Steyr model 1911 safety

[Doucme2]

I have 9mm Steyr dated 1913. If the slide is racked back and the slide release is pressed, the slide releases, the weapon is cocked but the safety cannot be engaged. If the weapon is racked back, the safety engaged and the slide release pressed, the safety lever can be pushed down releasing the slide and the safety can be reengaged. This is a trigger disconnect safety. Is this supposed to work this way or is there a problem. I intend to shoot this weapon and I want to know all I can about it prior to going to the range. I have never had rounds in the weapon so I don't know if it operates differently loaded. Any information is very welcome.

 

[OFT]

With the slide forward into battery and the hammer cocked you should apply a little pressure rearward on the hammer and raise the safety at the same time. That ought to allow the safety to engage.

Hope this helps.

 

[Doucme2]

Thank You, worked.

 

[Jim K]

Pulling the hammer back should not be necessary to engage the safety, though it still is harder than with other guns since the safety cams the hammer back against its spring. It is a good safety system but makes the safety hard to move as compared to a US M1911.

If the safety actually cannot be engaged with the hammer cocked, then something is wrong with the pistol, probably a defective sear or a worn hammer notch.

Jim

 

[Storm]

I just checked both of my Steyr-Hahn and what I found is consistent with what Jim said. The safety engages easily with the hammer down. It will not engage with the hammer cocked or the hammer partially drawn back.

That said, there were some variances in this pistil during production, but I don't think that they had anything to do with the operation of the safety. I might be wrong on that.

BTW, you will find that front notch on the slide when used with the slide catch very useful during loading.

 

[OFT]

There's no problem in engaging the safety with the hammer down. When the hammer is cocked the safety automatically disengages. Having to apply slight pressure to the rear is part of the design the same as with the '96 Mauser with the NS (new safety) that came out about the same time.

 

[Storm]

Neither of mine require any pressure on the hammer to engage the safety, but that is good to know.

The funny thing is, all this time I had no idea that cocking the hammer would disengage the safety. Pretty slick.

 

[Doucme2]

Thanks for the imput. I am going to reload for this weapon. Going to use 38 super cases with the rim reduced. I have been told to run the cases through a 38 special die to reduce the diameter of the rear of the case, use 38 super dies for seating and crimping and that data for the 9mm parabellum data would be fine. Any thoughts on this?

 

[HisSoldier]

Going to use 38 super cases with the rim reduced.

Why use semi rare cases? You can by 9MM Largo cases from Starline, which are just the ticket for that I believe. The rim won't need to be reduced either.

 

[Storm]

I just noticed something odd about my 1912 Chilean Contract. When I went to see if cocking the hammer would disengage the safety the hammer cocked and the safety stayed engaged. The gun was then locked and cocked. Weird. Who knows what the gun has seen over the past nearly 100 years. The thing is that I do seem to recall hearing about some slight variations with the pistol when I did a lot of reading on the Hammer some time back, but I really can't recall if it was anything about the safety.

Also, I noticed that with both my 1912 and 1913 when the saftey is engaged the hammer pulls back maybe 1.5mm. I'm wondering if is is some kind of hammer block.