The Mythic 1911

[Handy]

I am familiar with what you're talking about-transmitted vibration. I guess the answer has two parts. First, what would happen if the crocket ball had a spring pushing on it?

Second, when the hammer is cocked, the firing pin is resting firmly against the firing pin stop, which is in turn seated firmly in the slide. If you are right about the amount of transmitted force from an impact, then an impact when the hammer is cocked would do the same thing, because the energy would just as easily travel through the frame and slide to impart motion on the pin.

Also, the crocket thing doesn't work because dropped guns bounce, unlike the crocket ball with your foot on it. With two balls and no foot, the two balls roll away with the same velocity. (the front ball the pin, the back ball the hammer).

And the firing pin spring acts as both a stop and a vibration dampener.


Luckily, this just isn't my theory. Firing pin blocks are fairly new, but cond. 2 is not, with a host of handguns. The Beretta 92 and CZ-75 started their careers hammer down, inertial pin only. They did not build their reputation by firing every time they are dropped.

 

[Jerry Morris]

Don't much care what naysayers post. I know what has and has not worked for me.

Thousands of rounds in practice will prove out any handgun type. 500 will prove out a particular handgun. If whatever gun you're using proves out and is accurrate in your hands, then well and good.

Anyone who says the 1911 is obsolete, or less than effective has lost credibilty with me. A simple pusher of Net Legend. I have three, all cost well shy of a grand in cost. All reliable and accurate.

If you do have a bad 1911, it is much less trouble to get in order than many of todays "more popular" handguns. All it takes is either gaining the knowledge of good gunsmiths, or learning to do a proper job yourself. If you aren't *gunnie* leave it to a pro. Know what you are about before you fiddle with a proven design.

Jerry

 

[Dobe]

Handy:
"I am familiar with what you're talking about-transmitted vibration. I guess the answer has two parts. First, what would happen if the crocket ball had a spring pushing on it?"

Handy, the spring is there to keep the base of the firing pin close to the hammer, not to retard movement. The spring will make ignition more likely, not less.*

Handy:
"Second, when the hammer is cocked, the firing pin is resting firmly against the firing pin stop, which is in turn seated firmly in the slide. If you are right about the amount of transmitted force from an impact, then an impact when the hammer is cocked would do the same thing, because the energy would just as easily travel through the frame and slide to impart motion on the pin."

I am not sure what you mean here, but I think that you mean that condition 1 would therefore be dangerous too. Well, you are right, except for two elements. First is the half cock, and secondly there is the modern beaver tailed grip safety that all but encases the hammer.

Handy:
"Also, the crocket thing doesn't work because dropped guns bounce, unlike the crocket ball with your foot on it. With two balls and no foot, the two balls roll away with the same velocity. (the front ball the pin, the back ball the hammer)."

Handy, you are reaching man…if all guns bounced enough to dissipate force, then there would never have been an accident from a dropped firearm.

Handy
"And the firing pin spring acts as both a stop and a vibration dampener."

See above *

Handy:
"Luckily, this just isn't my theory. Firing pin blocks are fairly new, but cond. 2 is not, with a host of handguns. The Beretta 92 and CZ-75 started their careers hammer down, inertial pin only. They did not build their reputation by firing every time they are dropped."

Handy, tactics and safety practices change through time and proven error. We no longer teach our soldiers to shoot one handed either.

 

[Handy]

Which accident are you talking about? I've heard of several muzzle drop ADs, but none involving a hammer and inertial pin.

The spring isn't there for convenience. Many weapons do not have a firing pin spring or an inertial pin. They use a floating full length pin. They work by not allowing the hammer to touch the pin. Tokarev, Makarov, AR15.

 

[Handy]

I guess I should have addressed all of these:

The spring does not assist ignition, it fights it. Are you thinking of a striker?

Hammer to firing pin is metal to metal. Frame to slide to firing pin is metal to metal to metal. Same thing with one extra element. You know those metal balls on the strings? As long as they are all touching the force goes through 5 of them to propel the last. The number of components don't matter, just as long as they are touching. So if you are right, a frame strike would also send the pin flying.

The bouncing drop doesn't dissipate force. It just doesn't transmit it soully to the firing pin. If the gun bounces up, how is the firing pin going to bounce even faster and get to the primer?

You can still buy brand new guns that rely on inertial pins only.



The thing is, you're making all guns with inertial pins sound as likely to go off as a SAA with 6 rounds loaded. They aren't.

 

[Dobe]

Handy
"The spring does not assist ignition, it fights it. Are you thinking of a striker."

No Handy, and I do know the difference, and the light firing pin spring on a 1911 is designed to keep the firing pin close to the hammer as possible. It is not strong enough to stop ignition when dropped. Think about it. Why would a designer place a spring on a firing pin...certainly not to inhibit ignition, but rather to keep the inertia pin as close to the hammer as possible.

Handy
"Hammer to firing pin is metal to metal. Frame to slide to firing pin is metal to metal to metal. Same thing with one extra element. You know those metal balls on the strings? As long as they are all touching the force goes through 5 of them to propel the last. The number of components don't matter, just as long as they are touching. So if you are right, a frame strike would also send the pin flying."

Theory is good, but application is a little off. All of those balls on a string keep moving because they are in each other's direct path. The side of the slide, and the frame are not in a direct path of the firing pin.

Handy
"The bouncing drop doesn't dissipate force. It just doesn't transmit it soully to the firing pin. If the gun bounces up, how is the firing pin going to bounce even faster and get to the primer?"

Most people who have shot throughout the years will eventually confess that they have dropped a handgun from time to time. I remember dropping my BHP from my hand to the asphalt. It is amazing where these type pistols "instinctively" strike when falling. It is geneally on the back sites or the hammer area...not surprisingly though. This is where the majority of the mass is. But, I have yet to see one bounce enough to make me feel comfortable that it would not "go-off", if in condition 2.

Handy
"You can still buy brand new guns that really on inertial pins only."

So?

Handy
"The thing is, you're making all guns with inertial pins sound as likely to go off as a SAA with 6 rounds loaded. They aren't."

That was not my intent. Condition 1 is safer than condition 2.

 

[Pendragon]

Don't bother to ask me if I'm on crack. I am.

I do not understand your vendetta against the 1911 Handy. Did Mr. Browning wrong you in some way in a past life? Were you brought to an untimely end by one of his designs?

First you make a thread about how inaccurate JMBs designs are compared to other designs. Now you are taking issue with "Cocked and Locked" carry and hashing the vagaries of the 1911s various safties.

Not that these are not legitimate topics of discussion, but I honestly do not understand you motivation. Are you trying to make a case that we should not own 1911 pistols? That we should admit that Condition 1 is "unsafe" or at least "unsightly"?

Every pistols has weaknesses. Some require more attentive cleaning and lubrication schedules. Some guns are ammor sensitive, some bite, some jam all the time, some are just ugly, etc.

I have had several handguns in my relatively short career as a handgunner and the one gun I will never voluntarily part with is my 1911. It is beautiful, extremely accurate, has excellent ergonomics for my hand and it has never failed to fire.

Seriously - I cannot abide Glock, Sig, H&K or almost any DA/SA pistol. However, I just do not spend much energy debunking their percieved good points.

Sure it's fun to throw my hat in and defend my favorite gun, but really.

If you just don't like it, you don't have to own or shoot one - ever. Nobody will think less you you - well, I will, but I will also tell myself that there is no accounting for taste and that it was probably your parents fault



See my sig

 

[BigG]

Despite all the discussion about the dropped 45, the chances of it going off are a million to one anyway. The original testing IIRC was done by the Navy and they had to drop it 27 feet and have it land on the muzzle in order to produce an AD. This sort of topic is fine to debate but it is nearly as remote a possibility as some of the quasi-legal stuff Mas Ayoob comes up with to fuel his columns.

 

[c_yeager]

Only another sailor would have known we liked to stand around with an empty gun.

NavyJoe,

I hate to break it to you but i read that very thing in Patriot Games by Tom Clancy in the late 80's.

As far as the "condition 2 (thats loaded chamber hammer down right?)" thing im suprised noone has mentioned this, the problem with condition 2 isnt that it is in itself dangerous. The problem is that GETTING into condition 2 IS dangerous. It invloves pulling the trigger on a weapon without any of its safeties activated WITHOUT the intention of firing that weapon. This is a violation of several of the safe gunhandling rules that we all try to live by.

 

[ajacobs]

As far as the "condition 2 (thats loaded chamber hammer down right?)" thing im suprised noone has mentioned this, the problem with condition 2 isnt that it is in itself dangerous. The problem is that GETTING into condition 2 IS dangerous. It invloves pulling the trigger on a weapon without any of its safeties activated WITHOUT the intention of firing that weapon. This is a violation of several of the safe gunhandling rules that we all try to live by.

Not in this case. The navy has berretta m9's which have a decock lever.

 

[BHP9]

I also like the tributes to longevity and history. People regularly point to the fact that the 1911 was used in the military for more than 74 years, which is fine. What they fail to note is that the 1911 wasn't ever the primary weapon of the foot soldier. While 1911s went to war, they didn't get used as much as people think. According to the history channel, in WWII, the mass produced Liberator .45 saw more actual action than 1911s and the Liberator was a single shot gun.


I have done extensive reading and interviews with War Vets and I can assure you that the U.S. service men did use their 1911's extensively, from WWI thru WWII to Korea and Viet-Nam. Volumes are filled in military history books with personal accounts of the 1911's performance in battle.



Myth #2. "You can't carry a 1911 hammer down! It will go off when dropped." The gun is as safe with the hammer down as back. 1911 firing pins can cause the gun to fire if dropped on the MUZZLE hard enough. Obviously, this would happen whereever the hammer was. But if the hammer is down and the gun dropped on the hammer, the hammer doesn't have anywhere to move. Since it can't move, it can't propell the firing pin. And the drop is driving the firing pin away from the breach, not toward it.

Wrongo Handy. In tests conducted and published years ago in the Gun Digest 1911's did indeed go off when dropped on the muzzle but it had to be from a height of at least 20 feet and the gun had to land squarely on the muzzle.

. The 226 and M9 both bested the control 1911s in reliability trials, which is the main thing any soldier cares about

Thats a new one on me. I do know that the 1911's that were at the test trials were guns that were very old and probably in need of a complete overhall but I did not read anywhere that even they were less reliable than the tests guns. I believe comparing apples to apples would be more appropriate. In other words if brand new Mil Spec 1911's had been tested (which they were not) against brand new modern weapons the reliablity would not have favored the stamped sheet metal pistols, not by a long shot. Besides jamming the ruggedness of the handgun must also be factored in and that is where the modern flimsily constructed aluminum and sheet metal pistols fail miserably.

 

[BigG]

Re: The 45 Auto

...the problem with condition 2 isnt that it is in itself dangerous. The problem is that GETTING into condition 2 IS dangerous.

That's pretty much how I see it, too.

 

[TechBrute]

The 226 and M9 both bested the control 1911s in reliability trials, which is the main thing any soldier cares about.

Can you tell me what trials these were? I am unaware of any reliability trials the military has performed which included both the 1911 and a more modern gun. The trials by the Air Force which resulted in the M9 did not include the 1911, as it was going to be replaced by whatever "won" the trials.

There could be a whole new post about the goings-on at those tests.

The M9 is carried cond. 2 by our military.

Um... yeah, now that we've been attacked and everyone is watching for terrorists. Way, way back in the '90's it was common to have soldiers guarding the gates of military installations with nothing more than an empty sidearm. :banghead: The single magazine that they were issued had to be kept in the guardhouse. I'm not saying that every installation was like this, but the 6 that I was at during the 90's sure were.

 

[RON in PA]

Seems to me that the initial trials that led to the adoption of the M9 included 1911s and S&W M15 revolvers. Suprisingly, the revolvers did pretty well in the accuracy and mud tests, but not in maintainability(need for gunsmithing at low levels) or firepower.

I can't think of a modern semi-auto pistol marketed since 1990(CZ75 didn't have them at first) that does not have a firing pin block. Modern revolvers have hammer blocks. I can only conclude that they are there because government agencies demand them and/or because gunmakers have had major law suits due to somebody getting shot because of a dropped gun.

 

[TechBrute]

Doh! Ron, you're right about the 1911 being in the trials, but I could find no mention of the revolvers. One of the reasons that the Air Force got stuck with the testing is that they were desperate to replace their aging 38 revolvers. Apparently, congress had refused to fund aquisition of more .38 ammo, so they had to choose a 9mm pistol. I'm not all that familiar with the M15 S&W, was it a 9mm?

Anyway, the 1911 was included in the trials only as a control. The army actually pitched a fit about the poor performance of the control 1911s and claimed the test was unscientific. Turns out the 1911s used in the testing were over 35 years old.

 

[Al Thompson]

M15 = .38 S&W K frame revolver.

 

[MrAcheson]

Yes the 1911s used in the M9 trials were 35 years old, but so were most 1911s in the inventory. IIRC the US military hadn't bought a significant amount of 1911s since WWII and was basically using the weapons in the inventory in Korea, Vietnam, etc.

 

[Handy]

Well, I got busy for awhile and was burned in efigy. Let's see what I can remember.

Inertial firing pins. My point about these is that they were created, well prior to the 1911, as a hammer down safety feature. My mention of muzzle drops in the write up was not to say that they are likely either, but they are the only impact related ADs I have ever heard of. If muzzle drops are unlikely, hammer on firing pin ignitions are even more so. Dobe, there is no point in arguing with you, so I'll leave it at that. I'm a safety conscious guy, yet I would carry a gun hammer down with an inertial safety because they work.

The 1911 in the XM9 trials. This comment seems to have been misread. I was not making a negative comparison. On the contrary, I was pointing out that of all the guns tested, the 35 year old 1911 was a close third, not dead last. The US issue 1911 was a reliable piece, and I have never maintained anything but.

Pendragon,
I don't know where you're coming from. The first post in this thread is a list of historical facts. There is no attack on the gun, just an attack on misinformation about the gun. I think service 1911s were good guns. In other threads I have posted the downsides to both Cond. 1 carry (I favor DA trigger autos for most uses) and the accuracy potential of the stock Browning locking system. I have made similar comments about the rotating barrel system. Do I have a vendetta against the Beretta 8000 as well? Please read the entirety of the first post without looking for agenda. It's just history.

Frankly, I've spent the most time in this thread defending the 1911's firing pin engineering against ONE doubting Thomas. The basic gun works, is reliable and has an interesting history of varied use, which I attempted to illustrate, then defend. I also own one.

My intention in posting this is to give everyone a primer to discuss the pistol with all the facts, rather than the hype.


Oh yeah, I was in the Gulf of Persia in 1998, before the Cole. Condition 2 was in use waaaay back then on the M9. But maybe not in Norfolk. And a Baby Eagle with a decocker does not have an automatic firing pin block. They sell for $350.

 

[Handy]

Dobe,

As I couldn't come up with the perfect illustrative example of how the inertial pin prevents hammer strike ADs, I put it out for the resident experts and old timers to wrestle with. Here you go:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13620

Since this isn't really a 1911 "problem", but a very common pistol design, I thought it would be better in it's own thread. Have at it.

 

[Johnny Guest]

Inertial firing pin - - -

Getting away from the personal likes and dislikes of a certain pistols, and back into the actual nuts-and-bolts of the workings, I submit an entry in the relater thread, at - -
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=170856#post170856

I didn't make the point there, but I'd like to caution about confusion of the terms, inertia or inertial firing pin, as a safety device, and the internal firing pin safety-- a mechanical means inthe inards of the gun, for blocking the pin movement,

Best,
Johnny

 

[VaughnT]

One thing I find interesting in this thread is the mention of how the design of the weapon might give a good shooter an edge, if he's good enough to wring that extra ounce out of it. I would argue that the design of the weapon can make a good shooter better simply because of the design.

Case in Point: I carry and shoot a Smith 686. I've fired thousands of round through it and really do like it as a defensive sidearm. It is by far my prefered revolver.

However, that long, heavy triggerstroke kills my accuracy and speed of fire. Try as I might, I can't be both fast and accurate. I could get better under the tutelage of some grandmaster, but I can't afford that and so, have to reinvent the wheel as best I can.

Now give me a 1911 and the story changes dramatically. The ergonomic design and short triggerstroke make for great accuracy in my hands (that's relative, of course). Give me a glock or Sig and my accuracy suffers because of the triggerstroke.

I am a better, safer, shooter because of the 1911's design. I practice a lot with all of my weapons, but the 1911 really makes me shine.

And, again, all of this is relative. Some are better/worse than me.

 

[gryphon]

I've read this whole thread, and with very few exceptions, the statements made have not been backed by documented facts.

An interesting read, but 95% of the statements have no backing, other than someone said so.

 

[Handy]

That's true, Gryphon. Despite the legion of JMB worshippers, no one seems to have written a book about his design work or the 1911 development that goes into this stuff. People like Kuhnhausen don't go into it either. We don't know about most of Jesus's life, either.

The unsubstanciated facts I've scraped together are without bibliography, but myself and others find that they ring true and are logical. The alternatives, like saying the 1911 was supposed to be carried cocked with no safety, are preposterous and don't stand up to the reasonable man theory.

Keep in mind that virtually nothing in this forum is presented with any backing, even when there might be plenty. I don't think there's actually anything very challenging in this thread anyway (except to Dobe). It's not like any of us have ever seen a picture of gangsters, police or military from WWII or earlier with a cocked pistol sticking out of their holster.

Is there anything in particular you take issue with, or you just don't like that there isn't an accompanying book called "The XM1911 Trials"?

 

[Handy]

Actually, I looked over my first post again. The only Myth that might be contentious is #1, and then only because I can't find a specific source.

The rest are pretty much accepted fact, especially the ones about the military use of the gun. There are enough veterens and active duty (like myself) who have seen and experienced those things to know that they are fact. Just ask one.

 

[trooper]

I've not been around very many spec ops guys who were worth much with a handgun. Rifles and subguns, yes, but not handguns. Those who were good with a handgun were gun enthusiasts and shooters OUTSIDE of their military life. The last SEAL that I shot with was OK with a handgun but nothing special.

Maybe it's different for law enforcement outfits.

One of our instructors was ex-GSG 9. He was by far the best handgun shot I've ever known. That said, he wasn't really into shooting outside of his job.

These guys practice a LOT with handguns because they regularly rely on them as as a primary weapon.


Regards,

Trooper