Not only did I read it again, I'm quoting it, verbatim, again for you:
How are you misreading that?
Safety Off Carry
- Thread starter Good Ol' Boy
- Start date
- Status
ClickClickD'oh
Member
If you are referring to the second link, the one I said was a training exercise, the "paragraph" is: "carefully lower the hammer fully down". And yes, if you read sections 137-140 this is very clearly a basic exercise with the focus on grip and trigger control.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Okay, if you think it means condition 2, find the instructions for lowering the hammer. It only appears in the section on placing the firearm on the arms rack. There are no instructions for lowering the hammer on a loaded firearm.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Again, you are taking the steps of a training exercise and trying to apply them to broader terms. Do you think 1911s were loaded with 5 rounds outside of this training exercise?
FWIW, this controversy appears to have been litigated before on THR. The first post in this thread appears to have referenced the same manuals we're now discussing, but also adds a reference to the famous "Hatcher's Notebook," which purports to explain why the Army changed from pro-condition-2 to a condition-1-or-3 doctrine. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/designed-to-be-carried-cocked-and-locked-not.502877/
I think it has long been common for people to load fixed quantities of ammunition for target practice that will be scored based on the hits.
Again, are you seriously contending that the Army had thousands of soldiers spend time drilling to decock a gun that they never wanted decocked? That seems improbable.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
What, like painting the grass green, or painting rocks white, or sweeping sand in the desert or mopping rain? Lol
The section I just quoted is for Condition 1 in 1917. The 1912 manual refers to how to lower the hammer for carry Condition 2.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
No one here has disputed that condition one was intended for when the gun was immediately needed and couldn't be safely unloaded
No matter how many times you try, saying how to lower the hammer does not mean the hammer was meant to be lowered on a live round and the gun carried that way. In fact, the most recently quoted manual has instruction for carrying the gun in every fashion but that one.
I would say the footnote on (printed) page 85 of the 1913 manual pretty much says exactly that.
The 1913 manual says that the pistol should never be placed in the holster without the hammer fully down.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Again, those are the step of an exercise. The steps of an exercise are not standing orders. Yes, this exercise requires that, and if you go a page or two forward you will see why. Again, the exercise requires only five rounds be loaded. You clearly don't believe that applies to general duty, so why do you think the other parts must?
The instructions in the FN seem to be phrased more broadly than the drill. I think you're fighting against the relatively clear import of the historical documents. I get it; like I said, I dug into these expecting to find that RX-97G was wrong, and that you were right. And I think you were/are right for somewhere between 75 and 90 years of the 1911's use. But I think, in the early days, at least among the cavalry, there was some expectation that their pistols would sometimes be carried hammer down on a loaded chamber. And that, per Hatcher, the Army subsequently figured out that playing around with the hammer wasn't such a great idea and that AD/ND's were more likely with that manual of arms than if soldiers/troopers just put the damn things on safe if they needed to be holstered with one in the chamber.
Which makes sense. The Army had a whole lot of things wrong going into WWI, just like every other major military in the world. Saying that there was an early period where they were recommending a sub-optimal approach isn't really a surprise. Heck, it took them decades more to teach a two-handed handgun/pistol firing grip.
Which makes sense. The Army had a whole lot of things wrong going into WWI, just like every other major military in the world. Saying that there was an early period where they were recommending a sub-optimal approach isn't really a surprise. Heck, it took them decades more to teach a two-handed handgun/pistol firing grip.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
You are still quoting the same practice exercise.
As a side note, most, if not all military 1911 and 1911A1s were originally built with a spur hammer. It is much easier to control the spur hammer under hand operation than the bobbed, commander style hammer that is the norm on current production civilian 1911 hand guns.
This will put some of the printed manual rules into perspective.
This will put some of the printed manual rules into perspective.
Read the language of the footnote. It does not appear to be limited to the exercise. And it seems to contemplate contingencies ("if" the gun is to be kept in hand versus "if" the gun is to be holstered... the prescribed drill is going to require one of them) that wouldn't be present in the formalized drill. Those are generalized weapons-handling instructions.
And note that the "exercise" portion of the manual is the only place where detailed instructions on handling of the pistol is given. If the Army wanted to prohibit something that is required in the drill, you'd think they'd spell that out.
Like I said, I think you're fighting very hard against the fairly clear reading of the historical texts because you find them contrary to your prior understanding. Perfectly normal human behavior.
OP
OP
Good Ol' Boy
Member
I hesitated even mentioning 1911's in the OP and it seems as though I was correct in my assumptions. Should have stuck with my gut as this thread has gone off into another universe entirely.
So, striker fired pistols with a thumb safety, anyone carry them with the safety off?
So, striker fired pistols with a thumb safety, anyone carry them with the safety off?
You never answered my question why you are connecting Condition 2 on SAs and Condition 0 with strikers.
And yes, plenty of people with all kinds of guns that are designed for safe carry without the use of a manual safety (striker, DA/SA) leave the safety in the off position. Especially since the safety on such guns is usually optional, like on a Beretta or M&P.
At this point it is just one person who will not even acknowledge the language of what he's arguing against. Until someone else shows up with a contrary opinion, I think the matter is settled.
OP
OP
Good Ol' Boy
Member
As I mentioned, in hindsight I should have not included the 1911 as it's really not the same thing anyway. Unless there are actually folks out there carrying a cocked and unlocked 1911 (I hope not).
I was wanting to hear from those so many folks you mention or hear opinions from those that don't.
- Status
Similar threads
