not it does not. You really need to read it again. It says exactly what I have been saying all along. The gun will be condition 1 when it is needed to be fired and can't safely be unloaded. Otherwise it will be empty chamber, hammer down. Try reading the manual instead of cherry picking bits and pieces.

147: Raise the pistol
148: Skip because this is inspection that is never conducted with a loaded firearm
149: Return the pistol. Lock the safety and holster, as we have been saying if the gun has is needed immediately.
150: loading a magazine in the gun or changing mags
151: Loading the chamber with a magazine already in the gun <- Condition 3 carry being used.

As has been said all along, condition 1 was used when the firearm was immediately needed, condition 3 at all other times. Condition 2, never.

 

[ATLDave]

The answer is actually quite simple. The training is the same for both the revolver and the 1911 in this instance, hence the five rounds in the 1911. The exercise clearly states it is a trigger control exercise and the heavy double action of the revolver disrupts that, so all firearms are being shot single action.

I don't understand this claim at all. Are you arguing that the Army set out a paragraph of instruction on how to safely lower a hammer as a trigger control exercise?