The Mythic 1911

[Harold Mayo]

OK...once again. No one uses a handgun as a primary offensive weapon over a long gun. That is ridiculous. If anyone actually does, then they are an idiot, even if they are a "professional".

There is no difference between LE and military units in that "preference".

Although an operator or two might use a handgun in a dynamic entry, even that is a tactic that isn't really a good one. A subgun is just as maneuverable as a handgun in close quarters and is a better weapon.

I shoot with a lot of LE and military special ops guys, both active duty and retired, and NONE of them claim to have learned their handgun skills in the military. Handguns are a back-up weapon to long guns. Yes, they practice a transition to a handgun when the long gun runs dry but they're sure not going to keep using the handgun the rest of the fight if the long gun can be brought back into operation. That would be plain stupid.

 

[trooper]

You're certainly right about those units using long guns as primaries most of the time (though not every operator uses one every time).

If your work includes observation jobs and other "civil clothes" work, carrying a long gun is not always an option.

I shoot with a lot of LE and military special ops guys, both active duty and retired, and NONE of them claim to have learned their handgun skills in the military.

I just wanted to point out that apparently there ARE some units that put great emphasis on pistol proficiency, too. GSG 9 (which isn't military, by the way) and the SAS do, as far as I know.


Regards,

Trooper

 

[Handy]

NONE of them claim to have learned their handgun skills in the military.

Well, obviously some of us DO know people who fall into that category. I guess you pick up some skills even if you only fire 500 out of 2000 rounds in a day out of your sidearm.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Nah...still myth.

I'm sure our definitions of skill differ, anyway.

It is a rare circumstance for operators to shoot 2000 rounds per day. I know one SEAL who, last time I spoke to him, had only had his hands on a subgun twice in the past year for refresher and qualifications. His platoon was otherwise engaged in deep diving and demolitions work. He hadn't shot 2000 rounds in the entire year and he assured me that this wasn't unusual. Contrary to what movies depict and people WANT so desperately to believe, individual skill-at-arms is not something that is valued. Teamwork and sound tactics matter far more.

Flame away, but I KNOW it isn't so. It is a rare "professional" who can claim the amount of skill with a handgun that a dedicated handgun hobbyist and gamer can display. The majority of those who DO have that skill level learned it in some place other than the military.

 

[Handy]

Harold,

There are sub specialties among the Seals. Find one of the door kickers to talk to about shooting.


I'm not sure who you would qualify as a practiced handgun shooter from your point of view. It's well known that regular police do not get as much practice with their sidearms as any of the specialty groups do with their secondary weapons. And if secondary handgun users aren't meaningful, all military and SWAtT are out too. That essentially leaves zero armed professionals whose weapon choices, as a group, would be considered meaningful, by your definition.

If there aren't any groups of professionals who's opinions matter, weapon selection truly becomes a matter of personal preference ONLY. I certainly wouldn't base a weapon choice on the opinion of a gun writer, firearms instructor or gamer - they don't get in firefights for a living. And, according to you, those who do aren't very good with pistols.

 

[Harold Mayo]

Your choice or mine is as valid as anyone's.

Depending on who you talk to, SEALs use Sigs or whatever they please (unlikely in most cases)

SAS used to use BHPs but now use Sigs

Israelis used to use BHPs but now use Sigs

FBI HRT used to use BHPs but now use 1911s(?)

FBI SWAT uses 1911s

LE SWAT uses a mixture but most seem to use something of the Glock persuasion, though almost everything is represented

Who is right? Who uses their handguns more? None of them are going to choose the handgun as their primary if a long gun is available (or, if they do, I say their opinion doesn't matter just because they aren't all that bright).

The best handgunner that I know is an ex-SEAL and current LEO and he chooses a P7M13. He's shot people with various weapons and calibers and trains military, LE, and civilians for a living. He chooses a 9x19mm in a weapon that almost no one else uses. Should I emulate him?

From what I can see, there is no consensus among true professionals and so, therefore, there is no handgun that stands out over the others. If there was, there WOULD be a consensus. This means that, as you say, NO ONE'S opinion really matters. It's just that...an opinion.

And opinions are like you know what...everyone has one. I have my preferences and someone else has their preferences and it is likely that neither really has anything on the other.

There ARE sub-specialties among SEALs. Things may have changed since I really had a good idea how things went in terms of training. I will say, however, that one guy that I knew who was active in the first Gulf War (I know, I'm anticipating) with the SEAL teams had almost no idea of how to use a handgun until he got out and became a LEO and he WAS a shooter. This was, of course, over a decade ago and much of my information comes from that time.

I also KNOW that a lot of military special ops guys ended up getting handgun training in the civilian sector in the early to mid 1990s. I encountered military firearms instructors at civilian training sites during that time, which is also where my knowledge comes from. I have been out of shooting very actively for several years and, in that time, they may very well have taken what they learned and began teaching it in the military.

In any case, like I said before...it's not the tool, it's the craftsman.

 

[Handy]

So we agree.

 

[Dobe]

Handy,
Sorry you seem so offended. Many others on this thread also seem to believe as I in that condition two with inertia fp is not safe. I am assuming condition 2 without a fp block.

You seem to have a problem with the 1911. But then, you will claim that you do not. You rave about the P7, and it is a good handgun, but you tend to slice at other designs, in order to elevate your favorite.

There is room for more than one handgun in your safe Handy. The 1911 is a fine handgun.

And on your point about spec. ops....Most of us were rarely trained with a handgun.

Dobe

 

[Handy]

Dobe,

Sorry you seem so offended. Many others on this thread also seem to believe as I in that condition two with inertia fp is not safe. I am assuming condition 2 without a fp block.

Not offended. You ARE the only poster who thinks a hammer strike in this condition will cause ignition. I just read over this whole piece, no one else echoes your sentiments. What are you reading? I even wrote a new thread on the topic so you and others could comment and give examples. There hasn't been any indication here, there or historically that an inertial firing pin is anything but a safety device.

I have no "problem" with the 1911, and certainly stated none in this thread. You are welcome to quote the big 1911 problem I have, since you won't find it here. I've mentioned it's military record for reliability and its various safety features. If I wanted to bash it I would have just let you go. And there is already a place in my collection for one.

Besides your deal, the only controversy was whether or not Special Forces opinion matters. This was caused by my completely factual Myth #5 that mentions that the gun isn't getting much serious use any more. Boats backed that up with a list. It doesn't matter why that's true, and I offered no theories on that score.

I am really failing to see what your problem is. Articulate it here with specifics if you want and I'll answer them. But this kind of post:

you tend to slice at other designs, in order to elevate your favorite

is pure crap.

 

[Dobe]

Handy,
The word "vendetta" was already mentioned. One has only to take this thread in context to many others in which you are involved. It becomes quiet clear. I can still remember reading and participating in your thread on JMB's design in comparison to the P7, etc. and what should be in store for the future.

If you remember. I wrote that I believed you were correct. We should move foreward. But you would not stop there. You just keep going to the point that it almost seemed like (as stated by Pendragon) JMB had wronged you. I was begining to believe that you were a salesman for HK. Or that your mission in life was to stamp out the 1911.

I have some trigger time with the P7, and think it is a remarkable handgun, and I will have one. As a matter-of-fact, I handled and drooled over one tonight at the range where I shoot. But there are other designs that are worth having. And the 1911 is far from a poor design.

So, in answer to your question.
I do not think it is likely that an AD will occur in condition 2, simply because a strike on a hammer would need to be exact. If that strike were applied correctly, there is no logical reason why the hammer would not drive the fp into the primer. And of course, as mentioned by others, getting to condition 2 is potentially dangerous.

You post an item; don't expect people to simply swallow everything you print, without a challenge.

This will be my last post on this matter as I do not wish to have this turn worse.

 

[Handy]

Dobe,

Please do not confuse my zealousness on a point of debate with emotional involvement in a piece of metal. I don't even have a clue why you think I was "offended" by you. Pendragon is the only offended party I saw.

I occasionally enjoy posting my opinion and defending it. I see no point in taking the time think about and write a position and then abandon it when the name calling starts. People who get offended by my posts want to be offended.

I don't recall the thread you mention. There was one that came down to much comparison between the HK P9S and Browning designs. I didn't get into it as an HK thing, I was attempting to provide a concrete example of what I was talking about. But at some point, I had to defend the fact of the gun's very existence. That kind of thing quickly sidetracks a discussion.

I always expect a challenge to my opinion. What I do not expect are the challenges to what mindreaders think is my 'evil secret agenda', or to what are well established facts.

As to your personal upset with firearms design, I invite you once again to go ahead and make a good argument here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=13620
I'll leave it alone, if you want.

I think it's weird that all you got out of three pages was Pendragon's emotional "vendetta" post. Everyone else seemed to think it was a fair and accurate discussion, albeit with a few miscommunications and clarifications.

 

[Harold Mayo]

(joins in on kicking at the dead equine)

 

[Pendragon]

Pendragon is the only offended party I saw.

I would use the word "bewildered" but I suppose I could come off as offended - though I am not.

I have no illusions that the 1911 is a perfect gun - I think *my* 1911 is as close to perfect *for me* as I have ever seen.

That said, what has riled me up is that I percieve you as engaging is blatant straw man arguments on a large scale.

I see this thread "The Mythic 1911" as appealing to the myth of the 1911 and then attempting to deconstruct it. Please take this as my reading of what you have written and the metamessage I am percieving. I fully admit that I could be wrong - but perhaps you will see my point as well.

You commonly see the following stated as fact,

What I see are statements which contain an aspect of truth, stated in a way that makes them untrue and (in my reading) seems to paint the true aspects as untrue:

Myth #1. JMB "meant" the 1911 to be carried cocked and locked, or cond. 1.

It does not appear that JMB "meant" the 1911 to be carried "C&L". However, this does not mean that Condition 1 is perfectly valid. I have seen you post that you do not prefer Condition 1 carry (your choice which I do not begrudge you).

So I see this section as using a valid historical observation to question the validity of condition 1 carry. Certainly there may be reasons to question the practice, but I do not believe the "intent" of JMB is among them.

Myth #2. "You can't carry a 1911 hammer down! It will go off when dropped."

Again, I see this as a partial truth - or your presentation of what is considered bad practice, elevated to a maxim and then debunked.

The main objection to Condition 2 carry is that it can be slow and unsure to bring into action and it can be unsafe to lower the hammer.

Myth #3. "Cocked and locked is tried and true. Those Army guys used the 1911 for 74 years."

Again, a belief that is widely held to be valid, next to a statement which then invalidates it.

Of course the Army did not make a practice of Condition 1. There are many reasons for this that have little bearing on the trained, practiced civilian who prefers condition 1 carry. What is best or what is policy for the Army is not what is best for me.

Myth #4. The Army's 1911s were tough and reliable enough for 4 wars. This applies to all 1911s.

Once more, the pattern. However, this time, I do not know, nor do I care if the 1911s in the Army were "tough enough" for 4 wars. Also - adding the statement "This applies to all 1911s" is just blatant straw man jousting. There are few statements that are not self evident that this phrase would apply to.

Myth #5. "Special Forces types love the 1911 and still use them."

The sentence as typed does not have a qualifier like "Some Special Forces types..." which would make it unquestionable as long as somewhere in the world a special forces person loves the 1911 and uses one to do his job.

But your sentence, as written, should be read to apply to all special forces types - making it very easy to be proven false - find a few crews using some other gun and - yep, that statement is myth also!


Look, I am not saying you do not have some valid points, but I find the whole construct of this thread very hard to swallow. I was not laboring under any of these "myths" and while your rebuttals may be more or less true (and I would bet more rather than less), I just do not find the information relevant to my decision to own, operate and enjoy my 1911 pistol.

The real irony for me is that despite the fact that I own a very nice semi custom 1911 (Valtro), the gun I keep loaded around the home is a 1977 S&W Model 10 (4" taper in nickel). This gun cost 1/5th the price of my Valtro which is normally unloaded. Additionally, when I do move and get my CCW, I will most likely carry a J-frame a lot more than I carry my Valtro.

Anyway - I am not writing this to attack you, I find your posts among the most interesting on THR - I just have a different take on the issues you post about.

Have a good evening.

 

[Gerald McDonald]

Handy, those must be regional myths. I have never heard any of them.

I have always heard that they were designed with the mode of carry that was used at the time, empty chamber.

So if you carry on an empty chamber as was the carry standard of the day, myths 2 and 3 make no sense.

If you hadnt added "this applys to all 1911's" to myth 4 it would be true.

I had'nt heard myth 5. I have heard a lot of police agencys are looking at 1911's again, but spec ops no.

 

[Handy]

Pendragon and Gerald,

While I have taken the occasional opposition view in regard to this particular firearm, the "myths" are a distillation of much of the "supporting evidence" offered by someone trying to make a point for the gun on THR and before on TFL. Making a point is fine, backing it with erroneous information is not.

My honest to God goal in writing this was to offer a level playing field so future arguments do not have to go off on historical tangents (and I'm certainly not the only one who's done this), but can stick closer to the point. For instance, #3 came directly from this messy thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13149&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

The poster made a point and almost immediately retracted it. But if he had all the facts, he probably would have made a better point in a better way. That's certainly my preference.

I prefer lively and intelligent debate to people talking down to each other. By putting this out I handed out all such rebuttals instead of using them again. And in the final paragraph I reiterate the modern and proven use of the cond. 1 1911. There was no intended debate in this thread, and that's why there wasn't much. I think you read it looking for my motivation rather than your interest. Unsurprisingly, you found that "underlying intent" and you ended up replying to points that no one made.

Gerald,

The cavalry had no interest in adopting a pistol that would take two hands to put into action, that would be a step back. If they had, the wide spur hammer, grip safety, manual safety and inertial firing pin all become unnecessary extravagence. (It would be a Tokarev.) All of that thinking changed 7 years later when the cavalry became history, but the gun was designed with and for men on horseback. One doesn't stay on the horse's back long if both hands are otherwise engaged.

 

[buzz_knox]

Why doesn't everyone raise these anti-1911 comments on tacticalforums.com? Oh, I forgot. Maybe because there are actual operators over there who use the 1911 in combat.

 

[Handy]

Which, anti-1911 comments, Buzz?

Funny, you may pick the wrong gun, then the wrong gun forum!

 

[Gerald McDonald]

Handy, according to the Basic Field Manual 23-35,

"in campaign, when early use of pistol is not forseen, it should be carried with fully loaded magazine in socket, chamber empty, hammer down. When early use is probable it should be carried fully loaded and locked in holster or hand"

No where does it mention different use if on horseback. Nor cocked and locked carry recommended unless use is probable.

Gerald

 

[Tango Sierra]

Handy,

The following is from:

FM 23-35
BASIC FIELD MANUAL
AUTOMATIC PISTOL, CALIBER .45
M1911 AND M1911A1
Prepared under direction of the Chief of Cavalry
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1940

------------------------------------------------
SECTION IV

FUNCTIONING

(from) • 12. METHOD OF OPERATION.-

a. A loaded magazine is placed in the receiver and the slide drawn fully back and released, thus bringing the first cartridge into the chamber. (If the slide is open push down the slide stop to let the slide go forward.) The hammer is thus cocked and the pistol is ready for firing.

b. If it is desired to make the pistol ready for instant use and for firing the maximum number of shots with the least possible delay, draw back the slide, insert a cartridge by hand into the chamber of the barrel, allow the slide to close, then lock the slide and the cocked hammer by pressing the safety lock upward and insert a loaded magazine. The slide and hammer being thus positively locked, the pistol may be carried safely at full cock and it is only necessary to press down the safety lock (which is located within easy reach of the thumb) when raising the pistol to the firing position.

c. The grip safety is provided with an extending horn which not only serves as a guard to prevent the hand of the shooter from slipping upward and being struck or injured by the hammer, but also aids in accurate shooting by keeping the hand in the same position for each shot and, furthermore, permits the lowering of the cocked hammer with one hand by automatically pressing in the grip safety when the hammer is drawn slightly beyond the cocked position. In order to release the hammer, the grip safety must be pressed in before the trigger is squeezed

--------------------------------------
SECTION VII

INDIVIDUAL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

(from) • 25. RULES FOR SAFETY

l. In campaign, when early use of the pistol is not foreseen, 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 magazines should be carried fully loaded.

m. When the pistol is carried In the holster loaded, cocked, and locked the butt should be rotated away from the body when drawing the pistol In order to avoid displacing the safety lock.

-----------------------------------
The entire manual can be viewed at: http://www.sightm1911.com/manual/manual.htm

Check out the training section for shooting from horseback.

I have in front of me the Soldiers's Handbook that was issued to my father in 1941and it includes some of the pages from the above mentioned 1911 Pistol Manual. I wish I knew what happened to the Soldier's Handbook that was issued to me in 1966.

 

[Handy]

This is an interesting find! While the existance of this 1940 manual does not necessarily invalidate the claim that the INTENT of the design was condition 2, it does show that the Army eventually wanted to avoid it (maybe due to decocking ADs?).

It also gives instruction for Cond. 1, which no one I've ever talked to had ever seen instructed or allowed the use of by in the military. But obviously, someone did it at some point. Cooper was in the military and this manual probably set him on his course.

Does anyone know of soldiers being taught or allowed to practice cond. 1 carry?

 

[Gerald McDonald]

I imagine if you were walking around the base in condition 1 you might get chewed on, in the jungle about to be over run by a bunch of (your choice of enemy) no one would ever say a word.

Similar to what John Wayne said in the Shootist (I think) when telling Ron Howard to only load 5 in the S/A Army and leave the chamber under the hammer empty, but load six when you needed to. Ron Howard asked when should you load six, and Wayne replied "youll know"

Gerald

 

[Tango Sierra]

Handy,

The manual clearly recommends Condition Two carry for low threat situations and Condition One carry for high threat situations.

No matter what the manual teaches, local commanders set their own rules for carry. When I joined the MP company at Fort Dix in 1966 there had been an accidental shooting of one MP by another MP in pursuit of an escaping prisoner. The weapon handling rules were changed to have patrolmen carry their 45s with a magazine containing 5 rounds in their magazine pouch, and the gun was seen by the whole world to be empty.

In Viet Nam when on base you never armed the chamber of your rifle but when you stepped out the gate to go on patrol, the command to lock and load was given. I rarely carried a pistol in Viet Nam and my failing memories don't recall the details of when I did.

I do remember that when qualifing with the 1911 at Fort Dix, the last firing station was at 5 meters with a Condition One 1911 and on command you drew and double tapped your shilouette target as quickly as possible, single handed grip from the hip of course. The 5 meter quick draw was refered to as the John Wayne portion of the test. The 10 meter station was slow fire single handed from the classic sighted sideways standing position. The further away postions of kneeling, sitting and prone I belive were done with two hands. I qualified 3 times this way during an eight month period at Fort Dix and once later in Viet Nam.

My father passed away 15 years ago so I can't ask him of any WWII experiences with the 1911. We talked of many things in our lives but our military experiences never were discussed .

 

[c_yeager]

tango, think your confusing condition two with condition three. As i recall them the "conditions" are as follows:

1) "cocked and locked" i.e. magazine in well, loaded chamber safeties on.

2) magazine loaded and chamber loaded, hammer DOWN on chamber. safeties off.

3)magazine loaded, chamber empty, hammer down (usually), safeties off.

Of course my original intent on posting here was to say this: Does it really matter? I mean we are arguing over what is "best" here. I think that really all that counts is what is best for YOU. Just do whatever your experience and knowledge has led you to believe is the best course of action. Untill you have enough knowledge to comfortably make a decision just do what a trusted friend does untill you learn a reason to change it. Specific to this issue, asside from the potention of NDs from getting into condition two, none of this methods is likely to get you killed. So if you carry a 1911 just go with whatever "feels" best on your hip. This is all of course just my opinion so take it with the requisite grain of salt.

-cy

 

[Tango Sierra]

c_yeager,

I re-read my post and can't find where I stated Condition One or Two incorrectly.

edited:
O.K. You are right. When probable use is not foreseen,
Condition Three.

I knew what I was saying was right, you just heard me say it wrong.
TS