So if I have cocked the hammer by depressing the "safety", and the hammer gets "gently pushed" forward due to something inconvenient like hitting a barricade or being smashed into a door frame as an assailent body-checks me, I'll have to re-cock it again before I can fire.
No, it's not like that at all-perhaps I wasn't descriptive enough. It takes a purposefully long and deliberate action to safe the weapon by pushing the hammer forward (which engages the thumb safety in the process); this isn't some flaky system that can move/fall with the slightest touch. Once forward, the hammer is also locked into it's safe position until the thumb safety is disengaged-just like a non-SFS weapon, just a different position for their respective lock.
Using your what-if scenario: if you've gotten body checked into a door hard enough, you're just as likely to damage the hammer/beavertail area on any weapon, SFS or non-SFS, and are as likely (temporarily or permanently)screwed or not. From my long term experience carrying both versions in the same weapon, it's my educated judgment that there's no inherent flaws in an SFS-equipped (1911 at least) that isn't already inherent to the platform in it's non-SFS version.
Here's a what-if for ya: what if you got body checked into a door frame and hit at just the right angle and hard enough that it engaged the thumb safety and it didn't go bang when you pulled the trigger? What do you do then? (After saying oh sh*t! that is.) That scenario is just as likely as yours, and the answer is the same for both weapons: disengage the safety and pull the damn trigger.
Here's yet another what-if: what if the bad guy was really an alien with 12 inch long fingers that could reach and turn on your safety before you could fire? Hmm? Aren't what-if games fun!? We can play them all day, but they don't change anything-especially any fundamental truth.
Since the weapon is useless when the hammer is forward, I'm now screwed with respect to the normal manual of arms. It's actually WORSE than a DA or DA/SA auto because with the hammer down, I can't even pull through a long DA pull to fire.
You clearly don't understand: if the hammer is forward, the SFS weapon is on safe (hardly useless unless safe is useless on every other 1911 and BHP when their on safe as well). Disengage the thumb safety to fire the weapon-it's not a new concept, and it applies to a (back) cocked-and-locked 1911 just as a still (forward) cocked-and-locked SFS 1911.
There is
no manual-of-arms changes between the two in any circumstance, save for making the weapon safe initially and during operation. Other than that, again, I repeat: no, nicht, nein nyet nay manual-of-arms changes, and all single action operational aspects remain the same. If you've got a problem with single action weapons not being able to do double action operations, you've got that problem with
all single action weapons-SFS or not.
If I need to transition to weak-hand, will my left index finger have enough force to cock the hammer again?
THAT is weird.
Huh? If the hammer is forward, the SFS weapon is on safe (cocked and locked with hammer down). To fire it, disengage the thumb safety, grip properly and pull the trigger-
the same thing you'd have to do with any single action, SFS or not. If the hammer is back, the thumb safety is off and the weapon is ready to fire.
If your transitioning to your weak hand and you're needing to put the hammer forward that means the danger is over and you're safeing the weapon before you re-holster it. If the danger isn't over there would be no reason to safe the weapon-again, SFS or not.
I don't understand what you're referring to when you say 'needing to cock the weapon with your weak hand' at all-the only cocking that's done on a SFS weapon is done at the same time as any single action-when the slide comes back at empty magazine lock or during shooting itself. What am I missing here?
This system is a well made, safe and durable design fork for these weapons-not necessarily an improvement as that implies some kind of deficiency, but a design fork. In some weapons, the addition of their ingenious FPS sans series 80 FPS trigger implications makes it safer too. My government is equipped with the SFS, my officer's isn't. I carry both C&L'd to their design specifications, and feel I safe and capable both ways. The SFS gets the nod for the addition of the FPS to my series 70 frame, the trigger improvement of the kind that some folks pay for, the extended slide stop and interesting hammer that comes with the kit, it allows me a the ability to instantly and feel my weapon's complete safety status while CCW'ing by the feel of whether or not the hammer is back (usefully if you've bumped into something, or just want a status check that can be done invisibly and fast) and the fact that it's plain old neat. (My review gives more detail, but only 1911 specific.)
That opinion is an educated one, from longer term carrying and direct experience with it-not internet based innuendo and pontification.
C-
(Nate, sorry for the kinda on-topic hijack, it was not my intention.)